3 ms·

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

by 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...
  - mcantor 16y ago
    Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Yes, they do. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. I didn't read it as a wink-wink; I read it as a clear and honest explanation of his views: "If my users are going to click on ads because they want to help me instead of because they want to buy things, I hope they at least click on ads that interest them, so there's a CHANCE they'll buy."
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Yes, they do. You're telling me multiple site visitors, who feel no emotional connection to a site, will click "loads of ads" then comment and send emails about it of their own accord? I don't think so. It's not up to him only to suggest how his visitors interact with the ads. There are two other parties with a financial interest in the AdSense actions, one actually paying the bills.
      - mcantor 16y ago
        You're telling me multiple site visitors, who feel no emotional connection to a site... Sorry, serious question--aren't we talking about OP's visitors, who have a very distinct emotional connection to his site?
        jeromec 16y ago
        When I say 'emotional' I mean feeling emotionally compelled to take some action. Everyone feels some emotion toward sites even if it's just loving Amazon.com for having low prices. However, unlike the crowd at HN average Internet users don't even know what a browser is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ) let alone how AdSense ads work. So, no, I don't think multiple average site visitors would have it pop into their brain to click loads of ads then comment and email about their actions if unsolicited.
  - anigbrowl 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. I think you're reading way too much into his remarks. Most small sailing boats have only small auxiliary engines or batteries providing DC power. Safety requires power conservation. But video cameras require light to record an image, and most pro video lighting consumers a lot of juice but doesn't run on DC power. If it's not windy, candles efficiently provide both heat and light, and solve other video problems as well (color aesthetics). My dad sails, I've worked most of the last decade in independent film. Anyone who's into sailing or pro video understands that both are fairly high-maintenance activities with a significant cost of both time and equipment (and that discussions of this overhead is a regular conversation topic). I find it quite easy to believe he makes an overall loss on the sailing vids at present, although over a few years it has the potential to provide greater revenue (eg a documentary of the entire journey, gradual accumulation of subscribers etc.).
anigbrowl 16y ago
How is asking them not to demon click, and editing out innocent comments about having done so, a 'look the other way' attitude? Although I'm unsure exactly what encouragement he was offering without seeing a screenshot of his members-only page, from his overall tone I'd guess it was very general, 'support your favorite site' in nature. You are right that he was careless and didn't look after his own business interest by studying the contract carefully and thinking through the implications of such statements. If Google had mailed him saying 'look, [Content] at [page URL] is undermining our agreement' then I'd have no argument with it - and I don't think he would either. It's true that accommodating people this way eats into Google's overheads and can be abused by deliberate fraudsters, so there's an economic cost to doing so which seems to be less than the economic cost of strict mechanical enforcement (in terms of lost content and goodwill). Simply put, cash trumps content so Google is always more likely to side with the advertiser than the content creator who has deployed adsense incorrectly. However, only lawyers have a keen interest in people's contractual interpretation abilities. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the guy made an honest mistake because he understands cameras a lot better than contracts, and like most people he just skimmed the contract and clicked OK. He's running a pretty minimal business here - it sounds like his total annual revenue from online video is about $45,000, so spending several hours studying contract terms (or paying someone else to do so) is not a very efficient use of his time. He generates quality content doing something he enjoys, and is able to make a minimal living doing so - as someone else said upthread, he was pursuing a win-win strategy for everyone, including his advertisers. So work with me for a moment in considering the possibility that he was not a fraudster. He says he has about 700 subscribers now and has built up to adding ~120/month, 150 sailing videos in HD, and about 1 click per 200 video-minutes, for a median CTR of 6%. New members will of course spend a day or a whole weekend browsing his library (probably looking for footage of places they live/d or sail themselves), but we can figure that any spikes in ad traffic will come after posting of a new video. 6% of 700 subscribers clicking on an ad is...42 per ad. The 6% is certainly high, but given the extremely specialist nature of his sailing website you'd expect a somewhat greater yield. My personal ad responsiveness is heavily skewed towards sites offering specialist content that I'm interested rather than general-interest ones. Anyway, if there were 3 ads in the adsense box and they all got a 6% CTR, that's 126 clicks per video. As there is a time overhead to video production, that's happening at most a few times a week (for short videos), more typically a few times a month. He mentions getting about 30k hits/month from the sailing site, which is consistent with ~700 people watching 1 or 2 videos a day. At a median 6% CTR that's about 1800 clicks per month. Now we can't be sure how much this amounts to for him or for his advertisers; I'm sure it's yielding more than the YouTube content does (for obvious reasons), but his statement that the bulk of the adsense income comes from YouTube seems quite reasonable. I'm guessing that the most adsense revenue that could be coming from his sailing website is about 10% of the total, maybe $200/mo. Some of that is legit traffic; maybe $100/month is the result of over-enthusiastic supporters who click on every ad as a matter of habit, out of a total adsense payout in the region of $2000/mo., the bulk of which comes from mass-appeal videos on YouTube over which the guy has zero influence. So in the worst case, Google sees a ~5% discrepancy in the revenue being earned by a content creator with two subject categories, each of which have 100+ video offerings. Suspecting a ~5% overpayment, they withhold all payments for the previous quarter - apparently extrapolating the margin of the overpayment to the lifetime traffic of the sailing site - and cut off the relationship completely. Although their contract allows them to do this without explaining why, and there are good reasons for them to have that option available, the result is a loss of about 40% of the guy's annual income. As described, that economic hit may well be greater than his overhead in operating the boat and producing the sailing videos, so even with steady growth in subscriptions and their ancillary revenue (amazon ads), it'll take a good 6 months - 1 year to rebuild that income stream. That's a very big kick in the teeth to give someone because you think there's a 'risk' they're not using Adwords in the intended fashion, even though the benefit they may have derived (and conversely, the potential loss to your advertisers) is marginal at best. Unless he was putting a 'don't forget to click hint hint' statement on every new sailing video posting, his moral failure is surely limited to that fraction of his pages where he has made such an exhortation. And even if he made no such exhortation, some 'loyal fans' are going to click on every ad to support the site anyway, unbidden. I've done it - not on any significant scale, but in hopes that it brings in a little extra revenue for a site I like, maybe 10 clicks once a week. Users sometimes drive each other to do the same thing, eg by leaving comments visible to others, which may stay up for a day or even several days (quite likely in the case of a person living on a sailboat part-time). The absurdity that would result if you took Google's contract terms to their logical conclusion would content creators pro-actively studying analytics to understand their user behavior and throttling their access or hiding ads if they seemed like they were supporting the site too consistently or encouraging other users to do so too explicitly (people on web forums sometimes respond to advertisers they dislike by encouraging others to click heavily and increase the advertiser's cost of doing business). Of course Google doesn't want people to do that, and hiding ads from some users might violate the adwords agreement in other ways. But over-rigid enforcement of the 'no encouragement' terms creates an incentive for such behavior.

