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

161–170 of 300 posts

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#161

Post by mcantor »

patio11 wrote: post #129
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…

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.

Perhaps I did not read carefully enough, but I didn't read anything that made it seem like he directly or indirectly asked anything. He simply makes a point of being 100% transparent in how he runs his business; part of that was explaining that ad clicks improve his revenue. Did Google expect him to lie?

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#162

Post by kjksf »

julian37 wrote: post #150
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?

There's a difference between AdSense scheme and a sponsor or advertiser if they pay a fixed sponsorship fee or fixed fee for the ad.

In that scenario, every additional click, even if of decreasing marginal utility, is a win for the advertiser and the publisher is making them a favor by sending as much traffic as they can.

For Google AdSense and other programs based on pay-per-click scheme, advertiser pays for each click so worthless clicks do cost them money and benefit the publisher. That's why it's fraud. There is a strong incentive for one side (publisher) to take advantage of the other side (advertiser) and if allowed to exist on scale, would harm the whole marketplace.

The phrasing you used suggest fixed scheme. If it is used in the context of pay-per-click scheme, then yes, it does violate the agreement and I doubt there's any pay-per-click scheme that doesn't ban such behavior.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#163

Post by mcantor »

jeromec wrote: post #156
true_religion wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited.

Yes, they do.

That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me.

I didn't read it as a wink-wink; I read it as a clear and honest explanation of his views: "If my users are going to click on ads because they want to help me instead of because they want to buy things, I hope they at least click on ads that interest them, so there's a CHANCE they'll buy."

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#164

Post by lopatamd »

rofl at random trolls who says 'Oh google is so evil.. poor man etc..'

he broke the rules, his acc was disabled and thats all.. this is not the first time this stuff happens with Adsense...they are Very very strict.. you must be very careful.. those rules are tricky..

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#165

Post by jeffreyrusso »

I honestly sympathize. It's a horrible thing to be blindsided by something like this when it's a main source of income. The approach Google took was cold and heartless, that goes without saying. All that being said, I can understand why things like this happen, and I don't necessarily fault Google. When a particular placement generates a lot of traffic that doesn't convert, Google has an obligation to take action on behalf of their paying advertisers.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#166

Post by Confusion »

kjksf wrote: post #151
Confusion wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

  It is against the rules that are both obvious if you think
  about them and spelled clearly in AdSense agreement
Laws are also both obvious and spelled clearly. Nevertheless we need judges to interpret them according to each situation. Even with those judges in place, we still accept that some people will be punished for moral behavior, while others will walk free for immoral behavior, because a law cannot possibly cover every situation under which it will apply.

In this case, it seems to be the regrettable situation where someone is being punished for moral behavior. Regrettable, but perhaps unavoidable. However, that's as far as you should be willing to go. Trying to justify Google's actions by accusing the one that was punished of immoral behavior is not necessary and not warranted.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#167

Post by mcantor »

eru wrote: post #42
rbanffy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest a "three strikes" approach. The program warns you (because it may not be your fault) then the program blocks you for, say, 30 days and then you are banned. Disclaimer: I was banned from AdSense too and I still don't know what happened. Since my site had very low traffic, I suspect even one well meaning fan could clickfraud me into nonexistence.

How about exponentially increasing ban times, instead of a life-time ban after the third strike? (Perhaps with even a cooling off period, if you behave well for some time.)

Ironically (given the recent hubbub), I think that's how 4chan does it.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#168

Post by kjksf »

rbanffy wrote: post #50
arn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between: 1) fraudulent clicks that could be generated by a botnet 2) instructions on the site itself that you have control over telling your visitors to click on ads to make you more money. I don't want to come across as defending google on this. They could use a lot more hands on customer service. This sort of sudden termination is scary and sucks. I'm just pointing out, there is unjustified ter…

Mind you Google never told the guy what happened so he could properly defend himself or correct the problem

He knows what he did was wrong. He admits as much in his magnum opus. Just not wrong enough to be banned from AdSense.

I know he's wrong and I know exactly what he did wrong: he enticed visitors to his website to click on ads so that he makes more money at the expense of advertisers. You cannot do it for reasons that are both obvious and clearly speelled in AdSense agreement.

He is unwilling to correct the problem. He's even unwilling to admit there is a problem - his whole argument to favor theory of cruel and unusual treatment from Google is based on his fundamental belief that he really did nothing wrong. Plus irrelevant personal details designed to trigger sympathy for him, as a person, and detract attention away from the facts of what he did.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#169

Post by kjksf »

Andrew_Quentin wrote: post #68
_cbsz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think that crosses the line, then you just gave anyone with access to a small botnet (or who knows how to cleverly use Tor) an easy, cheap way to cut off the income of people who rely on AdSense. And there are a LOT of those. No, he didn't. A "small botnet" or Tor is not particularly useful to force you to violate the Adsense ToS by telling your visitors to click on your ads.

I think his point is that, if invalid clicks is all it takes for an adsense publisher to get banned, then there is nothing to stop your competition from going onto your site and clicking a lot of your ads or get a botnet to do it and get you banned. If it is a mere algorithm, then it is not unforeseeable, that, due to no fault of your own whatever, but malice of competitors, you can get banned, though, in these cases…

Except in that particular case that's not what happened. He admits he was enticing users to click ads which is clearly against AdSense rules.

I'm sure the fraud detection system is not perfect but in this case it actually worked as designed. Yay for Google, boo for people who try to take advantage of the system.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#170

Post by mhansen »

kjksf wrote: post #151
Confusion wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I agree with you, but I think your appeals to 'the obvious' and 'the simple reality' are weak.
Post reply on HN