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

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#161

Post by whatevsbro »

ltorresv wrote: post #120
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fake. It's an anonymous post on pastebin, submitted by a one-time account. The terminology is wrong. The policies are wrong. The post is full of typos. The post has almost no specifics, and the one specific thing they mentioned ("AQ3C") isn't real. If this story isn't getting traction, then HN is doing the right thing here.

I do see a decent number of people posting they've had issues with cancellations that match what the pastebin describes. Why aren't you replying to any of them if you're acting as the voice of reason here?

> Why aren't you replying to any of them if you're acting as the voice of reason here?

Exactly because the fraudulent bans are actually a widespread phenomenon, but that goes against what Matt's been telling us here.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#162

Post by lexaude »

fastolfe wrote: post #133
Taffy1957 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but you work in a completely different department to Adsense & therefore it is quite possible that you are completely unaware of what takes place with Adsense. 1. I think you will also agree that the Internet is riddled with stories of publisher accounts being closed down prior to payout & without any explanation whatsoever! 2. Google's own webmaster's forum is brimming with questions r…

I think a lot of the skepticism here is drawn from the experience people have with companies that are culturally very different from companies like Google. Those companies are intensely management-driven, heavily siloed, and have very little internal inter-departmental communication that doesn't go through a layer of management. Difficult questions never get asked because management doesn't want to make waves or risk…

Culture isn't a great answer to throw around when people are asking hard questions about a program that is the financial backbone of a company. In fact its downright snooty to presume that allegations like this stem from folks who have experienced a different corporate culture. People generally get to know what a company's culture really is like from the folks who leave that company. And there are tons of those folks from Google. The point is, whether you appreciate Google's internal culture of candour or not or its lack of silos, that's just not the way to respond to allegations regarding the way Google makes serious profits.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#163

Post by duckingtest »

birken wrote: post #9

Let's think about this logically. Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000/month, Google is making $2,352/month from that account. So by banning the account, they are making $5,000 one-time, and losing $2,352/month forever. No company is stupid enough to do that. However, considering a site making $5,000 or $10,000/month is generating quite a few clicks, I think it makes perfec…

I don't agree with your basic assumption - google doesn't get money from publishers, but from advertisers. If they ban one publisher, the ad may get clicked somewhere else. Let's call this metric 'ad fill factor' - how many different ads does google have for this content and traffic? When some niche is getting near the point when there's no enough ads for its traffic the marginal value of website becomes exactly zero. At this point, banning accounts and taking their earnings makes financial sense.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#164

Post by mstade »

oh_sigh wrote: post #19

If this is such a slam dunk, why not just go directly to the FBI or IRS? I'm sure there are tons of people in those orgs who would LOVE to smash google if they really were behaving in such an illegal manner. It seems a bit more realistic than hoping that they see this pastebin text, and decide to follow up on it, track you down, and get your statements on the record.

Reaching out to the authorities may take much longer or even be ignored, and causing a PR stink may be a much more effective approach. As an example, the SEC was contacted with regards to Bernard Madoff likely running a ponzy scheme as early as 1999, yet went largely ignored for a decade.

Just because you contact authorities doesn't necessarily mean they believe you or even care, regardless of how much actual evidence you have (of which the OP has presented none, by the way.) Causing a PR stink raises the profile of the issue, and could be a much more effective approach to getting the authorities attention.

That said, I don't believe OP's story for a second, for many of the same reasons other have cited. If this was a true case of whistle blowing, there would be tangible evidence but the OP has presented none.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#165

Post by anachupa »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #68

Everything about this post strikes me as a conspiracy-laden fake, from the typos to wrong terminology to untrue policies to the lack of specific names of people. I passed this pastebin to the ads side to confirm for sure, but I would treat this as completely untrue. Added: Yup, I'm hearing back from multiple people on the ads side that this is pretty much untrue from start to finish. Also notice that the "rmujica" ac…

http://entertainment-on-the-end.blogspot.com/2014/05/mayweat...

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#166

Post by anachupa »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #68

Everything about this post strikes me as a conspiracy-laden fake, from the typos to wrong terminology to untrue policies to the lack of specific names of people. I passed this pastebin to the ads side to confirm for sure, but I would treat this as completely untrue. Added: Yup, I'm hearing back from multiple people on the ads side that this is pretty much untrue from start to finish. Also notice that the "rmujica" ac…

@Matt Cutts, is this the kind of sites that Adsense runs on? http://entertainment-on-the-end.blogspot.com/2014/05/mayweat...