by jeromec 16y ago

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...
- mcantor 16y ago
  Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Yes, they do. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. I didn't read it as a wink-wink; I read it as a clear and honest explanation of his views: "If my users are going to click on ads because they want to help me instead of because they want to buy things, I hope they at least click on ads that interest them, so there's a CHANCE they'll buy."
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Yes, they do. You're telling me multiple site visitors, who feel no emotional connection to a site, will click "loads of ads" then comment and send emails about it of their own accord? I don't think so. It's not up to him only to suggest how his visitors interact with the ads. There are two other parties with a financial interest in the AdSense actions, one actually paying the bills.
    - mcantor 16y ago
      You're telling me multiple site visitors, who feel no emotional connection to a site... Sorry, serious question--aren't we talking about OP's visitors, who have a very distinct emotional connection to his site?
      - jeromec 16y ago
        When I say 'emotional' I mean feeling emotionally compelled to take some action. Everyone feels some emotion toward sites even if it's just loving Amazon.com for having low prices. However, unlike the crowd at HN average Internet users don't even know what a browser is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ) let alone how AdSense ads work. So, no, I don't think multiple average site visitors would have it pop into their brain to click loads of ads then comment and email about their actions if unsolicited.
- anigbrowl 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. I think you're reading way too much into his remarks. Most small sailing boats have only small auxiliary engines or batteries providing DC power. Safety requires power conservation. But video cameras require light to record an image, and most pro video lighting consumers a lot of juice but doesn't run on DC power. If it's not windy, candles efficiently provide both heat and light, and solve other video problems as well (color aesthetics). My dad sails, I've worked most of the last decade in independent film. Anyone who's into sailing or pro video understands that both are fairly high-maintenance activities with a significant cost of both time and equipment (and that discussions of this overhead is a regular conversation topic). I find it quite easy to believe he makes an overall loss on the sailing vids at present, although over a few years it has the potential to provide greater revenue (eg a documentary of the entire journey, gradual accumulation of subscribers etc.).

