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

Google AdSense leak?

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#121

Post by halayli »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #118
halayli wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt, given your high profile job and your authority at Google, asking people directly whether there's any truth to this post or not will not reveal the truth. No one wants to lose their job or get involved in this and the easiest path out for them is to tell you that no it's not true.

These are folks that I've worked with and talked to regularly for 9 years, so I think you're overstating how people within Google see me; we're just colleagues. In general, Google's internal culture is open and honest, but we also provide anonymous ways to give feedback within the company[1], so something like this would bubble up in a visible way. [1] See for example the description of "Googlegeist," an annual surve…

My point is that asking colleagues you trust is not enough to conclude that nothing of this sort happened. Maybe your colleagues weren't aware of what was going on?

A third party audit would probably be a better option. But I am sure Google knows how to handle these cases better.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#122

Post by Matt_Cutts »

rmujica wrote: post #119
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rmujica, out of curiosity, how did you run across the pastebin?

It was sent to me by a colleague, haven't spoke to him personally today but I'll try to find out where he got it first hand.

Cool, thank you.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#123

Post by Springtime »

fixermark wrote: post #64

"The new policy was officially called AdSense Quality Control Color Codes (commonly called AQ3C by employees)." You know, you'd think that if Google had a 2-years-running official policy, some other bit of leakage about it would have occurred by now. Two years is a long time for an official policy on a giant company's largest product to have never even been whispered, in accident, on the Internet before. Let me do a…

Now being filled with news pieces about the pastebin. Reminds me somewhat of the Citogenesis XKCD panel (https://xkcd.com/978/).

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#124

Post by 02 »

scottydelta wrote: post #102
apta wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. It's just scraping wikipedia to come up with that definition...

The thing is google asked people to report URLs that were scraping sites and were outranking original sources, so this guy posted a snapshot where google was scraping wikipedia to come up with definition of 'scraper site' and was outranking wikipedia. :P

Wikipedia content is licensed for redistribution. That isn't scraping.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#125

Post by lovepeace »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #82
hosay123 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break out the tinfoil, but do you have any reason to expect the Ads team would admit to you if any of this were true? Secondly, I'd be impressed if after the China incident, you still had access to Ads mailing lists given that you work in Search, so it at least seems unsurprising that your searches would reveal nothing.

hosay123, I've worked with the people this post talks about since 2005. Even though I'm the head of the webspam team, I'm familiar with how AdSense deals with fraud. For example, I often see disgruntled publishers complaining on the web, and from time to time I've followed up on specific blog posts to get the other side of the story. In addition, the group that manually fights webspam at Google is a sibling organizat…

I agree with Matt, the pastebin wreaks of someone wanting to be another Snowden but it's anonymous and has no documented proof to back it up. As such it has to be dismissed.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#127

Post by chrisBob »

02 wrote: post #124
scottydelta wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is google asked people to report URLs that were scraping sites and were outranking original sources, so this guy posted a snapshot where google was scraping wikipedia to come up with definition of 'scraper site' and was outranking wikipedia. :P

Wikipedia content is licensed for redistribution. That isn't scraping.

And as a site that is funded by donations not ad revenue they probably consider this a service.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#128

Post by driverdan »

fireworks10 wrote: post #114
adsenseclient wrote: post #67

As a large publisher, we have witnessed both the $10,000 and $5,000 thresholds. It's simply true. We are now using other networks and directly working with advertisers, and our AdSense revenue is $4,500 (total ad revenue is $25,000+/mo). We also quite presciently considered making a PR stink after the first AdSense ban (we were re-instated later), but decided this could tarnish the image of our company and of our pro…

Had an Adsense account banned in January with $15k credit taken days before payout date (After 8 months of $2k-$12k earnings history per month) and extremely low RPM&CTR. No answer to appeals, no explanation other than the vague phrase 'for policy violations'. :/

Did you sue them for your money? If not, why not?

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#129

Post by scottydelta »

02 wrote: post #124
scottydelta wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is google asked people to report URLs that were scraping sites and were outranking original sources, so this guy posted a snapshot where google was scraping wikipedia to come up with definition of 'scraper site' and was outranking wikipedia. :P

Wikipedia content is licensed for redistribution. That isn't scraping.

yes, Wikipedia content is licensed for redistribution but the point here was websites outranking the original sources.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#130

Post by robin69 »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #70
fixermark wrote: post #64

"The new policy was officially called AdSense Quality Control Color Codes (commonly called AQ3C by employees)." You know, you'd think that if Google had a 2-years-running official policy, some other bit of leakage about it would have occurred by now. Two years is a long time for an official policy on a giant company's largest product to have never even been whispered, in accident, on the Internet before. Let me do a…

There you go bringing reason to a conspiracy discussion. :) For what it's worth, I immediately searched for "aq3c" within Google and within my email--no matches found there either. In my estimation, this post is absolutely fake.

In whole explaination it seems like you ae defending Google. :). and why will anyone comeup with his original identity. The Leaker:P is also smart guy SIR. :)
Post reply on HN