Google Makes AdSense Approvals Faster and Easier

[engine]

At last, google has improved the sign up process for an AdSense account. According to the latest missive, you can add AdSense units to your site right away after signing up, if you feel like it, although i'm not sure about the blank ad units - that might look odd to your visitors. The approval process is still 48-hours, so be patient.

[adsense.blogspot.com...]

[Leosghost]

Explosion in MFAs in 3 . . . . 2 . . . .1. . . .

[ken_b]

So the "big change" is that you can add empty ad blocks immediately and then wait for account approval?

That's an improvement?

I can hear about a bajillion "I signed up for adsense 12 minutes ago, why aren't my ads showing?" whines coming down the pipe.

.

[engine]

I don't know it's going to generate any more MFAs than is does already, Leosghost, as it still has to go through the approvals process.

I see so many of those questions, ken_b, and it's no surprise: There must be hundreds of those every day swamping discussions over there in AdSense. Most of them don't even read the AdSense rules before jumping in and calling for their site to be approved.

<ducks>Personally, i'd like to see the bar raised for entry to AdSense. </ducks> Bad quality AdSense sites don't help the quality sites with AdSense, imho. I guess Google sees it another way.
Nothing in that missive from AdSense suggests that is an objective, and i believe google has missed an opportunity.

As an advertiser, the quality of the ad click is even more important as it shapes my decision with the network for the ads.

[trebuchet]

<ducks>Personally, i'd like to see the bar raised for entry to AdSense. </ducks>

Not sure why you're ducking, I agree completely.

[breeks]

Raise the bar plus each site that has Adsense has to be approved, not one and you are done. One good site plus 100 MFA sites.

[Leosghost]

breeks makes the point I was alluding to ..
Many of us would dearly like the adsense approval to be on a site to site basis..
Making the initial account creation faster is only likely to generate even more work for those who run the "approvals", I would expect that team to be also in charge of "policing of unsuitable sites which are added to initial account sites", which is likely to mean that they will be even more "stretched"..and thus even more MFAs will be created as added to account after the initial approved site gets the OK..

That means the overall quality of sites running adsense will drop still further ( yes that is possible ;)..all adsense publishers will be "tarred with the same brush"..and the use of adblockers will rise to meet the ever rising tide of crap..

So the responsible publishers ( yes there are some of us ) will suffer revenue losses through no fault of our own..( yes some of us are switching to a far higher percentage of ads served from our own domains, or going "ad less" and using other sources of revenues )..I use an adblocker, but I do switch it off for some sites, and I also switch it off at random, it is when I do the latter that I see some of the MFA "horrors" that should never be allowed to run adsense, the fact that they exist leads one to believe that either Google does not really care ( although they do have a ( to a European* ) unhealthy fixation on "visible skin", sometimes akin to the Victorians inventing covers for table legs so as not to risk arousing the "lower classes", or "ones footman or chambermaid" ) ..or that Google's adsense publisher quality control team is overwhelmed, and cannot keep up with the rate of creation of MFAs..

Making the initial approval even faster and easier , without requiring approval for each site on an account , tends to make me think that they really are looking for quantity rather than quality..and don't care..as long as no "table legs" are visible..

As someone who lived in Cannes, ( within a literal 10 franc piece "underarm" throw of "le palais" and one of the croissette beaches ) and once thought of making a specialist site about the town, any photos taken of the beaches would have required me to first provide burkas for all the women likely to be in shot, or risk the Google "skin police" giving me an account wide ban..

[MrSavage]

It's the search engines job to NOT FIND the crud MFA sites. I don't see a flood of people jumping into organic traffic websites that rely on Adsense. Some might, but this is much ado about nothing. Find me a site that doesn't have Adsense already. I can only think this move is a make work project. If people are coming across MFA sites in the SERPS, then I highly doubt it. If they exist I guess we need to analyze those sites and figure out why they are ranking and why we're visiting those sites.

[Leosghost]

If people are coming across MFA sites in the SERPS, then I highly doubt it.

You highly doubt that I come across MFAs ?..you do not believe me when I post that ?..your post is as usual ,not clear at all..

