Live data from Hacker News

Sacked by a Google algorithm

duckworksmagazine.com

151–160 of 300 posts

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#151

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…

The author abused his relationship with Google. He treated his most important customer as a cash cow. He ignores the fact that many of the advertisers footing the bill will be just like him - sole traders and small businesses barely scraping by. That's unnecessarily harsh. The author of the article had a win-win situation in mind: by endorsing the ads that were being displayed, he would get more money, but they would…

It might seem that way to you but it's not true. You can talk about AdSense all you want, as you and many others did commenting on this story.

What you cannot do, for obvious reasons, is to entice people to click on ads. It doesn't matter how subtle the encouragement is, how good are your intentions, how many kids you still have to support, how many kittens you saved from certain death. It is against the rules that are both obvious if you think about them and spelled clearly in AdSense agreement and violating that agreement gets you banned from AdSense.

I'm also making money from AdSense and the simple reality is that if Google doesn't take steps to limit the kind of click fraud that this guy openly, if very verbosely, admits to, it'll hurt everyone else who's not matching it and in the long term will hurt everyone, period, because there will be less money in the ecosystem if ad publishers feel ripped off.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#152

Selling Android apps in the Market? It's linked to AdSense too. So, if Google kills your website for AdSense abuse, you also won't get paid for your apps which are selling for $0.99. If you get banned from web AdSense, you also get banned from Youtube and from selling apps in the Android Market. That's an ugly monopoly. (edit) source: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdSense/thread?tid=590...

Can you setup separate accounts? This might be the way to go.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#153
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…

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.

That's not necessarily true. Google sends out different emails depending on the method in which it banned you. The message that was sent out rules out a few automated systems, but doesn't tell the cause. Having high ctr doesn't mean its bad. There are accounts with 20% ctr which are fine.

-Ex Google Spam

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#154
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…

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…

> his clear intention is to induce site visitors to make planned purchases through his affiliate links, something that is obviously completely contrary to the spirit of his agreement with Amazon.

Isn't that what affiliate links are for? Encouraging people to buy something through them.

Many review sites right glistening copy then add an affiliate link. is that against the spirit of the agreement too?

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#155
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the interesting issue here is not whether Mr. Winter was violating the terms of the agreement - but the manner in which violations are handled, and the absence of a meaningful "feedback loop" where users of the system could be warned and have the opportunity to modify their behavior to follow the rules. I assume the underlying cause for this is that the AdWords program is as automated and algorithmic as pos…

Not getting into this case in particular, but > the manner in which violations are handled, and the absence of a meaningful "feedback loop" where users of the system could be warned and have the opportunity to modify their behavior to follow the rules. Would also allow the bad guys to modify their behavior as well.

Not only that, Google has so many adsense users that unless you are higher tier (big adsense account), it's not worth the trouble keeping you in the system. They ban all the time even when you don't do anything and someone spams your account. If you maliciously click another website for a few weeks straight, it will all get blocked/filtered, but it will also cause the system to flag the account and auto-ban. Unless you are higher tier, you get banned anyways.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is he built up a kinship with his viewers which included his financial plight:

I film myself huddling around a tray of candles in the boat as the ice slides past the hull in the winter.

Then he tells them a way he makes money:

yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers

You say that's not encouragement? Well, others thought it was enough to comment about extra ad clicking and even proudly email him about it. His response? That he "preferred" they only clicked ads they were interested in. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Ironically, they thought they were helping him out...

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#157
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…

This is somewhat irrelevant. Google says in the TOS to not do that, but they don't ban on that alone. What you get banned for is based on data. Everytime they ban someone, they want enough evidence, so if it ever went to court, they don't look foolish. You can have no effect, or even some when asking people to click. You have to break thresholds to actually get banned. And even if there were some users egregiously 'supporting' the site, the people can overlook that and just deduct from the account. To get automatically banned means you broke some nasty thresholds.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#158
I've had my run-in with Google AdSense in the past. My prediction: If they don't change their ways this is headed to a huge class-action lawsuit and nothing but bad press.

My experience was interesting and revealing. I had a bunch of domains (about 200) parked with GoDaddy in something called "cash parking". Not a money maker, but, what the heck. Once I realized that this was actually a service provided by Google I decided to look into cutting-out the middle man.

I looked into AdSense and found AdSense for Domains. Exactly the same service being offered by GoDaddy. I took all 200-some domains off GoDaddy, created an AdSense account and parked all of them with Google. They approved every single domain name and put ads on them. Great.

Two days later I get this email about fraudulent activity and the termination of my AdSense account. I appealed. No love. So, the termination was, effectively, forever.