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#167

Post by maheshone »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #84
aggronn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you think working at Google lends you any credibility in this discussion. To me, your continued discussion here does not help Google's position at all. Are you authorized to act as a spokesperson on Google's behalf? If these accusations are true and someone thought it warranted a class action lawsuit or otherwise, would you really want to be so visibly commenting on it?

aggronn, I've been debunking conspiracies about Google since 2001 ("buying ads on Google makes you rank higher/lower"). I believe there's value in commenting on untrue claims quickly to nip them in the bud. As a long-time employee with a close perspective on the post, I can tell you from personal experience that the terminology is incorrect and the allegations are completely at odds with my direct experience. I'm als…

I came to know about that story when someone left a comment on my blog.. but I refused to believe it without reading the story or the whole pastebin story for one reason. If I made $100,000 from AdSense then it means that Google earned approx. $150,000 in revenue and they paid $100,000 (based on 68% publisher revenue share).

Now if they banned me then it means the whole $150,000 (if they are not paying back to advertisers) is their profit...

But my point is... if I made $100,0000 a month then it also means that I'm a quality publisher and I'll be making that kind of money in future too... So if they pay me then they will be making $50,000 every other month.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#168

Post by jacky04 »

Though the adsense is best possible option for monetizing, it seems that they have some UNANSWERED question raising every time.

I am an old adsense publisher and serving adsense ads on my sites since last three years but it is becoming a bit difficult to cope with their Terms and services.

They have disabled ad serving on my few real MONEY MAKING sites only because my site was having one Google trademarked WORD in URL. ( I don't know how do they understand this as violation of TOS after three years of ad serving.)

If we look in to this policy of adsense which says do not use Google trademarked WORD in URL then almost all possible site that is dedicated to TECH news is violating this rule because they all writes news about Google, Youtube, Adsense, Gmail, Google Drive, Blogspot etc and all of them are registered trademarks of Google. These tech news sites DO HAVE GOOGLE RELATED WORDS IN THERE URL and violating this rule.

Google does not disables such huge site only because they are so called AUTHORITIES????

This thing is really getting suspicious.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#169

Post by soaringabove »

nolok wrote: post #137
nivla wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure about the claims made on the post but there was something else that caught my eye a while back. I registered for Adsense when starting a side-project. I tried my best to follow all the requirements such as only 3 block of ads per page, no self clicking even if the ad was relevant to you etc. Since it was relatively new, it din't have much traffic. Then it started booming but it wasn't predictable by any…

> Adsense is by far the best paying ad-network but if it had less shady tactics and better support I would have definitely put it on my recommendation list. AdSense is the best paying network because it behaves this strictly. Advertiser give a larger amount of money per clic in exchange for a much higher guarantee that a clic is a clic.

I don't know about that. Just look at the webpages you see when you're on the web. See which have AdSense and which have other ads but not AdSense. If AdSense pays the most, then most sites would have AdSense unless they were denied, suspended, or banned. There should be quality differences.

Is there a pattern of quality differences between AdSense and other sites? I am not seeing one.

The only ascertainable difference I see is -- heavily trafficked sites generally use AdSense, and sometimes have more than the maximum three ad units per page in the AdSense terms.

Re: Google AdSense leak?

#170

Post by soaringabove »

DoubleMalt wrote: post #85
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #68

Everything about this post strikes me as a conspiracy-laden fake, from the typos to wrong terminology to untrue policies to the lack of specific names of people. I passed this pastebin to the ads side to confirm for sure, but I would treat this as completely untrue. Added: Yup, I'm hearing back from multiple people on the ads side that this is pretty much untrue from start to finish. Also notice that the "rmujica" ac…

So can you confirm that specifically: a) There is no list of accounts that is protected from scrutiny? b) There is no group of accounts that is watched very closely for violation of terms? c) That bans happen almost always shortly before a payout would be due? The description of the latest known policy in place reads as it is carefully tweaked to be defensible even in a court of law, so even if the "leak" is true, I…

Matt Cutts did not answer this one. Which begs a question. Why is Matt here? Obviously not to answer real concerns. He has been sent by Google to handle public relations issues. He has zero credibility.

This anonymous claim may or may not be true, in part or in full, but it has far more credibility than Matt.

It is quite understandable that people who have had an unhappy experience with Google may not want to come out publicly. If Google can block AdSense with no transparency, what else can it do? Google can drop you from its search engine -- then you really have no other advertising choices. Have you seen the Senate hearings? Google has done exactly this. http://www.searchneutrality.org

I know from experience that Google suddenly suspends AdSense accounts at any time, and does so when the amount due is near the $100 minimum, then holds that money indefinitely but never lifts the suspension.

The internet is overflowing with complaints about AdSense. Is this just one big conspiracy? Course not. This is the frustration of thousands or more people who were burned by Google's unprecedented policy of never providing support.

Until THAT changes, Google is the guilty party, no doubt.

Post reply on HN