Forum Moderators: martinibuster
BUT - to find out who my competitors are I mainly have to click Adwords adverts because they are obviously the ones hard at work promoting their site. The natural results are normally full of information pages and "less specific" firms.
As I'm clicking on Adwords adverts anyway I decided to search from my affiliate search box (why not get a bit of the cash I'm giving to Google?). My question therefore is as these searches are valid and I would be performing them anyway in the course of my duties as a marketer, does earning some cash out of it go against Adwords/Adsense terms and conditions?
I thought I'd be better asking here before declaring my actions to Google!
(My kids are 33 and 32 and when I last checked they had stopped believing in Santa.)
I understand rules but I also understand tolerance.
So you understand that clearly there is no tolerance for fraudulent clicks?
I for one hope that Google teachces you a real lesson in tolerance!
I know we're beating a dead horse here, but I really can't believe someone would admit to this and not understand the backlash.
I estimate that my competitors cost me about $35 each day in clicks. Yes, it's a cost of doing business but it makes me mad as hell!
IH: Please could you point out at which moment I said the "everyone's doing it" statement? I never made that argument
How about msg #37:
Robino: What if all of your competitors did the same thing to you? That could potentially be hundreds of dollars each month!
IH: In my market they probably are, the need to do so for them is probably the same as mine.
I am done. Best of luck to you with Quigo's contextual ad service, or whoever you end up with.
I am done. Best of luck to you with Quigo's contextual ad service, or whoever you end up with.
BeeDeeDubbleU - you got my point then? You did lie to your children? You can't call one thing black and white and then change the description to grey for things YOU'VE done ...
The rules are black and white but the intentions can be grey and no-one seems to be accepting that. You'd rather assume I'm some seedy guy with a bad moustache sitting in a basement plotting the downfall your little web concepts ... (no offense was meant to guys with bad moustaches who work out of their basements ;)
Steve40 - thankyou for the calm, explanatory response. Even though it was still negative I appreciate the professional tone.
I also would like to ask you a question if you were booted from adsense would it hurt your bottom line if so suspect you yourself would ensure you did not jeopordise the additional income it provides , one further note if your compitiion does some form of checking clicks they could identify and report you to big G .
I estimate that my competitors cost me about $35 each day in clicks. Yes, it's a cost of doing business but it makes me mad as hell!
Well why don't you email them and suggest the technique that was given in this thread about extracting the landing page out of the Google Tracking URL? That way they'll stop costing you money ...
[edited by: internetheaven at 7:28 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2004]
So you understand that clearly there is no tolerance for fraudulent clicks?
If you see my ad on your site and it interests you and you click on it, I have no problem with that. If you are a competitor of mine and you want to click on my ad to see what I'm up to then I'm fine with that too. If every one of my competitors clicked on my ad once a month (as they probably are) I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't have done something to someone else that I wasn't okay with if the tables were turned.
I for one hope that Google teachces you a real lesson in tolerance!
I'm sorry, I really don't understand that statement. If you could be clear about what they would do and how I would learn tolerance from that I'd love to hear it. Or was your statement simply another taunt?
I know we're beating a dead horse here, but I really can't believe someone would admit to this
I'd also love to hear what you think I have admitted to as your post certainly doesn't respond to what I think I've admitted to.
Thank you, Internetheaven, for your comments and openness.
For those of you considering a further flogging of Internetheaven, please limit your comments to information that has not yet been covered so that future users need not wade through 6 pages of vitriol for 1 page of information-it's just bad design.
For the record: I am participating in both Adwords and Adsense.
My competitors ad not only show up on my website but also on other Adsense enabled websites, Google SERPS and Google search network SERPS.
Me, clicking on a competitor ad when on:
Google = good click
Google search network = good click
Other adsense enabled website = good click
My adsense enabled website = EVIL CLICK
Now, mind you, its the sames ad everytime, its the same person clicking on it everytime.
So, I ask you all, whats wrong with the above scenario?
Maybe, just maybe it comes down to the intention WHEN clicking and not just WHERE it happens?
Maybe, just maybe it comes down to the intention WHEN clicking and not just WHERE it happens?
Good point but the problem is "proving" intention. I would personally consider that clicking once on up to 10 different ads a month as showing the intention is not to scam Adwords advertisers or Adsense as the revenue from such clicking is practically nothing. Such clicking would most likely be due to the Adsense owner having an interest in the product(s) being advertised on their site.
