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

Sacked by a Google algorithm

duckworksmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 300 posts

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#141

Post by YuriNiyazov »

Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #100
rbanffy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, Google is not billing him for serving his videos.

Well of course they aren't. They are his videos. He is the one who should be billing google for serving his videos.

By that logic, if I were to create a video, it is in my interest to spread that video to as many video hosting providers as possible, and charge each of them.

Sir, I believe you are on to something absolutely brilliant, and will undoubtedly become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#142

Post by dhimes »

rbanffy wrote: post #69
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to do that would be for a competitor to implement it and begin gaining traction because of it. Right now, the cost of the wrongfully terminated is less than the cost of wrongfully terminating them and probably always will be unless Google starts loosing people afraid of being wrongfully terminated. That number becomes much larger. Want to incentivize Google? Convince Bing to implement it and see if Adsen…

The problem is that Google's customer is not the site that carries the banners, but the advertiser who wants their banners shown. Unless those gravitate towards an ad network that coincidentally provides better service to site owners, those folks are doubly screwed.

But Google still needs their sales channel, which is why Bing may be a viable option for this.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#143

Post by jrockway »

Seems like the solution to this problem is to create a legal entity for each company you do business with. Then when they suspend FooBar LLC's Adsense account, you create BarBaz LLC and try again. If you use your real name or real SSN, you're stuck if anything bad happens.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#144

Post by notahacker »

moose891 wrote: post #98
jdietrich wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: If a sailor buys a sailing book by entering Amazon via my website, I get a 5 per cent referral fee. If some-one spends $200 on a Kindle or a camera, [they] get their next three month s subscription for free. That's definitely abuse of Amazon's affiliate program and crosses the line from click-fraud-ish to full blown criminal fraud. Aside from being against the terms of their scheme, his clear intention is to in…

I don't see anything in Amazon's terms about what you call "full blown criminal fraud" and I would imagine it is actually encouraged by Amazon. Google is paying for clicks, whereas Amazon is only paying for actual sales. Amazon would benefit from that message being on every site on the internet. It's advertising for them and letting people know they can help their favorite sites adds an extra incentive to sway people…

Yep, paying a commission for making sure that an intended purchase is made at your site is better than risking losing it to the price comparison lottery; at worst they make a slightly lower profit per sale.

eCommerce vendors are even happy to partner with sites like Quidco that openly offer cashback rewards for people making purchases via their affiliate links.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#145

Post by anigbrowl »

mycroftiv wrote: post #104
arn wrote: post #14

...long story... Oh yes, I was also running little blocks of adverts provided by Adsense and, yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers – all of whom were interested in selling stuff to sailors. ...long story... In the end it was click-fraud-ish. There's a huge fear for those dependent on google adsense that they will get terminated out of the blue like this. T…

Doesn't everyone on the internet already know that website operators receive revenue from visitors clicking on ads? I don't comprehend the underlying premise that ad-clickers are supposed to be ignorant of how internet advertising works.

I think this goes to the heart of the issue.

The sort of fraud ad brokers want to avoid is 'www.fraud-u-lent.com: Hey visitors! click on 10 of these ads and get FREE warez/porn/iPad/car for every 10 clix!!'

On the other hand, there's a legitimate conversation that goes along the lines of '[niche site] is great! how do you manage to provide us with so much great content for our [niche hobby]?' 'Oh thanks, I have been a [niche hobbyist] for 20 years, and accumulated a lot of [niche content/skill]. Also those ads at the side of the page help support the project so you can enjoy it for free.'

The second is technically violating any ad agreement that prohibits click invitations, but in a vastly different way from the first example. An overly mechanical or aggressive interpretation is throwing the baby out with the bath water, and if it becomes too common it will become (or perhaps already is) an opportunity for a competitor.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#146

Post by il »

epoxyhockey wrote: post #139
patio11 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is "Don't directly or indirectly tell people to click on your ads." The reason for this is that loyal audiences will , if you tell them to click on ads, click on ads to support you. This is exactly what happened. The CTR goes through the roof, the advertisers get billed lots of money, and no commerce takes place.

