Live data from Hacker News

Sacked by a Google algorithm

duckworksmagazine.com

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#291
post #79
post #17

Seems like part of the problem is that YouTube revenue is tied together to revenue from AdSense for websites, even though the two services are affected by click fraud differently. Now Google is still making money from the author's popular YouTube videos, and he won't see a penny. The "correct" response would be to pull all his videos from YouTube, move them to a competing service, and write Google to let them know wh…

http://www.vimeo.com/ ?

Except Vimeo doesn't allow commercial use.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#292
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…

I can not agree. There is an enormous difference between click-farming and a courteous 'please support this site by considering the fine offerings of my advertisers.' Also, to cut off all his YouTube income because of a misreading of his pitch on a tiny subscription-driven site is BS - there's no sign that he abused YouTube in any way. I appreciate that a more responsive feedback loop can be exploited by bad guys as…

6% CTR implies otherwise. As others have noted, that's not just abnormally high, that's impossibly high for legitimate behavior.

A warning would have been better. But by this point he had already essentially scammed advertisers for tens of thousands of dollars (he mentions $3000 in the last 6 week period).

What would you suggest a middle-man do, if person-X has scammed your clients for tens of thousands of dollars? A polite warning, or cut them off ASAP? And remember that in this case the middle-man is the largest middle-man out there, and deals with billions of interactions.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#293
post #199
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…

You've wandered far off the reservation on this one. I reckon describing his actions as "fradulent" and "dishonest" is slanderous.

Why? How far from "willful intent" is "willful ignorance"? Especially in the face of precisely, unquestionably violating the very first agreement checkbox of a contract?[1] If you can even claim ignorance, that is; they were informed. That's kind of the point of contracts.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2051078

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#294
post #214
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…

"Emotion can trump facts". I think the guy's point is, emotion should sometimes trump facts. No Google human was involved. A big chunk of the internet economy is controlled by a heartless robot who can't tell the difference between a middle ages sailor guy going a little over the line, and dedicated click fraud. Shit, even the IRS lets you explain to a human and maybe get a second chance.

Given how long this went on, I'd be willing to bet that an advertiser noticed the abnormally high referrals + abnormally high bounce rate, and complained to Google. The whole "Google's impersonal algorithm did this to me" stance is entirely a guess, because they explicitly don't disclose what was detected nor how it was detected.

Heck, I'd bet an algorithm would've caught it (or at least flagged it, caused a review, and had it confirmed) a loooong time ago. Which would've cut off his income while it was smaller. A smooth-functioning, impersonal algorithm may have been preferable in this case.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#295
This is what kills me about advertising--I literally can't believe it works. Yet, heres an article about a guy using an ad company to show ads to generate revenue, and in the comments here at HN, a viewpoint from some one using an ad company to have their company advertised. In both cases they actually state that: a) there is actually a conversion rate between ads on a site and purchases for a product, and b) imply that the conversion rate is substantial enough to facilitate ad companies and the whole ad process.

This flabbergasts me, because I have never ever once clicked on an advertisement [on purpose] with the intention of finding out more or purchasing an advertised product (nor the purpose to "support" a site). I literally liken it to falling for Nigerian scams. That's not to say I've never been influenced by advertising--but in general I do tend to buy store brands [cheaper] over name brands. I certainly have never been so influenced to feel the immediate actionable need to buy a product after having seen an ad.

But this isn't a rant about how I hate ads, actually I'm hoping one of you amazing HN people can explain, with logic, why and how ads work? Whats the mentality of people (sheep?) that see and ad after watching a truck video and think, gee I really must visit this car wax website and buy some car wax now. There gotta be some kind of psychology or game theory that explains the successfulness of the [online] ad industry.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#296
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might seem that way to you but it's not true. You can talk about AdSense all you want, as you and many others did commenting on this story. What you cannot do, for obvious reasons, is to entice people to click on ads. It doesn't matter how subtle the encouragement is, how good are your intentions, how many kids you still have to support, how many kittens you saved from certain death. It is against the rules that a…

It is against the rules that are both obvious if you think about them and spelled clearly in AdSense agreement Laws are also both obvious and spelled clearly. Nevertheless we need judges to interpret them according to each situation. Even with those judges in place, we still accept that some people will be punished for moral behavior, while others will walk free for immoral behavior, because a law cannot possibly cov…

it seems to be the regrettable situation where someone is being punished for moral behavior

Someone is being held accountable for a contract they willingly entered. The morality of the behavior is not at issue - moral or not they legally agreed not to do it. The rest, IMO, is hand waving.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#297
Google could show much better judgment in their response. Perhaps he did technically break the rules, but not wantonly and not with malevolent intentions. He deserves a warning, and perhaps to have some percentage of his income returned to advertisers, but taking ALL the money in his account and completely shutting off a significant portion of this man's income stream for what amounts to a relatively innocent mistake is a huge overreaction and a lousy thing to do to someone. You're better than this Google.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

As far as I can tell, you're ranking fine in Google's search results. You show up for your company's name and other queries, and I don't see any manual spam actions regarding choiceofgames.com.

From the blog post you mention, it sounds like your issue is with AdSense. I'm not on that side of the company, so I'm not sure how much assistance I can help with. I can drop an email to some folks in AdSense, but that doesn't guarantee anything of course, and I suspect they're on vacation this weekend. I'll still try to send an email though.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#299
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) Google bills my credit card for hundreds of dollars. Did you complain? Were you issued a refund? I'm trying to understand how Google justifies withholding past earnings from the site owner and continuing to profit from the YouTube content. If they incur real costs from refunding advertisers, it makes some sense. But if they keep everyone's money, they have an incentive to abuse the system.

>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...

The poster of that video is Duckworks, who published Dylan Winters's story. Mr. Winter's videos are at http://www.youtube.com/user/dylanwinter1 No sailing there at all: purely trucking and a bit of New Zealand sheep.

Re: Sacked by a Google algorithm

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate to incriminate myself, actually not really, but anyway create account in mom's name at mom's address. Create account in dog's name at PO Box. You get the idea.

Fuck tha G-ride I want the machines that are makin em

Post reply on HN