Here's the irony of this story. The same 200 domains had been parked with GoDaddy for months without any issues. Serviced by Google. They even made a few bucks for all involved. The domains were not advertised in any way anywhere. I just parked them and went on with my business. This means that Google was responsible for sending traffic to these sites, every bit of it. About 50 of the domains were political in nature. Being that this was around election time my guess is that they got more traffic than usual, and, I guess, hits. I'll never know because the account was killed within two days of being formed with no data provided whatsoever.

So: Google sends traffic to the sites. The sites get clicks. They close my AdSense account. No appeal, no recourse, no human being to speak to. Bullshit!

Google needs to get sued in a major way to "reset" some of their behaviors. Why? Because they are a de-facto monopoly. Search is dominated by them. Video (YouTube) is dominated by them. Advertising (AdWords and AdSense) is dominated by them.

They do not provide for any intelligent way to deal with problems. They will tell you that you've done something wrong but will NOT provide proof, details nor an opportunity to rectify the problem. A likely scenario is that of someone just getting started who makes a few mistakes and needs to learn. Google does not provide for any of the above. They are judge, jury and executioner and a pretty mean one at that.

This fellow with the boat site probably deserved a slap on the hand for his site. He did no deserve to loose ALL OF HIS INCOME. They could have easily said something like:

"Your site-based per-click revenue is now 10% of normal during a probation period. These are the things you did wrong: link. Here's where you can see the activity and what happened: link. Here are the rules you need to pay attention to: link. The account will be monitored and your earnings percentage slowly increased as we see that these violations are rectified. We look forward to a continued relationship with ".

...A far better approach.

If you are going to shut down someones entire revenue stream you need to have a humane and reasonable process to review the situation and seek resolution rather than hitting someone over the head with a sledge-hammer.

I don't know what will trigger this lawsuit. I do think that it is almost inevitable. They might even need to be broken into different verticals in order to make it all fair. I think they are playing a dangerous game. I think they are playing with fire.

The Google "do no evil" thing may have been a nice idea. However, as it pertains to AdWords/AdSense they are headed straight for evil-land if they keep on this path.

There's another topic: Google censorship. I think that, because they are a monopoly, they don't have the right to censor. They can't be in charge of what is and isn't appropriate on the web. Different issue.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#159
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…

I can not agree. There is an enormous difference between click-farming and a courteous 'please support this site by considering the fine offerings of my advertisers.' Also, to cut off all his YouTube income because of a misreading of his pitch on a tiny subscription-driven site is BS - there's no sign that he abused YouTube in any way. I appreciate that a more responsive feedback loop can be exploited by bad guys as…

His practice is a clear case of click fraud and his above-normal click-through rates demonstrate that he was successful in that fraudulent behavior.

Google correctly identified his business as dishonest and terminated his account per agreement that the guy signed when he started using AdSense.

You try to make a case for Google trying to determine shades of gray, but it's a non-scalable, slippery slope.

The current rule is crystal clear and simple: don't encourage users to click on ads they otherwise wouldn't. By definition every such click is fraudulent because the user wouldn't otherwise perform it.

Google (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot implement more subtle rules (that weight factors like how many times someone did it, how often does he do it, how subtle the encouragement is, how many kids he has to support) in a scalable way.

Google couldn't even apply more subtle rules in a consistent way, giving fraudsters even more weapon in what is a PR game (take all the ample, emotional justification from the above post AND allow that fraudster to point to other people who are doing similar things but Google hasn't taken action against them because some fallible person applied a different subtle standard for what fraud is than some other fallible person).

As this thread demonstrates, there's plenty of people willing to sympathise with the fraudster despite clear, self-admitted evidence of wrongdoing based purely on his self-professed (hence extremely biased) version of how good of a person he is and how good intentions were and how badly he was treated by big, cold Google. Emotion can trump facts.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#160

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…

The author abused his relationship with Google. He treated his most important customer as a cash cow. He ignores the fact that many of the advertisers footing the bill will be just like him - sole traders and small businesses barely scraping by. That's unnecessarily harsh. The author of the article had a win-win situation in mind: by endorsing the ads that were being displayed, he would get more money, but they would…

  The author of the article had a win-win situation in mind
That may be what he has in mind, but experience shows that isn't what happens. Instead you get a situation where people with no interest whatsoever in purchasing anything click the link just to help out the website they are interested in. Just because the traffic comes from the targeted demographic doesn't mean it's actually serious.

I'm not saying that Google did an excellent job of handling this situation. It amazes me that they think it's appropriate to revoke thousands of dollars in earnings without (usually) providing someone to talk to. That said, asking people to click links on your site is bound to invite well-meaning individuals to click on ads they have no intent of following, which is practically the definition of click-fraud.

Post reply on HN