It is obvious to you and me that a 6% CTR is supernaturally high, at least in my experience. If Google's algorithms are so great as to detect AdSense "cheaters," why don't they just throttle down the CPC for "cheaters" down to 1 cent (or less)? I think we're basically discovering that Google is defending their immature AdSense algorithms by banning users rather than adapting to different behaviors.

They actually have been doing this for some time with Smart Pricing.

It wasn't working too well.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#147

Post by jamesaguilar »

EGreg wrote: post #90
jdietrich wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: If a sailor buys a sailing book by entering Amazon via my website, I get a 5 per cent referral fee. If some-one spends $200 on a Kindle or a camera, [they] get their next three month s subscription for free. That's definitely abuse of Amazon's affiliate program and crosses the line from click-fraud-ish to full blown criminal fraud. Aside from being against the terms of their scheme, his clear intention is to in…

While Google's customers ARE the advertisers and their first priority is to make sure they are protected, Google would sit up and do something if more website PUBLISHERS would complain. It's a business. However, as a practical issue, I fail to see any practical reason to disable the guy's revenue from YouTube videos, based on clicks from an unrelated site. Just stop counting the clicks on the site, Google!

> However, as a practical issue, I fail to see any practical reason to disable the guy's revenue from YouTube videos . . .

Really? I have thought about it for about two minutes and came up with several.

1. Google might assume that someone who has committed click fraud in the past might do so again, and preemptively remove other facets of that person's ability to harm the system.

2. Google might want to discourage people from committing piecemeal fraud by ensuring them that there is no way to risk just part of your account with Google. By disabling all of this guy's ability to make money from Google, they are sending the signal, "Hey, don't think you can pull a fast one and still keep any part of your business with us, even if the site is unrelated."

3. Maybe there was some undisclosed badness going on with the Youtube account that we are not seeing in the account given in this article.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#148

Post by joshklein »

davidw wrote: post #127
joshklein wrote: post #9

Relying on Google, or any other single source, for your income is the same as having an employer. This is just as true whether you run a Youtube channel or have a multimillion dollar B2B business with only one client (aka "boss"). Being in the content game is the easy part of the equation; ad sales is the hard part. You can take the easy road and join a network, making pennies on the dollar and potentially getting "s…

Anyone got advice on how to go out and do this? How to calculate fair prices?

Re: how to do this - watch this video of Gary Vaynerchuk picking up the phone and selling an ad: http://garyvaynerchuk.com/post/78967452/want-to-get-advertis... (it isn't rocket surgery!)

Re: fair prices - Totally depends on your content, your market, and how targeted you are to the advertiser's audience. There are plenty of sub-$1 CPM display ads, and I've been a part of buying $170 CPM ads. But you should only worry about this only after you have sold out your ad inventory. Anything is better than nothing.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#149

Post by true_religion »

jeromec wrote: post #136
Zak wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble understanding what rule he broke. He had some content with ads on it chosen by Google's algorithms. People clicked those ads, then didn't buy anything from the advertiser. How is that his fault? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know how someone with an ad-supported site can avoid such a situation. Edit: elsewhere in the comments, I see that he was telling his viewers t…

He also knew something was wrong with encouraging AdSense clicks as noted from the article: I did get the odd subscriber sending me an email saying that he had clicked loads of adverts. This is called demon clicking. I would reply that I would prefer them to only click on adverts they were interested in. I allow my subscribers to leave comments on the films. If one of them mentioned clicking on adverts to show their…

The rule says you can't encourage your visitors to click.

It doesn't say that you have to actively discourage people from clicking to ensure only those most determined to buy the product actually click.

As to him "looking the other way", he explicitly said he replied by telling them to only click on adverts that they were interested in.

I'd say he went above and beyond.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#150

Post by julian37 »

arn wrote: post #14

...long story... Oh yes, I was also running little blocks of adverts provided by Adsense and, yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers – all of whom were interested in selling stuff to sailors. ...long story... In the end it was click-fraud-ish. There's a huge fear for those dependent on google adsense that they will get terminated out of the blue like this. T…

"Please visit our sponsors" and "please visit our advertisers" are phrases that I've seen very often on the Internet (Google Search has 18m and 750m results for these phrases, respectively.) I'm curious, do many of these sites use a different vendor than AdSense or are breaches of this term quite common?
Post reply on HN