×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Updates AdSense Rules, Still Working on Radio

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the your-love-won't-pay-my-bills dept.

Google 66

Photocritic writes "The practice of placing images above or next to adsense banners has been around for a while — the idea is to trick visitors into thinking that the Googe Ads are clickable image captions. Unsuspecting visitors click on the ads, and the webmasters make money. Now, Google has officially announced that the practice is no longer allowed. Meanwhile, the Marketwatch site is reporting that the company's previously discussed move into radio advertising is getting a mediocre reaction. Google, as yet, does not have enough access to airtime for the project to be profitable. The company plans on purchasing more airtime to expand the program, and is reportedly also looking to begin selling television ads as well." From the article: "Until Google can strike a deal with CBS, or some other radio giant, 'there will be no significant impact until mid-2007' on Google's bottom line, or the radio industry in general, [analyst Jordan] Rohan said in his research note. 'We believe a critical mass of advertisers is interested in testing the platform,' Rohan said, based on his interviews with his own sources. 'However, there is simply not enough radio inventory in the Google Audio system (yet) to enable buyers to run campaigns.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

66 comments

Adsense makes me a ton of money (3, Insightful)

ZahnRosen (1040004) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299420)

I think these rules are good, there's no point in tricking people into clicking. They have to see a value then the ads serve their purpose. Go Go Google!

Re:Adsense makes me a ton of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17300374)

If google really cares about not tricking people into clicking on ads then they should eliminate the link-unit [google.com] formatting option. I have never seen a site that use that format in a way that wasn't deliberatly trying to trick you into thinking that the links were part of the site's navigation.

PS. It looks like the submission text for the first story got chopped off as it finishes mid-sentance, and there is no link. Here is the announcement [blogspot.com] from google's adsense blog.

Re:Adsense makes me a ton of money (1)

DarkClown (7673) | more than 6 years ago | (#17303880)

the link units don't lead directly to ads - they lead to a list of related ads (and obviosuly so at that) which don't become a 'click' for the publisher unless the user actually to clicks through to one of them.

Good idea, but... (1)

xlordtyrantx (958605) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299466)

Just how do they plan on enforcing this? Take away the adsense from a webmaster if they find a site that is violating this new procedure? I mean, sure, its a bit of an unscrupulous business practice, but in the end, doesn't make more money for Google too?

Re:Good idea, but... (2, Insightful)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299498)

Not necessarily, because people who click on an ad accidentally don't tend to buy from the site they visit, so it lowers the value of google's adverts. So they get money in the short term, but less advertisers in the long run.

Re:Good idea, but... (2, Informative)

onepoint (301486) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301068)

what you say is absolutely true. Quality of the click is what counts. As an AdSense publisher, I tuned my site and made it attractive for some advertisers. over the long run I don't have as many clicks for them, but they are getting quality visitors ( maybe 2 to 3 a day ).

one advertiser call me directly and told me that my visitors that I have sent convert 50% of the time and that he was going to become a long term advertiser on my site. ( his ad's shows up on my site just about every day on the top).

my site was not designed for AdSense, but it was designed for my needs, but I am glad that the local advertisers that use Google are also making some money.

Mike

Re:Good idea, but... (2, Insightful)

Beached (52204) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299504)

I don't think that Google would make more money. They make more when advertisers believe that the click through's are from prospective/interested buyers. If there is a perception that the clicks are generally not legit or that enough of them are illegitimate, the advertisers will buy and pay less.

Re:Good idea, but... (3, Informative)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299704)

I know that I don't fully trust AdSense. I used to use AdSense, but stopped when I kept paying lots of money for ads continuously clicked from a select number of website (don't remember the URLs off the top of my head, and I don't feel like scouring my logs right now) that never went anywhere after the initial click. It was a click, then leave, over and over and over again, hundreds of times. It was obvious someone was clicking just to get their sites money from AdWords, but I still had to pay every click. So, I payed what was owed and cancelled all my campaigns, and haven't been back since.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

Joe Decker (3806) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300120)

Did you consider reporting the problem? It's my understanding (from both Adwords and Adsense customers, not just Google itself) that Google will attempt to "undo the damage" of that sort of click fraud.