I don't think most companies would have a problem with that. Yes, the TOS state that you should "never" click on an ad, but Google isn't funding Adsense, the Adwords advertisers are. And I am one of those and if I saw the same IP appear twice within one month I doubt I'd be picking the phone up to call my lawyer ...
The problem Google has is that to keep fraudulent clicks as low as possible they have to "overdo" the rules and regulations. BUT THIS DOES NOT REALLY STOP ANYTHING. If someone is going to scam them, they're not going to bother with the TOS are they? The only thing they are stopping is smaller, frightened webmasters would daren't click on a product ad even if they are interested in it for fear that they will get kicked off.
I think the rule has no effect, all these posts you see about "I got kicked off" are always about a third party who continuously clicked on that Adsense publishers ads. Since when have they come on saying "I clicked on the same ad a hundred times and got kicked off, why?". Google has to ban them anyway as they have no proof that it was a third party and that is understandable. The rule is therefore ineffective as it doesn't stop the fraudsters doing what they do, it just stops genuine webmasters from visiting sites they are interested in.
no tolerance for fraudulent clicks?
One thing I forgot to mention - I understand that clicking on your own ads is against the TOS but where did "being against TOS" start to mean "fraudulent"? Fraudulent = acting with or having the intent to decieve. Being against the TOS of service does not mean that the click was deceptive/fraudulent as the intent is as pure as any other click on that advert - to view the information on that page. Do you guys have a different dictionary where "fraudulent" means anything you disagree with?
I'll put up with being called stupid but don't call me a thief
Check your dictionary: that's what people are called who commit theft. That label might be at odds with your self-image but it's accurate in the sitaution you described, so don't whine about it.
how would they consider me as a fraudulent clicker if I click on their ad once, maybe twice in a month?
I would personally consider that clicking once on up to 10 different ads a month as showing the intention is not to scam Adwords advertisers or Adsense as the revenue from such clicking is practically nothing.
As I said before, it's not the size of the take that defines whether one's pocket is being picked. Theft is theft, and you can't change that by being dismissive about the amount.
----
This thread reminds me of a story about a man who approached an elegant woman at a party and asked if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars. She thought for a minute, and said yes. He then asked if she'd sleep with him for fifty dollars. She became angry, and asked, "What do you think I am?" The man replied, "We've already established that; now we're just dickering over price."
----
For the record, I never, ever told my kids that Santa was real. We always told them that Santa was "a story ... and stories can be lots of fun, and anything can happen".
We did teach them about the real, historical St. Nicholas, though.
The rules are black and white but the intentions can be grey
This is the central problem here, internetheaven. You seem to feel the above is true, when it isn't. Not with Google. Not for Adsense.
So, I ask you all, whats wrong with the above scenario?
Whammy 1: You've just fraudulently told Google that someone clicked an ad on your site in the interest of visiting an advertisers site, potentially to buy something. Google now charges the advertiser a fee for that click, and then passes some of the money on to you. Except YOU'RE the one who clicked the link, and clearly you had no intention of buying. (Understand that even if you DID have the intention of buying, Google has no way of knowing this to be true.)
Whammy 2: So not only are you getting paid for clicking your own link (thus earning yourself undeserved profits) but you've also cost your competitor money, since they have to pay Google for the click whether or not it was legitimate.
Now I, and others, would argue that you going to a competitors paid ad and clicking it when you have no intention of shopping there, wherever the ad is located (a single Whammy) is bad enough. The double Whammy is ethically worse.
Google, on the other hand, doesn't design it's policy to make you "play nice." It designs it's policy to provide a guarantee to the paying advertisers that their money is being protected. This is why Google has a zero tolerance policy. You may click only once or twice, but if they let you get away with it one or two times, it's an easy slide to someone getting away with it one or two HUNDRED times. They have to defend the integrity of their system.
And since you don't NEED to click a competitors ads on your own site even once in order to survive, the zero tolerance policy is perfectly reasonable. Nobody here (or at Google) is telling you not to check up on your competitors. But if you want Google to pay you for running ads, THE RULE IS DON'T EVER CLICK ON YOUR OWN ADS.
Sorry, but there is no gray in that. Nor should there be. It's business, and since they're the boss, they get to make the rules. Break them, you get fired. I'm confused by how hard it seems to be for some people to understand that...
cEM
... oh, and merry christmas to you too. Just out of curiosity, do you tell your kids Santa exists? That's a lie isn't it? If a couple of clicks makes me an international thief then surely you're all liars ... and to your own kids too ... the shame of it... ;)Black and white = theft is theft and a lie is a lie, it doesn't matter what the intention or the understanding was. I personally don't like the sound of that and I have every intention of telling my kids Santa exists
BeeDeeDubbleU - you got my point then? You did lie to your children? You can't call one thing black and white and then change the description to grey for things YOU'VE done ...
