I had the same issue a few years ago on my site. It was really annoying. Google got me for "click fraud". I had some friends who were looking at my site in school. Some people clicked on adverts. Since these views were from the same school, Google probably thought they were the same computer/person. It really sucks.
Sacked by a Google algorithm
221–230 of 300 posts
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#222I think this is fascinating. So if there is some site that I don't like that mostly generates revenue with the help of google ads a really roundabout way of taking them down would be to devise a scheme and raise their click-through rate through the roof and wait for whatever algorithm google uses to catch on and raise red flags.
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#223This sucks, but telling your visitors to click on ads indirectly is a clear violation of the ToS. I too got fired by Google's algorithm and didn't do anything whatsoever wrong. They are heartless. Worse of all, this article does not mention the monopoly they have. They own the online ad market. No one else exists that is anywhere as good. It's straight-up monopoly, and if you get on their black list, you're out.
Does anyone actually get paid by Google Adsense? Almost everyone I know has been kicked from it, not early on but usually when a big payment is coming. And this bit about returning the funds to advertisers? Any advertisers ever gotten money returned due to click fraud? I love Google and pay for lots of their products (docs/storage, appengine, etc) but the adsense stuff seems very shady on Google's side as well. Maybe…
I make good money on Google Adsense.
so do these people: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&b... http://www.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=...
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#224This is a product recall by Google. Google has customers (ad buyers) and suppliers (publishers). The product Google sells is ad clicks. Google determined that the supplier delivered a contaminated product. Google issued a recall that also affected (presumably) non-contaminated product (clicks) delivered by the same supplier. Google also has a zero-tolerance policy to prevent any further contamination. It's harsh. It…
"Zero-tolerance" is often code-speak for "too lazy to bother to check". Your recall analogy fails because, after the recall, the supplier is never permitted to transact again. A conventional recall is an opportunity for a company to fix a mistake, then move on.
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but its getting very close to the gray area/fine line. If you are encouraging the user to click your link for some reason other than him being interested in the product - then it is click fraud. Example of click fraud: I get paid when users click my ads. The more money this website makes the less time I have to spend working hourly at Starbucks. Less time at Starbucks means more time working on my website, writin…
That is exactly the opposite definition of fraud. From Merriam-Webster: a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick Where was he deceiving or misrepresenting the situation? The fact is that there is no tractable way for Google to separate people who are i…
> Where was he deceiving or misrepresenting the situation?
He is deceiving the advertisers. They are paying for people interested in the ad, thats not what they are getting.
> The fact is that there is no tractable way for Google to separate people who are interested in supporting an ad-driven business from those who really are creating false ad traffic for financial gain.
Correct, but we can look at the average CTRs of other sites/blogs that focus on the same subject. That should give us a good understand of foul play (yes, of course there will be some false positives).
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As part of the deal, and as a way of involving the sailors, I tell them about the revenue for the project which all comes from the website. The more the website earns the more sailing I can do, the more films they see. > 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 in…
It's not _entirely_ clear that asking users to click on ads is prohibited. That phrase is in section 11 a) ii, in the _Payment_ area, not in section 5, which lists Prohibited Uses. Perhaps it should be. Of interest is section 11's withholding clause, which states that the withholding is "pending Google's reasonable investigation". I don't know why it's there, if Google can terminate at its sole discretion at any time…
> In order to ensure a good experience for users and advertisers, publishers participating in the AdSense program may not:
> Encourage users to click the Google ads using phrases such as "click the ads", "support us", "visit these links" or other similar language.
from: https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#...
I agree with you though, not everything is entirely clear. There is no way Google can make a statement for every case that can possibly happen. They come up with these general rules followed by a 'we can do whatever we want' catch all.
I feel like I am defending Google way too much. I think the could have handled it a lot better, that said - I do think the end result was correct and I am not ready to scream google is evil like most people here seem to be doing.
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh the human factor! Somehow that seems to be completely missing when dealing with anything Adsense. I run a 2 year old startup in the domain of self-publishing. Tried signing up for an Adsense account. Even after multiple rounds of back and forth, I couldn't get any concrete answer about exactly which rules our site was violating. They just kept sending link to the same FAQ. Very frustrating. Fortunately, our busine…
They are entering e-commerce space?
Yes, they have been hiring people (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/google-hires-ebay-v...) and launching products in the space (http://www.boutiques.com/). Also Google ebook Store has also been launched now. I expect we are going to see more from them.
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right that he was careless and didn't look after his own business interest by studying the contract carefully and thinking through the implications of such statements. I don't think anyone has to "study" Google's terms for an AdSense account to know they don't want fraudulent clicks. I'm pretty sure Google tries to make that very, very clear during the account set up process. As my earlier comment notes this…
Of course, but you're using an extremely expansive definition of 'fraudulent' here.
Expansive definition? Okay, to satisfy my curiosity I just checked. At the top of the first page to sign up for AdSense the first check box reads as follows:
[ ] I will not place ads on sites that include incentives to click on ads.
At the bottom of this same sign up page just above the "Submit Information" button to sign up there are three more check boxes, two of which read as follows:
[ ] I agree that I will not click on the Google ads I'm serving through AdSense.
[ ] I certify that I have read the AdSense Program Policies.
The "AdSense Program Policies" is an underlined link. Clicking that takes you to a clearly readable page, probably around 500 words total, titled "Google AdSense Program Policies" where the first sentence admonishes reading the program policies carefully. And the very first two bold labeled sections at the top of this page are entitled: "Invalid Clicks and Impressions" and "Encouraging Clicks".
Under Invalid Clicks it says: Publishers may not click their own ads or use any means to inflate impressions and/or clicks artificially, including manual methods. and has an underlined link to "learn more".
Under Encouraging Clicks it begins: Publishers may not ask others to click their ads or use deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks and clicking the underlined link to "learn more" here brings a drop-down list of bullet points saying what publishers may NOT do. Here are the first two:
- Compensate users for viewing ads or performing searches, or promise compensation to a third party for such behavior.
- Encourage users to click the Google ads using phrases such as "click the ads", "support us", "visit these links" or other similar language.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how much clearer Google could be about unacceptable behavior.
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a user of my site asks me how the ads work and I say that I get paid if users click them ... Is that click fraud?
No, but its getting very close to the gray area/fine line. If you are encouraging the user to click your link for some reason other than him being interested in the product - then it is click fraud. Example of click fraud: I get paid when users click my ads. The more money this website makes the less time I have to spend working hourly at Starbucks. Less time at Starbucks means more time working on my website, writin…
I doubt that would pass in court as fraud.
The problem here is that when something is questionable google exercises arbitrary power with no explanation or human interaction.
I got kicked out of ad sense because google said that ads were showing up on porn (my site is pure user generated content). I couldn't find it for the longest time, when I finally found it i was unsure how to handle it. It was text content that was in a foreign language which I didn't speak.
There was no way for me to talk to someone at google and resolve it.
Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm
#230The disease of PayPalism is spreading.
Hi! I'm sorry to be dense, but could you explain what encompasses PayPalism? I'm guessing you're referring to: -Excessively complex user agreements -Ability to arbitrarily suspend accounts -Ability to void credited funds Are there any other aspects that you (or anyone else) feel should be included?
I'd simply say that you're doing business with a computer program, not a human being, because that's, basically, the root of it.
And people are learning to adapt on both sides: e.g. people who sweep out their PayPal account constantly. Or those who have learned that you can hose a competitor if you make the programs think they're a fraudulent business.