I both place ads (for my photographic services) and run them on my web site. I've been happy with the results I've gotten from running my own ads, and haven't had false click-throughs as an advertiser. (I have seen something like that once as a publisher, which I reported back to Google, etc.)

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300506)

I did report the problem, and they said they would investigate. Nothing came of it, and I determined it was much easier to just cancel my campaigns, especially considering that even the clicks that did seem legitimate still did not return a profit, with about 1 pay sign-up per 40 clicks, which, at $9.99 per pay signup and $1.00 (average) per click, it wasn't worth it in the long run.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

Joe Decker (3806) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300598)

*nods* I found AdSense works a lot better for me for some products than others. The real winner for me is the art fair panels I rent out, I get $125 for renting them out for a weekend, probably end up paying 25-50 cents for a click-through and I'd guess that about a third of click-throughs end up as a rental--and sometimes those folks become repeat customers. But I gave up trying to market photographic prints that way, it might be possible, but I haven't figured out how to make it work for me.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

Alascom (95042) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300744)

>with about 1 pay sign-up per 40 clicks, which, at $9.99 per pay signup
> and $1.00 (average) per click, it wasn't worth it in the long run.

Two things here.
1. If 40 people visit your site and only 1 person signs up, then your ads were probably too generic or not relevant. If your ad claims 'free pictures of Britany' and then links to a porn signup page, well.. no surprise that people don't sign up.

2. If the ad was relevant, but your conversion rate is low (40 to 1), then you should lower the price paid per click and accept a lower ad placement. Or, more carefully track how long your signups remain members, it may be a good investment over a longer term (1-3 years) if they keep their monthly memberships. If they are dropping their membership after 1 month, then its your site, not Google that has a problem.

Obviously, I am not making and judgements about your site in particular since you never included any links or info about it... so don't take the comments above too personal.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301000)

The SECOND argument I made, and the one you are referring to, was not claiming Google had any fault in the financial aspect of the decision to stop using them, but merely explaining in more detail my decision. The primary motivator was the frustration over the evident click fraud, but another contributing factor, which was in no way Google's fault, was that the return wasn't large enough to warrant continued use. The problem was, about 90% resulted in sign-ups for the free version of my service, which is supported through AdWords, ironically.

My argument about the problem with click-fraud still stands, however. A large company can absorb a certain amount of click-fraud, and simply make its argument to Google, and hopefully have the issue resolved, but even if it is not resolved (as mine wasn't), it can still be absobed by a larger company. A start-up does not have such a luxury. That isn't Google's fault, it's just something I've learned from all this.

Re:Good idea, but... (3, Informative)

Electrum (94638) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300412)

I know that I don't fully trust AdSense. ... It was obvious someone was clicking just to get their sites money from AdWords ... I payed what was owed and cancelled all my campaigns, and haven't been back since.

AdWords is for advertisers, AdSense is for webmasters. As an advertiser, you have the option of only paying for Google search traffic (plus optionally partner search like AOL). If you don't like AdSense traffic at all, disable it for your campaigns. AdWords now allows you to block poor converting AdSense domains through the web interface.

Re:Good idea, but... (2, Interesting)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300578)

That wouldn't work financially, however, because the cost to just ENABLE search ads (much less have them appear high on the list) is generally ridiculous (except for very obscure search terms), usually on the order of $5-$25 per click, which wouldn't even be worth it if 1 out of every 2 clicks resulted in a pay sign-up. Basically, what I learned from this is: Google advertising is not really for start-ups. You need to have a certain amount of cash to spend on advertising before launching a campaign, because you WILL be paying a decent amount of money to non-genuine traffic.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

aclarke (307017) | more than 6 years ago | (#17307126)

It depends on the services you're advertising. I do ColdFusion consulting, and mostly to test out AdWords I set up some ads and I have it manage my campaign and spend a maximum of $10/month. I'm working on a client right now who found me "through Google" and have so far done about $4000 of work for them. So that's not a bad return.

You're right though, if you're fighting for space with established players, it's a tough game.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 6 years ago | (#17302040)

My company disabled afilliate ads (the display of our ads on third party websites) because of what appeared to be fraudulant clicks. Google seemed not to care.

