Are Bikini Pictures Considered "Adult Content" to Google Adsense?

Trying to understand vague Adsense program policies

[DXL]

I manage an entertainment site that contains a great deal of original content. A fraction of the site's pages and posts contain photos of celebrities and known models wearing bikinis.

Adsense messaged me a link to one page with such content, pointing out:

Google ads may not be placed on adult or mature content. This includes any site which contains:

full nudity
pronographic images, videos, or games
pronographic cartoons or anime (hentai/ecchi)

For more information about keeping your content family-safe, please review our program guidelines and these tips from the policy team.

So I removed the content from the site. A week later, that particular site was banned from Adsense (though the account as a whole was not banned). So I reviewed their program guidelines once more:

The AdSense network is considered family-safe, which means that publishers aren't permitted to place Google ads on sites which contain #*$!ography, adult, or mature content. If your site has content which you wouldn't be comfortable viewing at work or with family members around, then it probably isn't an appropriate site for Google ads.

I have yet to find a concrete answer from Adsense online as to whether or not bikini pictures specifically violate their program policy. I'm talking the same kind of pictures you can find in magazines at your local supermarket. The same kind of swimsuits you see every time you go to a pool or the beach (where people go with family members).

How can anyone tell when you've moved into "adult content" territory?

[ember]

I don't know where the line is, but I would err on the side of caution and not show bikini pictures, especially if you've already had one site banned.

[jpch]

It's an area I've struggled with for years and finally just decided to be as conservative as possible. I don't even think "Family Friendly" is a good guideline. "Grandma Friendly" and grandma is extremely religious and easily offended is a more appropriate guideline. Good luck.

[jbayabas]

Are you sure you removed the content from the site? Usually your site should be in good standing if you removed the offending content. When you removed the content, did it return a 401 error? If the link still exits, make sure to remove Adsense ads from that particular link.

What I do when i received a notification is to completely remove the page so it return a 401 error. Because if not, the robot would think you still have not removed the content.

[netmeg]

(404, not 401)

[DXL]

Are you sure you removed the content from the site?

Yes. But apparently if there is still other content on the site that is questionable, they can ban the site even without pointing out other cases. But the problem therein is that I haven't been able to figure out what other content I need to remove.

What I do when i received a notification is to completely remove the page so it return a 401 error. Because if not, the robot would think you still have not removed the content.

It's news to me if Adsense actually wants an entire page removed from a site on the basis of questionable content.

Imagine you had a popular celebrity article that had been online for over 10 years, with thousands of inbound links. Yet the article was accompanied by a related photo of that celebrity in a bikini. I'd like to think that Adsense would be content to simply have just the photo removed, as opposed to using a robot to determine if the entire page was deleted from your site.

I guess I'll just have to ask Adsense if I should just remove any and all photos like that.

[netmeg]

Is it possible that the actual banning of the site wasn't on the basis of adult content, but instead on the basis of copyright content? Do you have full licensing rights for all your images?

I'm wondering if the first infraction may have led to them giving the entire site a closer look.

[jbayabas]

So I was right, you did not completely removed the page but just the photo. Per Googles instruction:

If you received a notification in regard to page content, please
either remove the content from your site or remove ads from the
violating pages.

It was the robot who checked your site. Not a real google employee. I brought up this concern on my previous post.

The only thing you can do now is appeal the violation.

[DXL]

Is it possible that the actual banning of the site wasn't on the basis of adult content, but instead on the basis of copyright content?

In the message about the site being banned, they specified the reason as being "Google ads may not be placed on adult or mature content."

So I was right, you did not completely removed the page but just the photo. Per Googles instruction:

If you received a notification in regard to page content, please
either remove the content from your site or remove ads from the
violating pages.

Content can be text, an image, or video. I can't think of any context in which "content" means "web page." Again, I find it hard to believe that an adsense publisher would have to delete an entire page from their website because an accompanying photo clashed with their program policy.

If you had a popular original article accompanied by a photo that someone made a copyright complaint about, do you believe that Adsense would ask you to remove the entire page from your site rather than simply remove the image? What if the image just so happened to be on the homepage of your site?

It was the robot who checked your site. Not a real google employee.

How exactly do you know this to be the case? If this is something that you read online from an Adsense rep, a link would be helpful.

[zeus]

You always have to think about US companies as if they are still in the 1950, thats how I do it and works, sometimes I just pick another advertiser. I bet you are from europe, where adult content is first when there is sex involved or penthouse style images. Its sad thats like that, be cause a easy way to handle this would be, if the "people" are nude its adult and if not its ok, dossent matter how the bikini is.

