111–120 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see how this is "evil". The evil one worries about in context of a company like Google is information privacy.
This comment is obviously an utter and complete waste of space, but I couldn't resist pointing out the irony of someone called "lucifer" failing to see how something is evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As happy as I am that you're Google's unofficial ombudsman, Matt, you're a big billion dollar company who many of us are intensely reliant on for our businesses. There needs to be a support channel other than "make a PR issue for Google and Matt Cutts will swoop by to save the day". I had a big issue with AdWords earlier this month. Google made it all but impossible for me to reach anyone about it. Earlier this year,…
There is a support channel for appeals, and it sounds like hizook.com submitted an appeal via that channel earlier this week. My guess is that the Google team is already looking into it; I just wanted to let people know that I'd ask the relevant team from my side as well. Given the hundreds of millions of users, tens of millions of webmasters, and many advertisers and publishers that Google interacts with, it would b…
Real clients of Google are Adwords advertisers, so these are the ones that they try to please. Anything that makes your site suspect will take you out of the network, and Google makes it very clear that they will do it first and ask questions later. I don't see this changing, because it is a really good assurance for advertisers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/08/01/my-adwords-are-turned-of... Here's the short version of my recent experience: Half of my business comes from AdWords and I'm pretty happy with it. Actually, you could go substantially farther than that: I'm literally a case study for it, recommend it any chance I get, and despite what I'm about to tell you continue to recommend it. One day, for no reason I could be certain of, AdWo…
I'm glad that the ads are running again. Reading through your blog post, it seems entirely possible that the @welcome variable not being defined could cause an issue with conversion tracking (although I don't have any first-hand knowledge). I wonder if the AdWords rep worked to make sure that the issue got escalated/resolved, but was working under the impression that you didn't need to be contacted back afterwards?
Despite $REP_NAME's assurance that the matter was being looked into and that I would be contacted again when the investigation was complete, I have not heard anything about this matter since August 5th.
I value my business relationship with Google. So much so, in fact, that I am increasing my ad spend -- you have the best solution for advertising for small businesses, bar none, warts and all. However, Google's recent performance has not caused me to think that Google values its business relationship with me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a support channel for appeals, and it sounds like hizook.com submitted an appeal via that channel earlier this week. My guess is that the Google team is already looking into it; I just wanted to let people know that I'd ask the relevant team from my side as well. Given the hundreds of millions of users, tens of millions of webmasters, and many advertisers and publishers that Google interacts with, it would b…
For instances like these, I would happily pay $x per minute to talk to a real person. A high call charge would prevent random crazies from calling (e.g. "why isn't my website top of the search rankings!?!?"), but would at least give the chance for people for whom Google's service has financial implications the chance to talk to a real person who can get appropriate answers from within the company. And if random crazi…
While I'm willing to pay $x for a call, if I'm in the right I want to be reimbursed for it (MS is actually quite good about this).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a support channel for appeals? Not hardly. As I mentioned in my anti-Google Checkout article on Slash7 (which you commented on), not only has Google attempted to steal money from me by closing my Checkout account, but my husband lost over $2,000 of Adsense money when his account was arbitrarily closed. He's the author of Scriptaculous - and the ads were on the Scriptaculous site - a totally innocent open sour…
If you really mean that they closed your husband's account and walked away with money they owed you, then this seems like exactly what the legal system is made for. (Though I'd expect them to settle rather than actually go to court, unless they think you're lying outright.)
For Google, it is a win/win/win situation... until people holler about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a support channel for appeals, and it sounds like hizook.com submitted an appeal via that channel earlier this week. My guess is that the Google team is already looking into it; I just wanted to let people know that I'd ask the relevant team from my side as well. Given the hundreds of millions of users, tens of millions of webmasters, and many advertisers and publishers that Google interacts with, it would b…
A part of that frustration has to be from that email that gets sent out. I haven't been on the receiving end, but I've read it in a couple of blog posts about this sort of thing, and honestly: that letter is awful. It contains exactly one piece of "useful" information, the link to the disabled account FAQ. The rest is just simply terrible. It starts with a very serious accusation, intoning "significant risk" and "fin…
Except it's not just breaking up with you, it's breaking up with you -- and stealing your TV, your sofa, and your cat!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A part of that frustration has to be from that email that gets sent out. I haven't been on the receiving end, but I've read it in a couple of blog posts about this sort of thing, and honestly: that letter is awful. It contains exactly one piece of "useful" information, the link to the disabled account FAQ. The rest is just simply terrible. It starts with a very serious accusation, intoning "significant risk" and "fin…
calambrac, I personally agree with you about the wording/tone of the current letter. I would like them to take a look at changing that, although no one will ever be delighted to get that letter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For instances like these, I would happily pay $x per minute to talk to a real person. A high call charge would prevent random crazies from calling (e.g. "why isn't my website top of the search rankings!?!?"), but would at least give the chance for people for whom Google's service has financial implications the chance to talk to a real person who can get appropriate answers from within the company. And if random crazi…
Perhaps they should be responsible for lost revenue in cases where their incorrect assessment hurts the business. That would at least make it somewhat important to them to implement a working solution, scalable or not. While I'm willing to pay $x for a call, if I'm in the right I want to be reimbursed for it (MS is actually quite good about this).
But I agree that reimbursement for the cost of a call that results from their inability to deal with your problem through any other channels would be appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they should be responsible for lost revenue in cases where their incorrect assessment hurts the business. That would at least make it somewhat important to them to implement a working solution, scalable or not. While I'm willing to pay $x for a call, if I'm in the right I want to be reimbursed for it (MS is actually quite good about this).
As has been pointed out here before, Google are essentially a customer in this situation, therefore they are under no real obligation to keep buying ad impressions from you, so I'm not sure 'lost revenue' liability would be particularly fair or enforceable. But I agree that reimbursement for the cost of a call that results from their inability to deal with your problem through any other channels would be appropriate.