Amazingly, you're *still* trying to justify your actions by way of saying that everybody does things that are wrong. THAT'S why there's so much hostility here. If earlier you had said, "Whew, I didn't realize that there was such strong sentiment (and rules) against clicking competitors' adverts. I definitely won't do that now," then this thread would have died quickly.
Instead we get impassioned defense, analogies about forgetting to pay for a candy bar, and counter-attacks on members who tell their kids that Santa Claus is real.
Sure, you've admitted that you get it...kind of (using the quotation marks when you say you understand it's "wrong" kind of indicates that you don't really believe it), but when that admission is accompanied by more defense, candy bar analogies, and the Santa Claus Paradox, etc., then it doesn't seem very sincere.
It's business, and since they're the boss, they get to make the rules. Break them, you get fired.
It is a big deal. I think that Google will let him know that it's a big deal. I also do not think that it is a reasonable thing to expect that a "few" fraudulent clicks are okay.
Hey, I was stupid when I first signed up. I stupidly clicked on a few ads on my own site (out of curiosity—it was all so new to me). But I realized that I'd done a stupid thing (not because I wanted to steal, but because I just didn't think) and I quickly wrote Google and confessed. They were understanding, but gave me the strongest impression that CLICKING ON YOUR OWN ADS IS FORBIDDEN. I think they really meant that.
Now, if internetheaven gets off with a warning from Google, that's all fine. But it won't be because he did something that was no big deal.
If earlier you had said, "Whew, I didn't realize that there was such strong sentiment (and rules) against clicking competitors' adverts. I definitely won't do that now," then this thread would have died quickly.
This would require common sense...
I don't think internetheaven is evil or dishonest or anything. But I think that if he thinks this is not a big deal, he's, well, being dumb.
I don't think anyone thinks he's evil or dishonest (well maybe a little dishonest with himself). And I don't think he's dumb. What he's doing is dumb though.
I just think he has a tough time accepting responisbility. And maybe he feels that he wont get caught. These are two serious problems though. It's kind of like some of these basball players that take steroids.
This would require common sense...
There's no need to say something like that.
Whammy 1: You've just fraudulently told Google that someone clicked an ad on your site in the interest of visiting an advertisers site, potentially to buy something.
Again the use of the word "fraudulent" - look it up in the dictionary, read the thread thoroughly and then post. "... in the interest of visiting an advertisers site, potentially to buy something ..." is exactly the two reasons I gave for clicking on the ad.
Whammy 2: So not only are you getting paid for clicking your own link (thus earning yourself undeserved profits)
What, so what you're saying is Google "deserves" all the profits? So all those that click on competitors ads out of curiosity on the Google search engine itself are NOT "theives" but I am? Google is then the holder of stolen goods or something ridiculously legal like like ....
Sorry, but there is no gray in that. Nor should there be. It's business, and since they're the boss, they get to make the rules. Break them, you get fired.
Yeah, yeah. We know, everyone's saying it, that's not in question here and I've never once said that Google have no right to chuck me out for doing this. Bandwagons can sometimes run people over but I don't intend to let you .... I intend to continue trying to form a discussion on a subject even though the "jump-to-reply" people keep filling the thread with statements that we all already know and are not in dispute. The last 20 guys who said the above were heard, I don't think we need to say it again do we? Is anyone in here disputing what the TOS says and Google's right to inforce them?
If earlier you had said, "Whew, I didn't realize that there was such strong sentiment (and rules) against clicking competitors' adverts. I definitely won't do that now," then this thread would have died quickly.
Ummm .... I started this thread because I already knew that and I came in to find and alternative ... which I have ... all the posts that are going on and on about me being a "thief" and "fraudulent" are simply people who haven't read the thread or people who don't like me because I've annoyed them somewhere else in the forum ... eh, P?
I also do not think that it is a reasonable thing to expect that a "few" fraudulent clicks are okay.
Oh, great. Another one. Yes, yes, we all agree, good boy, have a biscuit ...
Palehorse - This would require common sense...
That was so low I don't think I can find something that can match it .... you'd think I could .... me being the master criminal and all ... (my humerous "begging for a bone" quip above simply pales in comparison - I bow before your superior insultive skills)
I just think he has a tough time accepting responisbility.
