8 ms·

Don't be heartless. There are thousands of dollars being stolen from an honest cameraman and you don't think Google owes him one word from a real human? Honestl

by alanh 16y ago

Don't be heartless. There are thousands of dollars being stolen from an honest cameraman and you don't think Google owes him one word from a real human? Honestly?

patio11 16y ago
I'm the last guy in line to apologize for Google's attitude with regards to customer service, but to the extent my cynical blackened heart beats for anyone, it is the kayaking guy (et al) who paid those thousands of dollars and received no service in return for it. They have kids to put through school and Christmas presents to buy, too. He got a real human to look into his account, incidentally, which I would have killed for a few times. They told him the breaks: you broke the rules, no, there is no second chance.
- Zak 16y ago
  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 that clicking the ads gets him money. I agree, that's not fair to the advertisers.
  - patio11 16y ago
    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.
    - dhimes 16y ago
      Did you read the Mea Culpa? Unless Mr. Winter is lying, Zak's question still stands. It seems like there is a potential for injustice when the reviews are held in secret like they were. All Google put forth was that there was a risk of generating invalid [click] activity. As one who, like you, pays for that invalid activity I am glad to see Google do what they can to stem it. But it gets very serious in my mind when they can also take the cash from the account. They should be required to show explicitly their justification. If that means that their business has to change because their algorithms are exposed, so be it. What they are doing does not seem to be a fair business practice to me, and I worry about the precedent they are being allowed to set.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - epoxyhockey 16y ago
      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.
      - il 16y ago
        They actually have been doing this for some time with Smart Pricing. It wasn't working too well.
      - nikster 16y ago
        It's not that simple. Real cheaters will react, and devise counter strategies to whatever you are tying to do. I can understand that Google is strict about this, that's their core business, CPC and conversion rate are what makes them the best advertising platform in the world. They have to protect that fiercely, even if some unfortunate users are thrown under the bus along the way. Is it possible in the AdSense scheme to set up multiple accounts? It seems if he'd had an account for the YouTube site, and another one for his sailing stuff, he'd at least have kept his money maker.
      - vacri 16y ago
        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?
    - aznnico 16y ago
      That's not necessarily true. Google sends out different emails depending on the method in which it banned you. The message that was sent out rules out a few automated systems, but doesn't tell the cause. Having high ctr doesn't mean its bad. There are accounts with 20% ctr which are fine. -Ex Google Spam
    - mcantor 16y ago
      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?
      - kelnos 16y ago
        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 scary legal document, but you can't say they didn't warn you.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        > 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.
        FiddlerClamp 16y ago
        They may think you only get paid if a) they click and b) they buy...
        disappoirnt 16y ago
        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.
    - bambax 16y ago
      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.
      - dennisgorelik 16y ago
        Isn't it against Google policy to have multiple AdSense accounts?
        CoryMathews 16y ago
        yes
    - shashank261 16y ago
      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.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    He also knew something was wrong with encouraging AdSense clicks as noted from the article: I did get the odd subscriber sending me an email saying that he had clicked loads of adverts. This is called demon clicking. I would reply that I would prefer them to only click on adverts they were interested in. I allow my subscribers to leave comments on the films. If one of them mentioned clicking on adverts to show their appreciation - well it’s a nice gesture, but I would edit their posting to remove the mention. It sounds to me like he enjoyed his visitors padding his AdSense revenue, but took a look-the-other-way attitude to their getting click-happy. I'm sorry, but it sounds like he sacked himself. When you work for someone else you have little control over getting sacked. When you work for yourself you shoulder more responsibility and control of your fate (as many on HN know), which includes knowing the terms of partner agreements you enter into. It's not like Google buries their zero tolerance policy for fraudulent click behavior under hard to read fine print.
    - true_religion 16y ago
      The rule says you can't encourage your visitors to click. It doesn't say that you have to actively discourage people from clicking to ensure only those most determined to buy the product actually click. As to him "looking the other way", he explicitly said he replied by telling them to only click on adverts that they were interested in. I'd say he went above and beyond.
      - jeromec 16y ago
        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. Then he tells them a way he makes money: yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers You say that's not encouragement? Well, others thought it was enough to comment about extra ad clicking and even proudly email him about it. His response? That he "preferred" they only clicked ads they were interested in. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Ironically, they thought they were helping him out...

