Sacked by a Google algorithm • Hacker News Board

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#251

Post by Daniel_Newby » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 7:55 AM UTC

rossjudson wrote: post #209

rebooter wrote: post #158

I've had my run-in with Google AdSense in the past. My prediction: If they don't change their ways this is headed to a huge class-action lawsuit and nothing but bad press. My experience was interesting and revealing. I had a bunch of domains (about 200) parked with GoDaddy in something called "cash parking". Not a money maker, but, what the heck. Once I realized that this was actually a service provided by Google I d…

Interactions with Google go something like this: GOOG: Dear $Client: our automated algorithm says you are engaged in click fraud. We are reversing payments made to you and confiscating what is in "your" account. Thanks. $Client: Whaaa? (Furious form filling). GOOG: Dear $Client: Based on the same information, our automated algorithm $still says you are engaged in click fraud. We are $still reversing payments made to…

> I were participating in the AdSense program, Google could terminate me for writing this message, ...

Based on what you have written, you'd only be in AdSense by means of a shell corporation that didn't have your name on any public documents.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#252

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 8:03 AM UTC

kjksf wrote: post #184

alanh wrote: post #111

I'm realt glad this story is getting told. Bumping up against Google's machine-enforced, unfair rules is easier to do honestly than you may think — and it's a terribly cold, hopeless, impersonal, recourseless, unfair experience. Imagine 1950s automatons running a bureaucracy. It's like that. «I'm-sorry-sir-my-programming-indicates-you-are-a-fraudulent-user.» From TFA: I also spent a lot of time on line finding out wh…

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…

his account was suspended

OP's last communication from Google (emphasis added):

However, after thoroughly re-reviewing your account data and taking your feedback into consideration, our specialists have confirmed that we're unable to reinstate your AdSense account.

You have made a lot of emphatic assertions on this thread, and I think many of them are wrong. Here you complain about a lack of evidence but then immediately misstate the facts. Please reconsider your approach.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#253

Post by Daniel_Newby » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 8:33 AM UTC

kellysutton wrote: post #87

Based on personal experiences, it appears that any two parties doing business under an "American" contract are at any time probably in violation of several clauses of said contract. When the waters get a little rough, you can expect the party with the most leverage to bail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but other countries don't interpret contracts so strictly. I remember someone telling me that German business contracts…

Plenty of Americans view a contract as a starting point for future negotiations. The trouble with AdSense is that Google has corporate autism. They appear to be single-mindedly obsessed with cutting customer service expenditures to zero, which is not even remotely the same thing as maximizing net revenue. Hell, even AT&T will send somebody out to plug in your new telephone as long as you can cough up the per-incident fees.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#254

Post by bambax » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 9:18 AM UTC

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.

Maybe, but this happened on his site, and Google withheld the money from the Youtube ads, which constituted the bulk of his revenue. That's just not fair.

And they continue to run ads next to his Youtube videos; they simply stopped giving him his share. That is even less fair.

Maybe the lesson is: have multiple accounts with Adsense so that if one has a problem then the others are unaffected.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#255

Post by injekt » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 9:39 AM UTC

A very mixed bag of responses in the comments. It appears to me that the writer may have inadvertently asked his users to click on adverts, because it helps him generate profit. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but Google does, and it explicitly says that in its Adsense contract.

With that being said, Mr Winter deserved a human voice at the very least. A discussion, not a computer generated decision. Perhaps the adsense account for the personal website should have been ceased, but doing so for the youtube one too, is petty. Of course (assuming) a computer can't tell the difference between these outlets a human voice would have helped in this matter.

After reading some of the comments, I really think pulling down the youtube videos and throwing up 30 second 'previews', with a link to the full version on Vimeo, is a great idea. There's no doubt it will generate less income, but you'll get your cut.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#256

Post by vacri » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 9:54 AM UTC

epoxyhockey wrote: post #139

patio11 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is obvious to you and me that a 6% CTR is supernaturally high, at least in my experience. If Google's algorithms are so great as to detect AdSense "cheaters," why don't they just throttle down the CPC for "cheaters" down to 1 cent (or less)? I think we're basically discovering that Google is defending their immature AdSense algorithms by banning users rather than adapting to different behaviors.

heh, "immature algorithms"

These are the algorithms that every man and his dog want the key to, the holy grail of net commerce.

I was going to write something more sarcastic but instead I'll ask: Who has better algorithms and how are they doing with them?

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#257

Post by dsgrweger » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 10:32 AM UTC

-------- http://ta.gg/4wt ------

Gold autumn, personality Men’s clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport

-------- http://ta.gg/4wt ------

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#258

Post by GDH » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 11:55 AM UTC

Google has advertising all wrong with AdWords, they constantly encourage ad spamming of low value ads, with little relativity to extremely large groups. With the huge amounts of data Google as collected over the years, you would think that they would have created a more efficient advertising platform, where a 6% click through isn't considered to high, where 6% is considered to low. AdWords was, without a doubt, a great business move.... at the time. Times change, I don't see why we have to be bombarded with 1000's of irrelevant ads a day. If I were to see only ONE advert a day, and that ONE advert was for something I was truly interested in, then billions of dollars in useless advertising could be spent on bettering a product. Maybe it's time for conventional advertising to die, imagine clean websites with no ugly, annoying pop ups, scroll overs or sound ads. It's just an idea, highly unlikely to happen, yet it would create a simpler cleaner internet, while cutting down on global advertising spending and driving up conversion rates.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#259

Post by disappoirnt » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 12:30 PM UTC

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.

Some ads pay upon display.

Some ads pay upon click.

Some ads pay upon purchase.

Most people (even those with 3-digit IQs) consider this stuff inside baseball, and don't investigate how different ad networks pay. Pointing out to your audience that the ads pay upon click will inspire a non-zero group of them to click a few ads to help you out.

And frankly, even if they know that the ads are pay per click, mentioning that fact is a reasonably effective call to action.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#260

Post by disappoirnt » Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 12:31 PM UTC

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.

Some ads pay upon display.

Some ads pay upon click.

Some ads pay upon purchase.

Most people (even those with 3-digit IQs) consider this stuff inside baseball, and don't investigate how different ad networks pay. Pointing out to your audience that the ads pay upon click will inspire a non-zero group of them to click a few ads to help you out.

And frankly, even if they know that the ads are pay per click, mentioning that fact is a reasonably effective call to action.