When we turned it off, guess what? It turned itself back on. Of course, we had no explicit record to demonstrate this to google, and they had no records of their own. It cost us several thousand dollars in fees to google.

We now take screen shots of every single interaction with google's adword/adsense control system.

Overall, however, we are finding the value of ads on third party pages to be decreasing.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

Electrum (94638) | more than 6 years ago | (#17302778)

When we turned it off, guess what? It turned itself back on. Of course, we had no explicit record to demonstrate this to google, and they had no records of their own. It cost us several thousand dollars in fees to google.

Google tracks all changes made to your account. See Campaign Management -> Tools -> My Change History. I just changed a test campaign from content network to Google search only and it shows in the history:

Opted out of content network
Opted into Google

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301394)

Was it click-fraud or was it a poorly optimised site?

I'm not saying you're wrong, it might well have been a click fraud problem, but lots of people clicking through then leaving is not an uncommon problem for any advertising, not just on Googles network. People are impatient and busy, they have many things to do, which is why Google now focusses on landing page quality as an interesting thing to measure. Really improving the landing page for an advert can make a dramatic difference to the conversion rate. Google has lots of people who manage accounts and spend all day helping advertisers with this, it might be worth trying again with a small budget and contacting your AdWords rep to see if the conversion rate can be improved.

Of course if your adverts were converting really well from every site except this small handful, then it's a lot more suspicous. In that case as pointed out, you can block those sites.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301418)

The workings of Adsense are still very mysterious. I subscribed early this year after several years of deliberation (I hate advertisement). The first two months I raked 800$/mo. Since then it's been around 300$/mo. The traffic always stayed the same (the site is 10 years old). WHere does the difference come from ? They provide adsense subscribers with analysis tools, but you can go into a case by case basis, so all you got are global stats. I think overall it's a good system, but very mysterious, which is not good. Hmmm, I'm contradicting myself here...

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

onepoint (301486) | more than 6 years ago | (#17302704)

as a publisher using AdSense, I would, if I was you, pay attention to which ad's are being viewed on your site. then start filtering out the ones that are not viable for your users.

it takes about 3 months to get it right, but when you do, you get quality advertisers and your revenue stream should increase.

Mike

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 6 years ago | (#17303748)

Yeah, I had the same issue, in about two years time, late 2004 until mid this year, I saw my adwords/adsense ads cost for my hobby site go from $20/month to a peak of over a hundred, given this was my limit. Most of those were "content network" ads... where from my own checking it was the search ads that brought in more users signing up... So I nuked the content ads, and my monthly fees are under $20 again. Also, I am able to get a few words/phrases that are a bit more expensive per-click, that I didn't do before.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 6 years ago | (#17306012)

It was a click, then leave, over and over and over again, hundreds of times.

Maybe it was time to think whether it is really fraud, or whether anyone is really compelled to stay on your site for more than 2 secs after entering.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

EVil Lawyer (947367) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299572)

Just how do they plan on enforcing this? Take away the adsense from a webmaster if they find a site that is violating this new procedure?

Um, yes. Exactly.

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

xlordtyrantx (958605) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299614)

Not a webmaster here. It was actually a legit question :-)

Re:Good idea, but... (1)

Joe Decker (3806) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300170)

*nods* It is a good question.

With other policies Google has, I'm told, been pretty direct about closing down publishers when their sites seem to be the source of fraudulent clicks. I'm OK with that, although it's a bit intimidating, I make a decent amount of money off of AdSense right now (legitimately, I believe), and I'd like that to continue, but then, I'm not trying to scam them, either, I've been happy with both AdSense and with buying ads on their system (for my photographic services as well as for the non-profit I work for.)

Running on empty? (4, Funny)

martyb (196687) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299496)

FTFAS:
'However, there is simply not enough radio inventory in the Google Audio System (yet) to enable buyers to run campaigns.'

Got it started, but then ran out of G.A.S.? <grin>

Is it worth it? (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299584)

Maybe I'm off base, but I wouldn't have expected the supreme 21st-century new-millennium Web-2.0 information-superhighway buzzword-erific folks at Google to bother with ancient and increasingly less relevant mainstream network radio. Wouldn't they be jumping all over Internet or satellite radio, instead?

