Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example in adsense, there is an option to show ads only on particular websites. So if the site is framed, then though the visitor is visiting the site and seeing ads and clicking all this through someone else's site, if the publisher has not added that site to his allowed list, then he will not get paid for the ads.
The reason for not allowing ads to run on all sites is because someone can steal your adsense code and create a #*$! site or illegal site with that code. The result would be your adsense would get banned.
However one thing I never understood is if publisher is not get paid and advertiser is not being charged for the ads in sites which are not allowed... then why does google show ads in those sites at all?
In the allowed site page in ADSENSE, they mention that the ads will still show, but impressions will not be recorded.
So what is the basic idea of putting restrictions on the publisher asking not to display the ads in particular category?
The reason for not allowing ads to run on all sites is because someone can steal your adsense code and create a #*$! site or illegal site with that code. The result would be your adsense would get banned.
They can copy your code anyway...iframe or no iframe [including frames and non-frames]
Checking to see if a site is allowed takes processing power, which might cause an additional delay when serving ads. It's much easier to remove payment info later.
That's not the case. Any site serving Google ads has its own ad performance history. Google prefers showing ads that have performed well on the site. Therefore, anytime a Google ad needs to be displayed on a particular site, Google looks the site up in its database to retrieve its ad performance history data. At that point, it is trivial to find out that the site is not allowed to serve ads (it's just a single true/false value for a set of publisher IDs that have appeared on the site).
There would be no extra overhead. You already are looking up the domain name in a database.
So if the site is framed, then though the visitor is visiting the site and seeing ads and clicking all this through someone else's site
Not counting the clicks or money can be done in the background with 'spare' CPU cycles.
AFAIK, the ads are still showing on YOUR site (i.e., the framed site), not the framing site. So you should still get paid for valid clicks. Does anyone have any evidence/experience otherwise?
What LifeinAsia said is the key. When a framing site uses iframes to show a framed site's Adsense ads, the framing site shouldn't see a benefit. There is no code transfer to the framing site, so the Adsense ID remains on the framed site.
As far as Google can tell, the framed site is showing ads like normal and the framed site's code isn't embedded in the framing site's code.
Of course with Google, who knows what they can detect!
I'm with BigDave on this. It does take processing power at the time the ads need to be served.
Yes, it does, but the allow/disallow status lookup would be negligible compared to the amount of data already being looked up, retrieved and processed.
You are making an assumption that they are looking it up in the same database as the one set up to serve the ads. That may be the ideal way to do it for this situation, but that doesn't mean that it is the way that it works.
You are also assuming that it is a simple true/false, which it isn't. While you might be able to set a "true" value for a known, listed site, a "false" would not mean "do not show" it would require processing the list. It also requires cross-referencing the site and the ID.
Now consider that the vast majority of publishers do not use the Allowed Sites option. Every result would come up as a "false" if you are going with a simple boolean. This would require a list lookup every time one of those sites were accessed.
This was a feature that was requested by a vocal minority of publishers. Someone figured out a fast and dirty way to implement it without impacting budgets or revenue. It isn't the most ideal method, but it got it done. If it wasn't fast and dirty, it probably wouldn't have gotten funded. Sometimes, when you want an obscure feature, you have to accept that it may be implemented as a kludge.
Sometimes, when you want an obscure feature, you have to accept that it may be implemented as a kludge.
To validate your original statement, you state that you believe that Google's system is a hard-to-extend collection of dirty hacks and kludge. That's highly unlikely though.
We're not talking about amateur programmers. Their engineers should know how to write scalable and maintainable systems. Your assumption is not very credible.
This is not a core issue that has to do with serving every ad, it is a minor feature to shut up a very small minority of publishers. It works just fine for what it does, it is scalable and maintainable, it just may not very extensible, which is completely different. They are capable of reimplementing it with the features you want, but that doesn't mean that they want to.
Sorry I am late...
Yes anyone can copy the code.
As per Google, if non-allowed site is showing your Adsense ads, then you will not get the impressions and advertiser will not be charged. So any illegal activity on it will be ignored and your Adsense account will be safe regardless of your Adsense account number!
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
