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

281–290 of 300 posts

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#281

Post by dfabulich »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #235
alanh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, here's an anecdote. http://www.choiceofgames.com/blog/2010/08/were-banned-from-g...

We're a game website -- auto-banned, appeal denied. We've done nothing wrong that we know of. Never encouraged clicking, never clicked ourselves. Since we have no access to the data, we'll never know what might have happened.

One strike -- you're banned for life.

I'll be at Google IO this year; my top priority is to find someone to talk to about this.

I know people say it's impossible to get unbanned, but I can't believe that's true. I'm going to keep trying, for years if I have to.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#282

Post by Vlasta »

brisance wrote: post #206
moultano wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and continuing to profit from the YouTube content. I believe ads are only shown on youtube content with the permission of the copyright owner. There don't appear to be any ads on his videos at the moment. Here's an example video of his: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ma_hZ00Nqk&feature=playe...

No ads doesn't mean Youtube may not generate goodwill or promote other videos from what is legally his content. i.e. someone may click on "Recommended videos" or "Similar videos" and those would have advertising.

As a video author, you have the option to remove the video. Youtube is primarily a video sharing site, not a money machine.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#283

Post by dennisgorelik »

bambax wrote: post #254
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.

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.

Isn't it against Google policy to have multiple AdSense accounts?

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#284

Post by dennisgorelik »

jdietrich wrote: post #85
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…

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 agree with you that he broke the spirit of Google AdSense CPC program. But Amazon's affiliate program is different. It's OK to incentivize affiliate purchases -- at the end your users are paying real $$$.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#285

Post by dennisgorelik »

My guess is that Google calculated how efficient was Dylan's traffic was for AdWords customers. AdWords customers can setup goals for their ads (reach certain page e.g. "ThankYouForYourPurchase.html". So if almost all traffic Dylan sent did not reach any goals, then it's disappointing for AdWords users and for Google. So when Google determined that -- they were only looking for an excuse to drop him, and Dylan gave such excuse by indirectly incentivizing users to click on AdSense ads. --- I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers ---

Still Google should be more transparent about reasons why they are dropping AdSense partners.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#286

Post by CoryMathews »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #283
bambax wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't it against Google policy to have multiple AdSense accounts?

yes

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#287

Post by mcantor »

kelnos wrote: post #196
mcantor wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I did not read carefully enough, but I didn't read anything that made it seem like he directly or indirectly asked anything. He simply makes a point of being 100% transparent in how he runs his business; part of that was explaining that ad clicks improve his revenue. Did Google expect him to lie?

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…

I wonder if that part of the ToS would hold up in court. This guy could have achieved the same effect by simply publishing some of his financial records, especially if he was going for transparency; anyone would be able to see his revenue report with an itemized entry that looked like "Ad Click Revenue - 152,380 clicks @ $X per click = $Y (50% of total revenue)". Can you actually sign away your right to publish such reports without redactions?

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#288

Post by Stormbringer »

Seems like Google's taking a leaf out of Paypal's book.

I think that a system where the only game in town has a financial incentive (they get to steal your money) to ban you is bound to be open to abuse.

====

But even apart from that I think the internet advertising model is all kinds of broken. It seems your choices are:

(a) try to get real money for content

(b) try to get tiny money (micropayments) for content

(c) give it away free, and hope that the ads you slather it with don't drive away too many people (axiom: ads always suck, and are a drain on the goodwill of the people whose time you are wasting with them)

(d) abandon all hope of making a living

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#289

Post by shashank261 »

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.

Exactly. Also, why isn't he trying out with different keywords. Placing all the eggs in a single basket wont get you much. If he diversifies ad campaign across different categories, he will see better results. If he not happy with cost per click mode, he can switch to CPM advertising where ther are lesser chances of fraud.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#290

Post by Groxx »

anigbrowl wrote: post #246
jeromec wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hidd…

Very minor violations: he mentions $3000 over a 6 week period. More than that is coming out of those advertisers' accounts. He's not a small-scale customer.

It's fraudulent because he's deliberately trying to deceive advertisers who run through Google. There's this little nugget:

>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.

Which is explicitly attempting to game the system. A second's thought of how it works will convince you: advertisers are charged by click, but they make money by purchases. Having extreme CTR with extreme bounce rates means the advertisers are being scammed. Actions caused by willful ignorance in this case look almost identical to willful intent...

And they very nearly are the same thing here. Say you noticed your bank rounded up for certain transactions. Would running thousands of those transactions with the intent to make money - the same as the article - count as willful intent to scam the bank? Would the bank be right in penalizing you for doing so?

Post reply on HN