Although I appreciate the professional manner of your post I do feel you may have missed a couple of my messages. It's easy to do considering there's now 8 pages of hate to wade through. I AM accepting responsibility, I STARTED this thread, I EMAILED Google. I wanted to bring this topic to the public forum for discussion as it goes on every day. I wanted to start a positive resolution ... I didn't plan on simply being a target ...
And maybe he feels that he wont get caught.
Again, you may have missed my messages on this. I'm not going to be "caught" because I've already notified Google of my actions. For goodness sake people, we've got Google Adwords people in this forum! Don't you think they know who we are? They would never have caught me because the number of clicks was so low they would be indistinguishable from the regular clicks. I'm coming forward trying to open a discussion. Use you're brains for a second instead of your fingers and just think .... why would he be posting a public thread, even with all the abuse he would get AND telling Google about his activities even though he wouldn't get caught. (And if anyone tries to tell me that Google would catch someone who clicks on their own ads once I don't think I'll be able to write for laughing).
Once more: I CAME FORWARD, GOOGLE AIN'T GONNA CATCH ME BECAUSE I TOLD THEM I DID IT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION, I STARTED THE THREAD. TOS SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T CLICK ON YOUR OWN ADS. GOOGLE CAN AND WILL REMOVE YOU FOR DOING SO.
It's kind of like some of these basball players that take steroids.
Okay, we're all getting a bit silly now. I promise to stop the analagies if you guys do! ;)
One click a month on 10-20 competitor's ads...
Did you tell them this?
After reading all of the posts this was the most important thing I found out:)
Again the use of the word "fraudulent" - look it up in the dictionary, read the thread thoroughly and then post.
First, I understand you're on the defensive here, but it's not unheard of to use a bit of linguistic liscense in a discussion like this. Obviously, I meant "fraudulent" as in "not true." As in, the advertiser must pay for the click as if it were a real click from a real customer, when in truth it was not. Fair enough?
But just for the record...
fraudulent: involving or guilty of fraud.
fraud: criminal dishonesty.
criminal: of or involving crime.
crime: an act punishable by law.
law: rule enacted or customary in a community and recognized as enjoining or prohibiting certain actions.
community: a body of people having something in common.
All from the Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition. ISBN: 0-425-16008-4.
According to the law of the Google Adsense community one who clicks the ads served on their own site has committed a crime and is guilty of fraud.
That's the semantics.
cEM
* The defendant made a representation of one or more material facts;
* The representation was false when it was made;
* The defendant knew the representation was false when the defendant made it, or defendant made it recklessly (i.e., without knowing whether or not it was true);
* The defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff rely upon it;
* The plaintiff relied upon the representation; and
* The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the reliance.
In the situation under discussion, it is pretty easy to establish a prima facie case of fraud - the click constitutes a representation, and by contract the clicker has promised Google that he won't be clicking ads containing his own code. So the click is a false representation, the clicker knows it to be false, the clicker intends Google to rely upon that representation and pay a fee for the click, Google in fact relies on the representation and pays the click, and Google is damaged in the amount paid.
But if that's too complicated an analysis for you, its a rather straightforward case of breach of contract.
If you're just stealing 10-20 clicks per month, I wouldn't worry about it. Google will never catch you. Heck, why not bump it up to 100-200 clicks per month. If you're going to steal, you might as well make it worthwhile.
</TONGUE IN CHEEK>
I would imagine Google will get blowback from adwords advertisers the same way you'll get it from Adsense so its not like its going to be okay there either.
<One click a month on 10-20 competitor's ads>
If that were a widespread practice on sites with higher paying ads,10 -20 clicks could be big bucks so while you may have really not done more than a few cents damage because they were all very low paying ads,you can see the potential if that was common practice across the network.
Your relationship with Adsense is one of sub contractor and you have not only breached the contract but are continuing to dispute the relevency of its terms.
Just understand they create these terms to protect both Adwords and Adsense and the more you try to defend the stance that it should be okay, the more you will stir angry sentiment.
Perhaps its time to take a breath and reconsider your argument.
PS
to err is human...
I just tried the preview tool on both my normal pages, and the pages generated by the search box. It works in both scenarios.
I'd be interested to know what G say in their reply to you.
I understand that you contacted Google.One click a month on 10-20 competitor's ads...
Did you tell them this?
Yeah. Practically word for word. Maybe their response team doesn't work at the weekend?