[jbayabas]

Dxl, this is an alarming flawed policy violation reporting which I brought up on my previous post that a robot checks the site and not a real google employee.

I tested my theory a week ago by falsely reporting a competitor which has an image that can't be deemed as adult but lo and behold, the webmaster removed the photo a few days later. It only means if a google employee had seen the photo, they would not have sent the 3 working days warning email.

A real google employee will only view your site during appeal which takes up to 7 business days. Have you already appealed the violation? Do it. You still be able to save your site.

[netmeg]

Ok that's not a real test (yo, science) and jbayabas doesn't know anymore than the rest of us.

The bottom line is, if you want to know precisely where the problem is, you need to ask support. You may or may not get an answer, but it'll be closer to the truth than any speculation here.

[zeus]

netmeg " you need to ask support. You may or may not get an answer,"

Think about it, what kind of service is that. Any other advertiser you will of cause get a reply and a chance. Oh valueclick has same policy, they just ban you and thats it.

[jbayabas]

Ditto, zeus.

[ember]

I tested my theory a week ago by falsely reporting a competitor

This is what you do?

[netmeg]

Exactly. Sheesh.

[jbayabas]

Yup, to test the reporting policy is flawed. I did it when I received a warning to make changes to my site about a photo that was not "Adult" whatsoever.

Google does not care, and because there are millions of publishers, they rely on a robot to check violations instead of real Google employees verifying if the violation is legitimate or not. What kind of business model is that?

[ember]

What kind of business model is that?

It is Google's business model. Last time I checked, they are pretty successful. It is unethical to attack an innocent competitor just because you have a gripe with Google. That kind of behavior reflects badly on anyone who makes his living as a webmaster.

[jbayabas]

Nope, I was not attacking a competitor. I knew all along that his site is safe as long as he made changes to his site which he did. But he did have to make changes to his site at all had a real google employee verified the alleged violation.

No gripe against google at all. The point here is to illustrate google's flawed policy reporting process which relies on a robot.

[edited by: jbayabas at 5:43 pm (utc) on Aug 8, 2013]

[jpch]

I knew all along that his site is safe as long as he made changes to his site which he did.

How kind of you. What if he had been away from his email for more than 3 days and wasn't able to make the changes in the time allowed by Google?

If you want to run experiments on AdSense run them on your own sites.

[jbayabas]

But you see, he did have to make changes to his site at all had a real google employee verified the alleged violation. Don't you get it?

[jpch]

I get that you filed a false report on a competitors site.

[jimbeetle]

Nope, I was not attacking a competitor. I knew all along that his site is safe as long as he made changes to his site which he did.

So, you're fine with the fact that you made a competitor make unnecessary changes to a site? You believe that's ethical? And you don't believe that your incited incident might count for one tick mark of however many a site might get before it's axed?

[jbayabas]

Agreed, I shouldn't have done that. The reality is ANYONE can file a false policy violation report. And the alarming thing is all publishers are vulnerable because Google relies on a robot.

[conroy]

It is Google's business model. Last time I checked, they are pretty successful. It is unethical to attack an innocent competitor just because you have a gripe with Google. That kind of behavior reflects badly on anyone who makes his living as a webmaster.

Does success relieve one of responsibility?

Google can spend some of their billions for some manual checks.

[netmeg]

If the OP feels his question has been answered to the extent that it can be, someone should probably close this discussion, before I lay into jbayabas in a manner that will surely get me kicked off WebmasterWorld.

[piatkow]

Just remember that Google is like Humpty Dumpty

"It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

[ember]

Google can spend some of their billions for some manual checks.

When your company is as successful as Google is, then you can tell them what to do.

If the OP feels his question has been answered to the extent that it can be, someone should probably close this discussion, before I lay into jbayabas in a manner that will surely get me kicked off WebmasterWorld.

Ditto.

[jbayabas]

The OP and many more publishers are victims of this unreliable robot. I'm surprised Netmeg and others don't take this subject seriously. Oh I get it, theyre not affected so they can't be bothered.

Per Google's instruction:

  We will automatically review the site again after 72 hours. You do not need to contact us if you make changes. Please be aware that if changes are not made within the required time frame, ad serving will be disabled to the affected website.

How convenient. You would think a real google employee reviews alleged violation but a robot. Now, the OP's livelihood is affected because of laziness and entitlement.

You got it right Conroy: "Google can spend some of their billions for some manual checks. " Sadly, google cant do no wrong. They don't care about small publishers like us. C'est la vie!

[netmeg]

Nice try, but the distraction attempt doesn't work. The end doesn't justify the means. Google's behavior doesn't give anyone license to be a douchebag. That's the justification we were supposed to get over by the time we were twelve.