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

231–240 of 300 posts

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#231

Post by brisance »

ryanto wrote: post #225
brisance wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The full context of the question is: "if asked how an ad-driven business makes money, how would you, as the business owner, explain it?"

The truth of the situation is: you click, I get paid. There is no moral value attached to such an action in and of itself. If anything, it is Google's own fault for putting itself in a position for charging advertisers to place ads in a medium it does not and cannot control. It is the very definition of a moral hazard.

http://banking.about.com/od/loans/a/MoralHazard.htm

What makes it particularly troubling is that Google not only owns the ad network but also controls the content distribution in the form of Youtube.

Google prides itself as a data-driven company, and this "false positive" is likely due to a "statistical likelihood" of click-fraud, but that's small comfort to a small business owner who does not have the resources to contest or appeal such a heavy-handed measure.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#232

Post by Matt_Cutts »

rbanffy wrote: post #49
eru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

That's a brilliant idea, really. I wonder how we could generate an economic incentive for Google to adopt it.

I won't weigh in on this specific incident because I'm not familiar with the details, plus it's on the ads side, not the search quality side.

But I can weigh in on the "make the action exponential" idea. Regarding the steps that the webspam team takes, we take stronger and stronger action as we see repeated violations or violations with more willful or damaging intent.

Hidden text might result in a 30 day removal, for instance (and the site can always remove the hidden text and do a reconsideration request before the 30 days is up, of course). But if we see the site repeatedly violating our guidelines or doing worse stuff, then the action is stronger.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#233

Post by anigbrowl »

kjksf wrote: post #182
dusklight wrote: post #84

Ok this is obviously only one side of the story and the guy who is writing it is obviously a good writer? He knows how to manipulate the emotions of the reader with stuff like losing money right before christmas, which he keeps talking about over and over again even though that is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. What we have here is, Google says he is click frauding. He says he is not click frauding. Th…

Is that a serious question? Government has many special powers. Government can issue new laws. Government can put you in jail. Government can legally spy on you as long as they have a warrant. The accountability should be proportional to acts. If you want to execute someone, you better hold a fair trial and provide ample proof of wrongdoing. If you create a straightforward agreement where only use of your non-essenti…

I think you ought to look into modern antitrust policy (as influenced by the U of Chicago). Google has something close to a monopsony for online video; between this and their perma-ban approach, many would argue their contract terms create an unfair restraint of trade.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#234

Post by hughw »

dusklight wrote: post #84

Ok this is obviously only one side of the story and the guy who is writing it is obviously a good writer? He knows how to manipulate the emotions of the reader with stuff like losing money right before christmas, which he keeps talking about over and over again even though that is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the case. What we have here is, Google says he is click frauding. He says he is not click frauding. Th…

The guy didn't write the article to say he was innocent. He wrote the article to say Google provides no human to discuss the issue with.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#235

Post by Matt_Cutts »

alanh wrote: post #185
kjksf wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim that rules are "unfair" but don't provide a standard of fairness you're using or any evidence to support your claim. You claim it's easy to violate the rules honestly. You do not provide any evidence for that claim. In this particular case the guy admits to violating the rules by encouraging his visitors to click on ads. I think he was treated very fairly: his account was suspended, just like accounts of ot…

I could share anecdotes but don't want to get into it, and you're busy blaming the victim anyway.

I for one would be interested in hearing more, if you want to share.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#236

Post by epoxyhockey »

megablast wrote: post #152
epoxyhockey wrote: post #123

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.

Nope. If you setup a separate account with any of the same personal information, Google will disable your account just before you are supposed to be paid out for your app sales. They detect that your new account is related to your banned account. That's the exact case for the individual referenced in the parent post's help forum link.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#237

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Shorel wrote: post #171
patio11 wrote: post #101

So, as an AdWords advertiser, here is my experience when someone gets "creative" with ways to encourage their audience to click on my ads: 1) I see a sudden spike in my daily spend and think "Yay, I'm going to get more customers!" 2) I go to Analytics and see a wave of people who spent seconds on the website and did not convert to the trial. 3) Google bills my credit card for hundreds of dollars. This has actually ha…

He should say to his readers/viewers: 'Buy from these ads.' End of story. (except that Adsense makes a huge percentage that he could be getting if he could contact the advertisers himself).

>'Buy from these ads.'

That is enticement to click-through the ads and in contravention of the Google policy. If this guy were to provide a great service and in response have a massive level of sales from ads because of such an enticement then he could be banned. Quite silly I'd say.

It seems that the advertisers should have the control - "use sites flagged as having an unnaturally high CTR? [ ]" "use sites having enticed users to click-through? [ ]" - then let the advertisers choose what gives them the best return.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#238

Post by epoxyhockey »

rbanffy wrote: post #67
rlpb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were an advertiser, why would I want to advertise on your site, if I know that visitors are supporting you by clicking but have no intention of converting? I care about the effectiveness of my ads. They are far less effective if visitors do this. Ultimately the advertisers are paying for your AdSense income. It may not be your fault, but if you're providing less value to the advertiser, then it seems only fair t…

It would be wonderful if advertisers could pipe conversion rates back into Google so that ads would gravitate towards sites that generated greater conversion rates. This way, sites that have fans that decrease conversion rates will naturally sink to the bottom of the pile without much effort and would bubble up as soon as the behavior changes and conversion rates improve. It seems a natural solution to the problem. W…

Other ad networks already do this and are pros at it. AdSense is the king of CPC, but not CPA.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#239

Post by kbutler »

rossjudson wrote: post #224
kbutler wrote: post #210

This 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.

An analogy doesn't have to be exact to be useful. The interesting case here is that it's the "retailer" initiating the recall, rather than the "supplier".

And you're completely right - Google is too lazy to bother to check, because the cost-benefit ratio is just too high. Why bother, when there are lots of other suppliers?

If you're a retailer, and a supplier for a tiny fraction of your business does something that makes you process a recall for a bunch of your customers, would you bother working with that supplier again?

kb

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#240

Post by FiddlerClamp »

rbanffy wrote: post #219
kelnos wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effectively, yes, if you consider keeping secrets to be lying. Saying "clicking on these adds gets me money," could easily be considered indirectly encouraging people to click on ads. And that's against Google's rules... and for good reason. I don't particularly like Google's lack of transparency, but all this stuff is in the terms you're required to agree to before you start using an AdSense account. Yes, it's a big…

> Saying "clicking on these adds gets me money," could easily be considered indirectly encouraging people to click on ads How many people believe otherwise? If you cater to any audience with a 3-digit IQ, they know you get paid when they click. On my current arrangement I have payments on conversion (it's working well enough) but it requires a bit more work than AdSense did.

They may think you only get paid if a) they click and b) they buy...
Post reply on HN