Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
The email mentions that I have submitted several ads for landing pages that are considered to be of a poor quality and that the landingpage does not comply with the 'landing page and site quality guidelines'. I most remove the ads. Well, no problem.
The email also mentions that it is a final warning. It tells me if they find any ad in the future that is in violation with the site quality guidelines (the product itself is not the problem) they will immediately disqualify me from participating in the AdWords program. Now, that is a problem.
A bit strange? Also because Iím using Adwords more then 4 years and then I receive an automated email in English while I have a Dutch account.
Anyway, how can Adwords ban you for submitting sites that that seems to be in violation with the Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines while there is not a tool where can check if an URL is ok to submit?
How can you be for 100% sure if a site is in violation with the Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines before you submit the site? That is impossible right?
As mentioned, Iím using Adwords for myself and for other companies for over four years so I know how it works. The site I submitted yesterday is nothing different from many other sites I promote.
If Google would like to ban clients for this than they should offer a tool where you can check your website for Page and Site Quality Guidelines before you submit the site. If Google does not offer a tool like this then they should not ban clients.
[edited by: engine at 1:05 pm (utc) on Sep. 25, 2009]
[edit reason] user requested edit [/edit]
If Google was really worried about the user's experience they would make the ads much different and marked off so there was no confusion between the search engine results and the actual ads. They obviously don't want that though.
Google's approach would be like if they asked all magazine advertisers had to write a fake article copy to publish in the magazine.
Google's whole point is to deceive the end user, not make their experience better. Why they want people to click on ads in hopes that they think it is an actual answer to their search and not actually just an advertisement. To do this effectivetly though, they have to ultimately conspire with the advertisers. Those who won't play ball get booted.
There is nothing wrong with advertising and nothing wrong with people promoting products. I think Google's extreme desire to pull off mass deception is a bad road ultimately.
Don't worry though, like I said the ultimate goal is paid search where you have to pay to be included. Why bother indexing all those pesky free sites that are just taking money away from google.
You want to show up in Google? You will have to pay, period.
It will creep more slowly, first they might have 3 ads above the fold. Then they might have two ads at the bottom of the listings. Then why not just mix an ad in the middle to break things up. Studies have shown the middle of a page can be effective! So slide it in there. It is just one little ad right?
Google is free to take on whatever advertisers they want... the reality is though, they are not doing it to protect the user experience. That has become clear. I used to believe that bill of goods.
I received my first and final warning regarding "Repeated Site Quality Violations". After looking into my account I found that new adgroups I created the day before got 1/10. I removed them and opened this topic. I have also contacted Adwords support last friday. I dit not yet received an reply.
One URL I have been promoting for about four years got slapped from 8/10 to 1/10. I removed them.
No reply from Adwords support.
Received my second last warning. Again the email does not mention the campaign/adgroup/URL/ad that is causing the problem. I checked my accounts for keywords that got 1/10 quality score. I found zero of them. None of the ads are disapproved. So I don't know what action I need to take. Oh, and still no reply from support.
Some people mention Google is weeding out the duplicated content affiliate sites, PDF products like get richt quick and that sort of products.As I mentioned before, yes I'm promoting products as an affiliate for over four years till today. I always use the vendors URL. I never use my own URL and copy paste some content on it (so I'm not causing a second ad for the same website/product) and last but not least I'm not promoting get rich quick products or any other product or service Google does not like.
It almost looks like Google is currently not after affiliates that are causing duplicated content and double serving ads because they use their own domain. Most of the people in this topic who got this warning are using direct linking?
1) Google mistakenly sent the batch email out again today
2) Google did not get a high enough open rate on the first email so sent it again.
3) The whole thing is some kind of spam/mistake
We can probably discount option 3 as that is too much to hope for!
la la lala la, egs, baskets, human(borg is after you) nature.
What is interesting is why anyone in their healty mind would give the data to the company that controls $$% of worlds(this planet) internet traffic.
So I basically have not been running any ads all week. Well today I got another "warning" email. What a joke! There is something seriously wrong with this picture. As I said in a previous post, I have been on Adwords since 2002 and most of my campaigns have been running for several years. Like most of you I have a lot of campaigns, ads and keywords. How can I know which ones are the ones that Google doesn't like? Pathetic.
However, trying to understand whatís going on: Those of you with affiliate ads which lead directly to the merchantís website: Have you exclusive agreements with the merchant? Are you the only company allowed to use AdWords for the merchant? Or are there other affiliates possible doing just the same as you do, for the same merchant?
The latter, obviously, could easily result in a severe violation of the AdWords rules, without you doing anything ďwrongĒ: If other affiliate started to use the same keywords you did Ė bang, down you all go. Or maybe even the merchant himself started to use AdWords on his own. This would explain why ads which ran for years without any problems now are reported to be slapped.
Could this be happening?
we really feel for you, no honestly! :)
OR you don't even bother with that and you simply link directly to the vendor siteGoogle should indeed go after copy pasted content (as mentioned in many posts before in this topic). However, it looks like they are not after the copy pasted content but after the original websites.
What kind of problem do you have with direct linking? And why should this also be a problem for customers and/or Adwords?
If simply putting an ad up guarantees you some huge income then all these "Earn more than your dad on Google" scams would actually work... The process involves a lot more than the uneducated think, with research, copy writing skils (it can be hard to sum up an offer in 70 characters), constant analysis of keyword performance, plenty of personal financial risk yadda yadda.
