Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

kajic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#111

Post by grog454 »

gumby wrote: post #21
J5892 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This applies to literally any public corporation.

> > Google is not your friend and must be treated as an adversary. > This applies to literally any public corporation. I can clearly see the "not your friend" part. Are all public corporations the adversaries of citizens though? I'm not sure. I'm not asking for edge cases: companies tend to be friends and not adversaries for their CEOs, for example, and I can imagine that Red Hat (when independent) was not any indivi…

>Are all public corporations the adversaries of citizens though?

In a way, yes. Public corporations generally seek profit maximization. Rational consumers seek value maximization. More profit for seller = less value for consumer. Less profit for seller = more value for consumer. This is an adversarial situation by definition.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#112

Post by anaccountexists »

jefftk wrote: post #99
ent101 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be the closest person on this thread who can answer questions about Google. Can you please tell us why Google summarily suspends accounts? Why is there absolutely no way to talk to a human being?

I can't speak for Google, and I don't work in that part of ads, but my understanding is it's primarily because of how adversarial fraud detection is. If you give people who violate policy detailed information about what they did wrong and how you know then it is much easier for them to figure out how to abuse the system without getting caught. I don't like it, but I also don't know how to fix it.

I work with a lot of fraud teams at a FinTech company, and we have the same exact problem. If you give out too much information around what caused the enforcement action, people are able to figure out the exact formula used to trigger a risk check, and will float right under it.

It’s a really hard problem.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#113

Post by grapehut »

jessaustin wrote: post #109
jefftk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for Google, and I don't work in that part of ads, but my understanding is it's primarily because of how adversarial fraud detection is. If you give people who violate policy detailed information about what they did wrong and how you know then it is much easier for them to figure out how to abuse the system without getting caught. I don't like it, but I also don't know how to fix it.

In case you work in the relevant part of ads, could you say why advertisers are allowed to buy their competitors' literal trademarked business names on Adwords? This seems like a protection racket: "nice business you got here; it'd be a shame if that knockoff down the street paid me enough to bury it..."

Absolutely agree. The company I worked from had a persistent problem with someone stealing customer details by buying AdWords targeting our brandname with a fake phishing site. We would report it, 2-3 days later Google would take it down. Then the next day, they'd be back with a different phishing site. At what point is Google just complicit?

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#114

Post by austinpena »

mike_d wrote: post #100
austinpena wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this related to the world of SEO? He’s talking about paid search issues.

SEO and SEM are effectively interchangeable at this point.

As someone who manages both SEO and PPC campaigns I don’t think that’s true. SEO is a subset of SEM and the “blackhat tactics” that SEO’s can use against competition are dramatically different than those used in the PPC world.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#115

Post by Razengan »

grog454 wrote: post #107
george0812 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to think that the need for advertising is just a bug in capitalism and eventually it'll go away.

What system do you envision for bringing awareness of your product to new customers? Or do you just mean traditional advertisement and not marketing in general (ex: paid or incentivized product reviews). From the advertiser's perspective, if I can spend $x to acquire a user with an LTV (lifetime value) of $y, and $x I like to think that I'm immune to advertising, and I suspect a lot of people here think that way too,…

> What system do you envision for bringing awareness of your product to new customers?

Directories, with extensive search and filtering and opt-in recommendation systems. Powered by ML or what have you.

Personally, as a consumer who is always looking for new shit to spend my money on, I have yet to see any ad that showed me something I actually liked or purchased.

Some of the best things I have discovered have been through word-of-mouth, manual searching or sheer luck. For example the GamingSuggestions sub on Reddit. (Please don’t ruin it with subversive marketing if any of you adholes are thinking of that)

Sadly almost every major market platform actively hinders and cripples their search and filter features, except maybe Steam. I don’t know why. Maybe they are afraid of competitors combing through their data?

I search for X and I get almost completely unrelated results, often paid ads hijacking the search terms.

Why is it so hard to search for, for example, an iPhone 12 Mini Red with 64 GB, and not see results for any other models, Samsung, or cases and other accessories and shit?

Worse, as-based systems vary by region. So even if I’m often searching for anime and manga, Google can’t seem to infer that I would like to see such results near the top when searching for related things, unless my IP is from Japan.

Just. Stop. Guessing.

I literally told you what I am looking for to spend money on, so only show me that, until I specifically request other similar products.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#116

Post by zorpner »

jefftk wrote: post #77
zorpner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have already accepted it, by continuing to work for a company that does it (regularly -- this is hardly a unique story).

Sorry, are you saying that it is common for people to bribe insiders to bypass policy and hurt their competitors? This is the first time I've heard a story like this.

Yeah, you can even Google™ to find many other such stories.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#117

Post by TruthWillHurt »

pzm3292 wrote: post #23

I think you are violated Google's Circumventing systems rule. I noticed your affiliate site is using woltcode.de as domain name but "wolt" is maybe registered trademark of wolt.com. Google cannot allow this kind of similar domain name in generall.

It could also be due to a DNS redirect.

I hosted a page on AWS S3 bucket exposed to the web, and had my domain CNAME record point to the bucket public-facing DNS name.

Triggered the same Circumventing ban.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#119

Post by registeredcorn »

jefftk wrote: post #77
zorpner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have already accepted it, by continuing to work for a company that does it (regularly -- this is hardly a unique story).

Sorry, are you saying that it is common for people to bribe insiders to bypass policy and hurt their competitors? This is the first time I've heard a story like this.

It's difficult to tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

Re: Google Ads suspended me and turned a deaf ear

#120

Post by jessaustin »

grapehut wrote: post #113
jessaustin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you work in the relevant part of ads, could you say why advertisers are allowed to buy their competitors' literal trademarked business names on Adwords? This seems like a protection racket: "nice business you got here; it'd be a shame if that knockoff down the street paid me enough to bury it..."

Absolutely agree. The company I worked from had a persistent problem with someone stealing customer details by buying AdWords targeting our brandname with a fake phishing site. We would report it, 2-3 days later Google would take it down. Then the next day, they'd be back with a different phishing site. At what point is Google just complicit?

Wow I didn't even think of that one.

I saw it when a business for which I did some work would have customers calling from their competitor's lobby saying, "This stupid receptionist doesn't know about my appointment, what do you mean I'm in the wrong place, I put your name in the phone google?! Screw you I'm going to just get the work done here!" Google/Maps/Android had customers driving past the business for which they had searched by literal business name to some other business that was spending more on Adwords for that literal business name.

Post reply on HN