There are millions of sites that do not have adsense already..( that you do not see them does not mean that they do not exist )..Google are talking about speeding up the process for new accounts, not sites that exist already..What is an "ado" about nothing..who is making it ?

Why we are visiting them is simple..Google doesn't let you see the entire site before you click to it from their SERPs only the snippet, which is frequently no guide at all to the quality of the site that it points to..

[trebuchet]

It's the search engines job to NOT FIND the crud MFA sites.

It's the search engine's job to not find crud, period. Whether or not they are MFA sites or not is irrelevant.

I'm not really sure what Google is up to by swinging open the gates on Adsense. Earnings, RPM, fill rates and ad quality are all declining at various rates, so it seems a strange move. Perhaps G is expanding the publisher base to offset recent increases in adblocking. Or perhaps there's another strategy at play, who knows.

[Leosghost]

It's the search engine's job to not find crud, period.

I'd disagree there, the search engine's job is to find everything that it can, crud and all..putting the crud at, or near, the top of the SERPs is what it should not be doing..most of the time it does a good job..sometimes it appears to favour crud over quality, often when it, or it's "friends", or their "friends", are involved in the production and monetisation of said crud..

What it also should not be doing, is encouraging the existence of said crud by making production of it easy to monetise via adsense and other ad servings which are not policed tightly enough for quality, but are for bizarre things which are inclined to make one think that either the quality raters have had severely repressed childhoods and adult lives, or they imagine that they have the ghosts of their great great great spinster aunts ( possibly members of repressive religious orders, or organisations ) watching over their shoulders..

[trebuchet]

I'd disagree there, the search engine's job is to find everything that it can, crud and all..putting the crud at, or near, the top of the SERPs is what it should not be doing

Yes, which is essentially what I meant. Of course the search engine will find it. But it should ensure that nobody else does.

What it also should not be doing, is encouraging the existence of said crud by making production of it easy to monetise via adsense and other ad servings which are not policed tightly enough for quality

Indeed. Which, as I said earlier, only makes me wonder what their end game is. I'd much prefer they were going the other way and restricting access, culling rubbish MFA sites and human-reviewing sites to make sure they are kosher. As for their preciousness about content, given some of the girly/dating ads I've seen it's a shame they don't hold their advertisers to the same standards.

[netmeg]

It's the search engine's job to not find crud, period.

Yea but that doesn't happen overnight. I've been following a bunch of foreign sites on .org domains that dumped millions of pages into the index (with AdSense and other ads on them) and Google found and removed them within a few weeks to months, but in that time I'm sure they made plenty of money (and spread quite a few viruses) People expect Google to find this stuff overnight and remove it, and realistically it just doesn't work that way. As long as there are people who aren't looking for sustainable, that's going to be a business model.

culling rubbish MFA sites and human-reviewing sites to make sure they are kosher

Lots of us would support that, but bottom line, Google just isn't interested in doing things that don't scale or can't be done with an algorithm. They've all but said it in just about every book and interview you pick up, for years and years. Heck, they don't even want to drive their own cars.

Every other ad network I've participated in, from media.net to Microsoft's beta program required approval of every site. Google's the outlier on this one.

But it's not a real surprising move that they streamlined the process. It falls in line with their practice of blanketing the world with AdWords $100 vouchers to try to attract new advertisers, instead of promoting education and practices that would make their existing advertisers able and desirous of spend even more money.

[explorador]

x2 to breeks and leosghost, this is a mistake as many of the past that make so easy for low quality sites to multiply. It's so clear I don't see why denying it. When building wordpress sites and putting adsense on it (while copying and stealing) became so easy, adsense took a hit on the problems created by other depts, never was so urgent to bring copy-content-detecting algos to the scene right? and what makes things difficult is having people taking such words as offense against bloggers, wordpress and "writing", my bet is the topic gets again lost on personal opinions that have nothing to contribute.

Things are not going to really easily change while adsense makes so easy to get an account, it lost a while ago the spirit of quality it had at the beginning, or the contextual meaning.

[edited by: martinibuster at 12:32 pm (utc) on Oct 17, 2015]
[edit reason] Pls stick to topic not members. [/edit]