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299656)

Wouldn't they be jumping all over Internet or satellite radio, instead?

I believe that such services are subscription based (i.e. no ads) so there isn't any room for Google to come in.

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

EVil Lawyer (947367) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299756)

Satellite radio is subscription based, but increasingly also carries advertisements. Kind of like cable TV.

Re:Is it worth it? (2, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300810)

Satellite radio is subscription based, but increasingly also carries advertisements. Kind of like cable TV.


Not really. Satellite radio gets its programming from two sources - in house, and 3rd party. In house stuff is supposed to remain commercial free. It's the 3rd party stuff that carries ads, because the 3rd party supplies them. Clear Channel, for example, supplies content for several XM channels. They were initially commercial free, but then CC decided to put ads on. XM scrambled to setup new channels to replace them with in-house programming similar in style. So the CC-produced stuff has ads, while the inhouse stuff doesn't.

Also, since most of the talk radio is syndicated from 3rd parties, you'll have ads there, while the inhouse produced talk radio isn't (like why you don't have ads on Stern (Sirius) or Ron & Fez and the like, but on channels like CNN, BBC, etc. you have ads).

The easiest way to find out what is produced in house vs. 3rd party on satellite radio is checking out the online offerings - XM and Sirius don't have online redistribution rights to most 3rd-party produced channels, just on-air rights. So you won't find CNN/BBC/ESPN/etc. on their online offerings (but of course, Stern/Ron&Fez).

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

WaXHeLL (452463) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300904)

"Also, since most of the talk radio is syndicated from 3rd parties, you'll have ads there, while the inhouse produced talk radio isn't (like why you don't have ads on Stern (Sirius) or Ron & Fez and the like, but on channels like CNN, BBC, etc. you have ads)." Not to mention that most of the feeds like CNN, BBC, etc are the audio-only feeds of the TV channel. Nice bonus and suprisingly effective.

Re:Is it worth it? (2, Insightful)

otacon (445694) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299786)

If google could advertise on satellite radio that would be ideal, because the stations are geared towards a specific genre, whether it be sports or rap music, and you could gear ads towards a certain demographic.

And regular radio isn't? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300472)

...advertise on satellite radio that would be ideal, because the stations are geared towards a specific genre, whether it be sports or rap music, and you could gear ads towards a certain demographic.


And regular radio stations aren't "geared" toward a particular demographic? C'mon, kid: almost all modern media, including SlashDot is directed at a particular audience/demographic.

(As a Google AdWord subscriber, I can also tell you one thing Google currently does a very poor job of now is targeting particular demographics, especially if you ever use the hopeless "affiliate" feature on your buys.)

Re:And regular radio isn't? (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301202)

to an extent yes...but there are a lot of mixed variety stations...Top 40 stations...where anyone from a 10 year old to a grandma can listen to...of course there are stations like that on xm or sirius but the satellite stations also have very specific genres...comedy...heavy metal...that could fit ads to a particular niche... in larger cities you have more variety on standard radio...but it smaller cities and even rural you are stuck with only a few choices on normal radio...especially in the bible belt.

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301732)

That would be a better idea if it weren't for the fact that satelite radio is commercial free. Although I've heard there are some commercials on XM, Sirius has a firm "No Ads" policy. I just hope it stays that way and doens't do what cable tv did. I still can't understand why I pay a subscription to Comcast every month, yet I am still force-fed billions of commercials on the networks they carry.

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300558)

Perhaps, but given the wide number of radio station formats with solid demographic ranges, and also given that people do still listen to the radio quite a bit despite the advance of technology (else why would there be satellite radio?), Google's making a smart move in trying to wedge its way in. After all, there is an untapped market for them -- the casual computer user. Someone who may use one at an Internet cafe or library for browsing, or has a computer at home but rarely uses it for more than email or to play Solitaire. While we'd like to believe Google is everywhere, there are places they've yet to reach. It seems to me that they are trying broaden their base to its limit, to ensure that not even a loss of net neutrality can break their dominance.

