Sacked by a Google algorithm • Hacker News Board

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#241

Post by dedward » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 5:38 AM UTC

mycroftiv wrote: post #104

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…

Doesn't everyone on the internet already know that website operators receive revenue from visitors clicking on ads? I don't comprehend the underlying premise that ad-clickers are supposed to be ignorant of how internet advertising works.

They want the website itself to NOT suggest in any way that people should click on AdSense ads. They want people to do it naturally, of their own accord - so their algorithms (googles) can handle ad placement and whatnot.

It's not the same as me buying an ad on your site and encouraing traffic.. it's not an affiliate sales program.. it's a very specific advertising setup that very clearly states you are not to encourage people to click on the ads.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#242

Post by jshen » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 5:41 AM UTC

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…

He is running a site about boats, the ads are about boats, and the users are into boats. This is a fuzzy line at best. He did not tell anyone to click on ads. The problem is that google exercises arbitrary power without explaining it, warning you before they do it, etc etc.

Should google have seized the revenue from his YouTube videos? Was he able to talk to someone and explain that they were separate things and get it worked our? No, again, arbitrary power.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#243

Post by dedward » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 5:41 AM UTC

cincinnatus wrote: post #103

ryanto wrote: post #96

I don't get why everyone is so upset at Google here? The guy admits to committing click fraud and then gets shut down. As someone who spends a bit of money on adwords I am pretty happy to see Google is active in enforcing these policies.

Where exactly does he admit to click fraud?

not click fraud, but a violation of the TOS of adsense.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#244

Post by tallanvor » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 6:36 AM UTC

jeromec wrote: post #228

anigbrowl wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Here's one way Google could be clearer: have the text the customer has to agree to on the screen instead of pointing to a link. I don't know about you, but with any physical contract I've signed, the relevant information is always included (the exception being laws that the contract refers to which I don't need to explicitly agree to).

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#245

Post by epoxyhockey » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:16 AM UTC

arn wrote: post #223

drawkbox wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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=...

Look at the dates on those checks: 2005 and 2006!

Now, go to pof.com and try to find yourself an AdSense ad today. They have their own ad network now: https://ads.pof.com

Shoemoney still has AdSense ads, but has diversified his income stream quite a bit. I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't see anything near what he had been making from AdSense in 2005.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#246

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:31 AM UTC

jeromec wrote: post #228

anigbrowl wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Indeed, but I'm questioning your use of the term fraudulent, not unacceptable. The OP does not argue that he's right and Google is wrong, or that they tricked him: he admits carelessness. Now, I do think contracts become considerably more meaningful when you've got a powerful motivation to pay attention to the details than when you're just trying to find where to click OK so you can try out the product/service hidden behind the wall of text; equally I think Google does work hard to simplify the complexity and make it accessible. So I don't excuse him by shifting blame to Google - other than disputing the wisdom of perma-banning him for very minor violations.

When you say fraudulent, you're saying he deliberately tried to deceive Google, or at best, was totally indifferent to the risk that they would believe something (his acceptance of the adwords conditions) which was not actually true. Yet if you look at the sequence of events, he started putting up videos to showcase his work, later found himself making enough to subsidize his sailing project, and later again got the idea to monetize the HD video because he was receiving so many customer inquiries about the YouTube videos.

When he signed the adwords agreement, he didn't even have a sailing video sideline, much less an expectation of milking it for a little extra money. Where is the willful intent to deceive here?

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#247

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:34 AM UTC

jeromec wrote: post #198

anigbrowl wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I think you're reading way too much into his remarks. Most small sailing boats have only small auxiliary engines or batteries providing DC power. Safety requires power conservation. But video cameras require light to recor…

I believe I'm reading his remarks pretty much at face value. According to him he bought his boat (aka the "Slug") for 2K pounds, and regularly patched pieces of it back together. He shared all of this with his audience as well as letting them know making the films was costly. Regardless of the technical reasons for it, I believe the huddling around a tray of candles with ice sliding by is striking visual imagery. Hec…

If you were a regular sailor you'd understand the wisdom of keeping a box of candles on board, and wouldn't find anything striking about the idea of using them.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#248

Post by synotic » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:38 AM UTC

rossjudson wrote: post #218

kjksf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ru…

It's a peculiarity of AdSense that turns what would normally be helpful behavior (please check out my advertisers -- they have really good stuff I personally recommend) into "fraudulent" behavior. The reason is, of course, that the site author has zero input or control over the contents of the AdSense boxes, and as such can't really recommend what's in there. You can _hope_ that what's in the box is a relevant ad for…

The missing part of his article is the exact text of his message to his subscribers re: 'I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers.'

There's a difference between "I support this product and you should check them out" and "click on these ads." Google's ads are targeted and beyond them being about sailing, he doesn't necessarily know what's being shown.

So it's pretty difficult for him to personally recommend particular ads or companies. I'd like to see the exact messaging he sent to his subscribers.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#249

Post by Daniel_Newby » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:42 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #194

kjksf wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For reasons of economics. As an analogy, if you're a one-person developer, your problem is usually that you don't have enough users. You can participate in forum discussions with users of your software, fix bugs within days, send a personalized thank you e-mail for every purchase, all to provide exceptional level of service to grow word of mouth and get more customers. When you get to the size of Microsoft, that won'…

> Google can't win this battle and they do the best anyone can do at that scale. I agree right up to this point. The economics of online advertising are extremely harsh when you add up the attention span of online users, the ease of fraud, and the feedback available to advertisers. It's a sea change that people need to come to terms with one way or another. However the level to which Google dehumanizes publishers is…

AdWords versus Click Farmers has a striking resemblance to the prisoner's dilemma, where the only winning strategy is punishment followed by forgiveness.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#250

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:52 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #204

jdietrich wrote: post #85

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…

I don't know about "Criminal Fraud" (that seems rather harsh), but it is in violation of the Amazon Program Participation requirements: "14. You will not offer any person or entity any consideration or incentive (including any money, rebate, discount, points, donation to charity or other organization, or other benefit) for using Special Links (e.g., by implementing any “rewards” or loyalty program that incentivizes p…

Consider:

a) Amazon have not cut him off (and I hope someone will draw the risk you highlight to his attention before they do)

b) there's no incentive offered to use the links in the sense of just visiting Amazon. There's an incentive offered to people who make a purchase there, which is an entirely separate act. Now 'visiting' is only offered as an example and he probably is violating the agreement by giving subscription discounts on some purchases, but it's an easy misunderstanding to make, especially given that it's not the central plank of his business model or anything like it.

Ironically, his forthright explanation of how his business model supports a positive interpretation of his motives, because he doesn't even seem to understand the potential pitfalls of what he's doing. If he were the scammer than some are suggesting, it would not be in his interest to expose his methods.