Some affiliates are basically small SEM agencies, running campaigns on a CPA basis for merchants who don't know how, or haven't got time. Or some that have tried and failed to run successful campaigns.
Linking direct to a merchant on a brand term is another matter though! Now, that is ker-ching ker-ching... However, in the UK at least, this has been almost eradicated.
Anyway, back on the subject, has anyone heard off the big G?
I posted some question a few posts up on this page, maybe we could go on from there.
joined:July 3, 2008
Google's approach would be like if they asked all magazine advertisers had to write a fake article copy to publish in the magazine.
No, it would be like a magazine requiring ads for Eddie Bauer to be from Eddie Bauer, or ads for Wells Fargo Bank to be from Wells Fargo Bank.
I don't have strong feelings on this matter, but I can see why Google might feel that direct-to-merchant affiliate ads don't make for a great user experience--especially if a whole bunch of affiliates are sending users to the same places.
Just as important, such ads probably make it harder for Google to attract mainstream corporate advertisers and ad agencies whose budgets dwarf those of even the biggest affiliates. The current world of "Internet marketing" is a small rock in a big (and enticing) universe.
I did a quick add here and looks like we are dealing with millions a year in "lost" revenue to Google.
Now how many of you would be willing to lose millions in revenue. This is a drastic step by Google and one I am sure they didn't want to make but were "forced" to make the decision.
As with any update there are those that are on the fence between right and wrong in compliance and out. I know Goolge has been warning about low quality ads for several years now, but that hasn't stoped the millions upon millions of marginal ads being built without any "consequences". Low QS campaign or disapproved well no problem resubmit over and over millions upon millions everyday. Low QS campaign or disapproved no problem redo resubmit over and over and over.
I am sure this is costing google more than the revenue being lost from the accounts being banned.
My advice is if you got the email pause/delete the ads get off the fence and rebuild the pages to provide quality content that won't get you banned.
Think of it like this those that got the email just got of of prision and are on probation. Your account will be watched very closely and if you break probation your going back to jail.
I have had an adsense and adwords account for 9 years and have never gotten a warning email or quality low score. Not bragging or trying to rub it in but those that have been riding the fence with the campaigns should make some drastic changes.
I really feel for those that got caught up in the "update" but this happens eveyday in the organic area with those sites that are on the "fence" with SEO.
Pause delete and rebuild the campaigns before your banned.
I don't have strong feelings on this matter, but I can see why Google might feel that direct-to-merchant affiliate ads don't make for a great user experience--especially if a whole bunch of affiliates are sending users to the same places.As Manga wrote, for direct linking this is not relevant. For the user experience it does not matter from which account an ad is served.
For Google however it is a plus to have more affiliates promoting the same product via direct linking. Google takes the ad from the affiliate that has written the best ad copy (read: better user experience) in combination with the highest bid (read: more money for Google).
So more affiliates promoting the same product via direct linking means higher CPC's, higher quality of ads and more keywords will be used (again more money for Google).
It looks like Google is currently sending these warnings to affiliates that are using direct linking and not to affiliates that are using a copy/pasted content domain with doulbe ad serving as a result.
Now what will Google accomplish with the above? Perhaps affiliates will stop with direct linking and use their own domain. Result: multiple ads will show up for same product.
If a merchant with award-winning retail stores can be affected then there are problems. These stores have no doubt gone through plenty of research and testing of their own to maximise user experience and ultimately profitability. However because they do not match what Google feels a store should be then they are out.
Google has a massive market share and is The Internet for many people. This means some retailers are unable to fully utilise online marketing - as Adwords is a significant part of an online marketing budget.
When you have this much power, you have also have responsibility. It looks like G are trying to get to the right place with all this, but somewhere along the line they are struggling to tame the beast they created.
If you are totally innocent, don't take no for an answer but always be polite and civil, eventually you will get results.
This is true for any company with front end customer service problems, be it Google or Citibank or whatever.
I give Google a 100% for cleaning up adwords and getting rid of all this spam. I give them 0% for being able to separate the wheat from the chaff however.
After this is over, Google will probably get some good advice (from their legal team), about setting up a formal appeal process.
[edited by: lgn1 at 4:06 pm (utc) on Sep. 29, 2009]
"Please note that our support team is unable to help you with this issue, and we ask that you do not contact them about this matter."
I run a business not an affiliate program and all my sites provide a great user experience and had QS10 scores.
I'm not sure what the minimum bid price is for Adwords, but I have had days where, on one of my niche sites, where I have thousands of highly targeted visitors every day, advertisers would "buy" clicks on my site for as little as 1 to 2 cents. At least, that's what I was being paid. Needless to say, I felt clicks from my visitors were worth more than that and it would make me feel cheated.
Not sure if any of that relates, but just thought I'd share in case it does.
I have all my accounts slap today... big trouble for me... don't know if the sales I generate from msn and yahoo would be enough to pay my employees and office rent... my 2 largest expense.. outside of my own salary...
I have a site that has been running for 4 years... since march of 05, it got slap left and right in the past but continue to run.. today it's all off together with the rest of all of my accounts...
most of my sites have reviews of the products I sell for my advertisers.. and they are all written from scratch.. I guess nowadays.. those don't count as well... to their "quality score"...
For instance, <URL snipped> is a complete affiliate site, but provides interesting info and ranks well in google organically. (not sure if they do ppc).
I wonder if the 'product comparison' sites (not price comparison) provide more value than fake reviews or clearly biased reviews...
[edited by: buckworks at 1:15 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2009]
[edit reason] No URLs please; see TOS [/edit]