Obviously, I meant "fraudulent" as in "not true." As in, the advertiser must pay for the click as if it were a real click from a real customer, when in truth it was not.
So every click that isn't from a potential customer is fraud and that person should be considered a thief? Ladies and gentlemen, you're not making sense. Whilst spending the time thinking up nasty things to say to me your not taking the time to sit back and think of the bigger picture and the larger impact of people like me. Your agressive and unreasonable attacks simply make your arguments less valid, standard debating practice, the guy who keeps his cool is the most believable. Do you really think anyone who is doing the same as me will respond to messages that include the words "fraudulent", "thief", "criminal", "people like you", "stupid" etc positively? I'm already on the path to restitution, there was not need for such comments.
But if that's too complicated an analysis for you,
See, that's just what I was talking about ...
its a rather straightforward case of breach of contract.
Look I put it in big capital letters, I've said it six times now, what do I have to do, take an ad out on Webmasterworld?
If you're going to steal, you might as well make it worthwhile.
Strangely enough you made a good point on "intention". I would never consider clicking the ad more than is necessary and the financial aspect is irrelevant to me. If I could click on their ads and not cost them anything I would ... and I will now that someone has told me the way to do it! The only reason I was using my own Adsense for Search box was because I didn't think Google should get all the money themselves ... it's not theirs as much as it isn't mine.
you can see the potential if that was common practice across the network.
... ummm ... yeah ... I started the thread didn't I? Why do you think I tried to open a discussion on the subject from the clickers standpoint? Do you think I like being spoken to like that? Who would? Then again, if government officials stand there and slag off their opponents I don't suppose you guys have much of a role model - "if you're losing or can't think of a better argument, just insult the other guy ..."
you have not only breached the contract but are continuing to dispute the relevency of its terms.
Yes I am, and I wish someone would discuss that with me instead of just calling me names. Can anyone even find my post anymore about the effectiveness of the rule?
Perhaps its time to take a breath and reconsider your argument.
Why? No-one has given me anything above what I already know and believe myself. It shouldn't be done, it's against the contract and Google can kick me out for it. I already know all of this, no-one is discussing the concept - simply screaming "thief".
to err is human...
Don't worry, I'll forgive all of you ... ;)
[edited by: internetheaven at 10:00 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2004]
I don't believe that anyone here has mentioned the Adsense preview tool in this thread yet ... I just tried the preview tool on both my normal pages, and the pages generated by the search box. It works in both scenarios.
Hi David, sorry I was typing whilst you posted. Yes, someone has already mentioned the preview tool. I realise that it is hard to find anything useful in this thread due to all the repetitive abuse messages.
I'd be interested to know what G say in their reply to you.
Well, most of the emails have that "should not be copied" stuff at the end of them. I guess after Google respond I'll have to ask permission to copy and paste the response on this board. I'll be sure to tell you all the outcome as soon as I know.
peace out
[edited by: walrus at 10:41 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2004]
Hi David, sorry I was typing whilst you posted. Yes, someone has already mentioned the preview tool. I realise that it is hard to find anything useful in this thread due to all the repetitive abuse messages.
Precisely why I kept my post short and on topic!
OK - so does the Adsense preview tool do what you want? If not, how could G modify it so that it did?
Maybe the way forward is to make positive suggestions to G as to how the tools they provide for webmasters could be modified to help us, and consequently them.
Excellent job. Interesting that internetheaven has completely ignored the legal points of your post, the one with the most succinct, clear cut legal substance.
internetheavan,
Earlier in your reply, you stated that you were joking about taking money from Google, hence the emoticon wink at the end of your sentence.
Now, in your most recent post above you state what you really meant to say, which is how I interpreted it to begin with. Why did you even bother to protest that I had misunderstood you?
"The only reason I was using my own Adsense for Search box was because I didn't think Google should get all the money themselves ... it's not theirs as much as it isn't mine."
So, were you joking or weren't you? How are we supposed to take you seriously when you correct us for our observations, saying they are false, and then a few posts later you say, "...I didn't think Google should get all the money themselves...".
Going back to my original observation, I can't believe you are not intentionally goading people along, saying one thing, and then a little later on ... "oh by the way, this is how it really is"...
Seriously, what is the real purpose of this thread? Twice now, at least by my count, you've stated one thing, and then a few pages later, you've contradicted your earlier statements.
people keep filling the thread with statements that we all already know and are not in dispute
So why don't we just move on?