As an aside, why don't they just buy a NY radio station? I can hear it now... "Live from the heart of Manhattan, you're listen to WGGL... All Google, all the time... give us 40 milliseconds and we'll give you 5 million search results...

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

pudro (983817) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301320)

Why would Google get involved with satellite radio? Google specializes in the targeting factor of the advertising. There isn't any targeting to be done with satellite radio outside of targeting the market as a whole or individual stations (which they don't need Google for). Everybody across the entire country hears the exact same thing.

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#17303242)

Everybody across the entire country hears the exact same thing.
Have you listened to any major broadcast network radio at all lately? You could actually drive coast to coast and hear the same ten songs over and over.

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

pudro (983817) | more than 6 years ago | (#17303648)

You missed the entire point of my post. The point is that with satellite radio everyone across the entire country hears the same commercials. Google has nothing to do with the content. The only ad-targeting to do on Satellite radio could be done by dozens of different groups. (Actually, I don't see how Google is any better equipped to do any radio advertising, though that doesn't mean they can't do it well.)

Do no evil (when it counts) (-1, Flamebait)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299618)

Exactly what is wrong about a poor blogger making money off a multibillion dollar company that got there in the first place by freeriding on content published by poor web developers?

Re:Do no evil (when it counts) (2, Insightful)

hajejan (549838) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299690)

Think about this as an user of the website in question. If you are trying to navigate a website, then what looks like an image caption should be an image caption. Anything else is just usability flaws, which is bad form, bad manners, and bloody annoying. I think it's a good mood, and I think you're off topic in your rant.

Re:Do no evil (when it counts) (1)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299738)

Maybe users who can't tell ads from site images don't deserve such consideration ;)

Re:Do no evil (when it counts) (1)

hajejan (549838) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299790)

That did strike me as well, but the problem is that the vast bulk of web users aren't fully web-savvy. One of the big downfalls of the web is the dozens of different user interfaces and user experiences available to web users, and unscrupulous webmasters trying to confuse people even further to make a few bucks ain't helping.

Re:Do no evil (when it counts) (1)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299820)

If they were unscrupulous, they wouldn't be using adsense, right? They'd go for flashing banners and "you've won something big" marquees. Cut them some slack will you? Deltas are always in majority. Lets use them.

This is COMPLETELY out of order! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17299670)

How the fuck are you supposed to make money from adsense if you use shortcuts like this? Do you think the ads just fucking click themselves?

Google has gone way too far with this!

Coming Soon (3, Funny)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299706)

Until Google can strike a deal with CBS, or some other radio giant...
Google announces deal with Clear Channel in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Similar policies exist, or do they? (2, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#17299746)

In most magazines and newspapers, if an advertizer mimics the content of the mag or newspaper too closely, the publisher adds a prominant "ADVERTISEMENT" headers and footers to separate the ad from the content. So it might appear that google policy is just an on line implementation.

On the other hand, unless I have misunderstood the policy completely, here Google prohibits content from mimicking the ad too closely. Do we have any thing like that in the print world? Time Mag specifically making its article look like an ad?

Does it mean that someday TiVo would ban TV shows from inserting fake ads to fool its ad-skipper? Nah, TiVo has already sold out to the corps. MythTV does not have the clout.

Re:Similar policies exist, or do they? (1)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300060)

Well, you can't exactly click ads in a magazine either. I think this policy is important because google is basically saying "we don't want our advertisers to attempt trick consumers". Whether or not these ads actually tricked anyone is moot, the point is they tried to trick consumers.

Re:Similar policies exist, or do they? (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301768)

It's different from the magazine scenario.

In this case, it's the PUBLISHER trying to trick the consumer. The advertiser is the one who is really tricked though, because they ultimately pay for the click.

Re:Similar policies exist, or do they? (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300576)

Google prohibits content from mimicking the ad too closely.
Google does not prohibit content from mimicking ads, they prohibit ads from mimicking content.

Luckily, I don't listen to radio (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17300036)

Since I had bought my first MP3 player (tiny 20GB Archos Gmini) I stopped listening to radio. Don't miss it even a tiny little bit.

Ads will rot your brain!

I wonder what will happen to share price... (2, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300048)

I wonder what will happen to share price when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company?