anigbrowl 16y ago

How is asking them not to demon click, and editing out innocent comments about having done so, a 'look the other way' attitude? Although I'm unsure exactly what encouragement he was offering without seeing a screenshot of his members-only page, from his overall tone I'd guess it was very general, 'support your favorite site' in nature. You are right that he was careless and didn't look after his own business interest by studying the contract carefully and thinking through the implications of such statements. If Google had mailed him saying 'look, [Content] at [page URL] is undermining our agreement' then I'd have no argument with it - and I don't think he would either. It's true that accommodating people this way eats into Google's overheads and can be abused by deliberate fraudsters, so there's an economic cost to doing so which seems to be less than the economic cost of strict mechanical enforcement (in terms of lost content and goodwill). Simply put, cash trumps content so Google is always more likely to side with the advertiser than the content creator who has deployed adsense incorrectly. However, only lawyers have a keen interest in people's contractual interpretation abilities. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the guy made an honest mistake because he understands cameras a lot better than contracts, and like most people he just skimmed the contract and clicked OK. He's running a pretty minimal business here - it sounds like his total annual revenue from online video is about $45,000, so spending several hours studying contract terms (or paying someone else to do so) is not a very efficient use of his time. He generates quality content doing something he enjoys, and is able to make a minimal living doing so - as someone else said upthread, he was pursuing a win-win strategy for everyone, including his advertisers. So work with me for a moment in considering the possibility that he was not a fraudster. He says he has about 700 subscribers now and has built up to adding ~120/month, 150 sailing videos in HD, and about 1 click per 200 video-minutes, for a median CTR of 6%. New members will of course spend a day or a whole weekend browsing his library (probably looking for footage of places they live/d or sail themselves), but we can figure that any spikes in ad traffic will come after posting of a new video. 6% of 700 subscribers clicking on an ad is...42 per ad. The 6% is certainly high, but given the extremely specialist nature of his sailing website you'd expect a somewhat greater yield. My personal ad responsiveness is heavily skewed towards sites offering specialist content that I'm interested rather than general-interest ones. Anyway, if there were 3 ads in the adsense box and they all got a 6% CTR, that's 126 clicks per video. As there is a time overhead to video production, that's happening at most a few times a week (for short videos), more typically a few times a month. He mentions getting about 30k hits/month from the sailing site, which is consistent with ~700 people watching 1 or 2 videos a day. At a median 6% CTR that's about 1800 clicks per month. Now we can't be sure how much this amounts to for him or for his advertisers; I'm sure it's yielding more than the YouTube content does (for obvious reasons), but his statement that the bulk of the adsense income comes from YouTube seems quite reasonable. I'm guessing that the most adsense revenue that could be coming from his sailing website is about 10% of the total, maybe $200/mo. Some of that is legit traffic; maybe $100/month is the result of over-enthusiastic supporters who click on every ad as a matter of habit, out of a total adsense payout in the region of $2000/mo., the bulk of which comes from mass-appeal videos on YouTube over which the guy has zero influence. So in the worst case, Google sees a ~5% discrepancy in the revenue being earned by a content creator with two subject categories, each of which have 100+ video offerings. Suspecting a ~5% overpayment, they withhold all payments for the previous quarter - apparently extrapolating the margin of the overpayment to the lifetime traffic of the sailing site - and cut off the relationship completely. Although their contract allows them to do this without explaining why, and there are good reasons for them to have that option available, the result is a loss of about 40% of the guy's annual income. As described, that economic hit may well be greater than his overhead in operating the boat and producing the sailing videos, so even with steady growth in subscriptions and their ancillary revenue (amazon ads), it'll take a good 6 months - 1 year to rebuild that income stream. That's a very big kick in the teeth to give someone because you think there's a 'risk' they're not using Adwords in the intended fashion, even though the benefit they may have derived (and conversely, the potential loss to your advertisers) is marginal at best. Unless he was putting a 'don't forget to click hint hint' statement on every new sailing video posting, his moral failure is surely limited to that fraction of his pages where he has made such an exhortation. And even if he made no such exhortation, some 'loyal fans' are going to click on every ad to support the site anyway, unbidden. I've done it - not on any significant scale, but in hopes that it brings in a little extra revenue for a site I like, maybe 10 clicks once a week. Users sometimes drive each other to do the same thing, eg by leaving comments visible to others, which may stay up for a day or even several days (quite likely in the case of a person living on a sailboat part-time). The absurdity that would result if you took Google's contract terms to their logical conclusion would content creators pro-actively studying analytics to understand their user behavior and throttling their access or hiding ads if they seemed like they were supporting the site too consistently or encouraging other users to do so too explicitly (people on web forums sometimes respond to advertisers they dislike by encouraging others to click heavily and increase the advertiser's cost of doing business). Of course Google doesn't want people to do that, and hiding ads from some users might violate the adwords agreement in other ways. But over-rigid enforcement of the 'no encouragement' terms creates an incentive for such behavior.