Forum Moderators: martinibuster
" Google sponsored ... provide one-click access to relevant sites advertise with G. This generates revenue for us and helps us to continue offering our users a free, <snip> and robust experience, while providing 1 click access to relevant information."
Surely this is against the ToS, or do large sites have their own rules?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 3:47 pm (utc) on July 26, 2005]
[edit reason] obfuscated specifics [/edit]
But you're right, normally this would be against the TOS.
AdSense ToS prohibit publishers from encouraging users to click on the ads appearing on their sites; this applies to both large and small sites.
The reason for this is to prevent artificial inflation of advertiser costs, which in turn ensures the long-term sustainability of the AdSense program.
The example included in your post certainly seems to fall under this category. If you notice this type of language appearing on a site, please feel free to report it to adsense-abuse@google.com.
Thanks!
-ASA
The site I saw/can still see the violating text is a VERY large site btw, I would think it has over 100 million impressions per month.
I've reported the site again just to see if I get a proper reply from google this time.
They may well act on the complaint.
But if you are hoping for a
"Hi (your name here); Thanks for reporting those cheaters at.........., we canceled their account"
I don't think it's going to happen.
I reported a site months ago. Got a very similar email tellig me my message had been forwardeed to the correct person. End of conversation, no more communication with Google. Checked back on the site a few weeks later. An Adsense rival now in place, so I guess it works.
Be cautious though. Dont just drop a site in it because they happen to be yor competition. In my case I reported a site because it was operating illegaly. Big difference.
Mack.
<affectionately>
[edited by: jatar_k at 10:51 pm (utc) on July 25, 2005]
Also, I'm not trying to get this site banned, I just want to know WHY they can have a link like they do :)
Whenever I haved asked a question in this manner I have gotten an immediate and fairly direct response.
But please don't reference my site :)
To protect the privacy of our publishers, we may not be able to provide you with details regarding the outcome of any reports you make about potential policy violations. This is the case whether the site you report is large or small, as we value the privacy of all publishers.
However, we look into everything you send us. Please keep the suggestions, concerns, and questions coming.
-ASA
They're more than likely a premium AdSense publisher, and the "why is this here" would pertain to them having a "competitors" service on their site.
AdSense ToS prohibit publishers from encouraging users to click on the ads appearing on their sites; this applies to both large and small sites.
then ...
To protect the privacy of our publishers, we may not be able to provide you with details regarding the outcome of any reports you make about potential policy violations. This is the case whether the site you report is large or small, as we value the privacy of all publishers.
I understand that this is the way it must be, but the fact that no action appears to have been taken in this instance suggests to we lesser mortals that you have let them continue with this. It seems to me that this violation is quite blatant and serious but it looks like you have allowed them to continue because they are still doing it. This is what is hard to understand.
This is what is hard to understand.
I don't think it's all that hard to understand?
It's going to boil down to revenue - as mentioned at the beginning of the thread, a larger ultra-premium publisher will play to a different rule set.
TJ
AdSense ToS prohibit publishers from encouraging users to click on the ads appearing on their sites; this applies to both large and small sites
Are you suggesting that ASA is being economic with the truth?
It seems to me that this violation is quite blatant and serious but it looks like you have allowed them to continue because they are still doing it.
Because I see the same thing.
Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I would advise a smaller publisher not try the same.
TJ
ASA isn't being economic with the truth. The AdSense TOS says what it says. What does the AdSense Premium TOS say? (or whatever they call it)
By the way, reality check: That text is technically against the AdSense rules but I would hardly call this a blatant or serious violation.
"I would hardly call this a blatant or serious violation. "
Are we classifying violations?
ASA said that the rule applies equally to both large and small sites. Wouldn't that include premium sites?
I think "large and small sites" and "premium sites" might be two different animals.
I think "large and small sites" and "premium sites" might be two different animals.
ASA? Is this true?
I am not really concerned about this one way or another. What concerns me is that in this case Google does not appear to trust we "large and small" sites with the truth. Or are those who say that the rules are different for premium customers wrong?
"As you may know, encouraging users to click on the ads that you are serving through AdSense is not permitted by our program policies. However, publishers are allowed to explain, on a page that does not include ads, why the ads are on their site, provided that this description does not include a direct action related to the ads. For example, your site cannot contain phrases such as "click here," "support us," "visit these links," or other similar language that could apply to any ad, regardless of content."
In which case, I will copy what the large website says (as this is obviously 'ok' by google, and see if it makes any difference.
I don't see a problem with doing this as google have said it's ok!
In which case, I will copy what the large website says (as this is obviously 'ok' by google, and see if it makes any difference.
I don't think google said it was ok for you to copy what another website says. That might be considered copyright theft.
You might be able to make up your own wording that says something similar though if that's how you read their answer.