Also, I wonder why Google doesn't just hand this "challenge" to its gaggle of geeks and say, "no deadline, no pressure, and you can call it beta if you're afraid to stand behind it."

Re:I wonder what will happen to share price... (1)

pacalis (970205) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300468)

I wonder what will happen to all the free google goodies I use when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company? I also wonder what happens when traditional media catches up using higher quality media. Limiting the use of texts ads does not sound like allowing all those innovation flowers to bloom.

Re:I wonder what will happen to share price... (2, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300780)

Logically it would rise. Google is currently 353rd on the Fortune 500 list. Time Warner is 40th, and most of the other big media groups are in the top 100.

And for those who are interested, Yahoo is 412th despite sooo many fingers in sooo many pies. Ditto for eBay at 458th. Microsoft is 48th, not 666th as many /.ers would naturally expect.

Re:I wonder what will happen to share price... (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 6 years ago | (#17302590)

I wonder what will happen to share price when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company?

Logically it would rise. Google is currently 353rd on the Fortune 500 list. Time Warner is 40th, and most of the other big media groups are in the top 100.

That's somewhat apples-and-oranges. Google isn't a media company - its an ad agency. Time-Warner and the other big media companies are content creators and providers - niether of which Google does.

How broadly is "unacceptable" defined? (1)

jtdarlington (1041656) | more than 6 years ago | (#17300678)

I happen to run a fairly popular online comic site and use AdSense ads to supplement some of our existing advertising. What I want to know is just how broad their definition of "unacceptable implementations" is. The common practice that I and many other online cartoonists tend to use is to place images above or near the ads to actually draw attention to them, hoping our readers will click on them. The images tend to be eye-catching and related directly to the comic; i.e., the images on my site are of one my main characters and are in no way influenced by the content of the ads themselves.

I personally don't think any of my readers will automatically assume a "relationship" between my character and the products and sites being displayed by the ads. (Unless Google is feeding me ads for Asian mail-order brides, in which I have bigger problems to worry about.) So I'm wondering how strict they're going to be in policing this new policy. I have no intention on changing my site as my interpretation of their blog post states that only misleading images are in violation, and in my opinion there's nothing misleading about the images I'm using. But if they're intending to take an all-or-nothing, slash-and-burn approach, there are a lot of us the webcomic community who are in for a world of hurt. I know of a number of cartoonists who have been burned by Google before for "violating" their terms in questionable contexts.

Re:How broadly is "unacceptable" defined? (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 6 years ago | (#17301662)

Yes, I would think that your implementation would also be unacceptable. When you look at the purpose of your images, it is to draw attention to the ad. There is already a policy about not drawing undo attention to ads.


If you images were actually there for a reason, like clickable thumbnails of other comics, then, that would be a different story.


Since this practice is so wide spread, I think they'll only slowly act. They probably will only go after the people putting the images next to the ads first. However, if you really love your adsense account, I would seriously reconsider what you are doing.

Re:How broadly is "unacceptable" defined? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17301846)

I agree, what is on your site is obviously not appropriate. It does in fact create a false sense that the images are related to the ads.

Re:How broadly is "unacceptable" defined? (1)

antic (29198) | more than 6 years ago | (#17307100)

I saw another site use this technique of placing thumbnails above text ads and gave it a shot. It doubled the number of clicks I was receiving.

Not sure what to make of this news. I was quite happy earning the extra money, but I'd rather not have my account switched off. :|

Re:How broadly is "unacceptable" defined? (1)

antic (29198) | more than 6 years ago | (#17307170)

Oh, and sorry to double-post, but I was contacted by Google's AdSense Optimization Program recently. Their advice for one of my sites was to actually make the ads look as much like the content as possible - confusing.

Adsense vs Bidvertiser (1)

slashthedot (991354) | more than 6 years ago | (#17305476)

I prefer Bidvertiser over Adsense. Bidvertiser shows you the ads available for your site and also how much each ad is worth. This is in complete contrast to Adsense where you have no idea what is going on. I used to earn a few cents a week with adsense in my blog. With bidvertiser I have earned $0.51 in just one day!!!!!!!!!
here here [blogspot.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...