by alanh 16y ago

Don't be heartless. There are thousands of dollars being stolen from an honest cameraman and you don't think Google owes him one word from a real human? Honestly?

patio11 16y ago

I'm the last guy in line to apologize for Google's attitude with regards to customer service, but to the extent my cynical blackened heart beats for anyone, it is the kayaking guy (et al) who paid those thousands of dollars and received no service in return for it. They have kids to put through school and Christmas presents to buy, too. He got a real human to look into his account, incidentally, which I would have killed for a few times. They told him the breaks: you broke the rules, no, there is no second chance.

Zak 16y ago
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 that clicking the ads gets him money. I agree, that's not fair to the advertisers.
- patio11 16y ago
  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.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    Did you read the Mea Culpa? Unless Mr. Winter is lying, Zak's question still stands. It seems like there is a potential for injustice when the reviews are held in secret like they were. All Google put forth was that there was a risk of generating invalid [click] activity. As one who, like you, pays for that invalid activity I am glad to see Google do what they can to stem it. But it gets very serious in my mind when they can also take the cash from the account. They should be required to show explicitly their justification. If that means that their business has to change because their algorithms are exposed, so be it. What they are doing does not seem to be a fair business practice to me, and I worry about the precedent they are being allowed to set.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - epoxyhockey 16y ago
    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.
    - il 16y ago
      They actually have been doing this for some time with Smart Pricing. It wasn't working too well.
    - nikster 16y ago
      It's not that simple. Real cheaters will react, and devise counter strategies to whatever you are tying to do. I can understand that Google is strict about this, that's their core business, CPC and conversion rate are what makes them the best advertising platform in the world. They have to protect that fiercely, even if some unfortunate users are thrown under the bus along the way. Is it possible in the AdSense scheme to set up multiple accounts? It seems if he'd had an account for the YouTube site, and another one for his sailing stuff, he'd at least have kept his money maker.
    - vacri 16y ago
      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?
  - aznnico 16y ago
    That's not necessarily true. Google sends out different emails depending on the method in which it banned you. The message that was sent out rules out a few automated systems, but doesn't tell the cause. Having high ctr doesn't mean its bad. There are accounts with 20% ctr which are fine. -Ex Google Spam
  - mcantor 16y ago
    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?
    - kelnos 16y ago
      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 scary legal document, but you can't say they didn't warn you.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        > 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.
        FiddlerClamp 16y ago
        They may think you only get paid if a) they click and b) they buy...
        disappoirnt 16y ago
        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.
  - bambax 16y ago
    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.
    - dennisgorelik 16y ago
      Isn't it against Google policy to have multiple AdSense accounts?
      - CoryMathews 16y ago
        yes
  - shashank261 16y ago
    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.
- jeromec 16y ago
  He also knew something was wrong with encouraging AdSense clicks as noted from the article: I did get the odd subscriber sending me an email saying that he had clicked loads of adverts. This is called demon clicking. I would reply that I would prefer them to only click on adverts they were interested in. I allow my subscribers to leave comments on the films. If one of them mentioned clicking on adverts to show their appreciation - well it’s a nice gesture, but I would edit their posting to remove the mention. It sounds to me like he enjoyed his visitors padding his AdSense revenue, but took a look-the-other-way attitude to their getting click-happy. I'm sorry, but it sounds like he sacked himself. When you work for someone else you have little control over getting sacked. When you work for yourself you shoulder more responsibility and control of your fate (as many on HN know), which includes knowing the terms of partner agreements you enter into. It's not like Google buries their zero tolerance policy for fraudulent click behavior under hard to read fine print.
  - true_religion 16y ago
    The rule says you can't encourage your visitors to click. It doesn't say that you have to actively discourage people from clicking to ensure only those most determined to buy the product actually click. As to him "looking the other way", he explicitly said he replied by telling them to only click on adverts that they were interested in. I'd say he went above and beyond.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      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. Then he tells them a way he makes money: yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers You say that's not encouragement? Well, others thought it was enough to comment about extra ad clicking and even proudly email him about it. His response? That he "preferred" they only clicked ads they were interested in. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Ironically, they thought they were helping him out...