4 ms·

I've also voiced this frustration with Google. I have software which helps middle school kids learn to organize and write essays. I get lumped in with essay f

by dhimes 16y ago

I've also voiced this frustration with Google. I have software which helps middle school kids learn to organize and write essays. I get lumped in with essay farms (thus, requiring review) every fucking time I change one little thing in my ads. I told someone at Google the following (I actually got someone to answer the damn phone- a number that showed up in Google search results for Google's phone number): I shop at a grocery store that allows me to take a hand-held upc scanner and scan and pay for my own groceries on my honor. Occasionallly there is a spot-check: my checkout/payment interaction will halt and someone will come over and scan n items in my bags (0<n<U) and then let me proceed (not sure what happens if they find something I didn't scan in my bags). The longer I shop there without incident, the less frequent my spot-checks seem to be. This is great for all involved. Why can't Google do the same thing? They've reviewed every ad, and after 3 years they've never had a issue. Seems like they should give me the benefit of the doubt and let the ads run (and check on them if they feel the need). I've proved myself and never had an ad rejected. This bothers me so much that I really hate doing business with Google. I've made it a priority to make Google obsolete in my next launch. Well, except that they own everything else on the web, too...

patio11 16y ago
I am glad to hear I am not alone here. That "reputation for not screwing us buys you better service" would be nice, and it would scarcely be a first for Google, since it is baked into their Quality Score ratings and spiritually similar to things in core search, too. I can only remember having had a handful of ads disapproved. Most times I just resubmit with something teachery in the ad text.
bambax 16y ago
The difference is the risk. If you steal (or "forget" to scan) a pack of noodles then the grocery store loses maybe one dollar. If an inappropriate ad gets through it could (potentially) lead to a major PR disaster for Google. Whereas you being unhappy with the product or the process really makes no difference to Google, since they are the only game in town. (For the record I'm really not "defending" them; I just try to understand their incentives).
- dhimes 16y ago
  Well they need to fix something because the essay farms were getting through. I think my suggestion would work. I'm sure they could find some heuristics for identifying marketers who might be trying to game them based on trust (say, ads that don't stay active long enough for a reviewer to see in order to sneak by). And it's a huge risk for me to get caught, even once.
- notahacker 16y ago
  That's the biggest problem of all: although they may have improved in the past few years, Google's filters to keep out scam sites aren't even borderline adequate anyway. Google "HYIP" and click on one of the ads if you want to find a website to help you give your money to criminals operating Ponzi schemes. Now granted, a lot of people searching for implausibly high yield investment plans are aware of the rules of the shady game they're getting into, but they really ought to be triggering more filters and failing more manual reviews than bingo card creation.

by dhimes 16y ago

patio11 16y ago

I am glad to hear I am not alone here. That "reputation for not screwing us buys you better service" would be nice, and it would scarcely be a first for Google, since it is baked into their Quality Score ratings and spiritually similar to things in core search, too. I can only remember having had a handful of ads disapproved. Most times I just resubmit with something teachery in the ad text.

bambax 16y ago

The difference is the risk. If you steal (or "forget" to scan) a pack of noodles then the grocery store loses maybe one dollar. If an inappropriate ad gets through it could (potentially) lead to a major PR disaster for Google. Whereas you being unhappy with the product or the process really makes no difference to Google, since they are the only game in town. (For the record I'm really not "defending" them; I just try to understand their incentives).

dhimes 16y ago
Well they need to fix something because the essay farms were getting through. I think my suggestion would work. I'm sure they could find some heuristics for identifying marketers who might be trying to game them based on trust (say, ads that don't stay active long enough for a reviewer to see in order to sneak by). And it's a huge risk for me to get caught, even once.
notahacker 16y ago
That's the biggest problem of all: although they may have improved in the past few years, Google's filters to keep out scam sites aren't even borderline adequate anyway. Google "HYIP" and click on one of the ads if you want to find a website to help you give your money to criminals operating Ponzi schemes. Now granted, a lot of people searching for implausibly high yield investment plans are aware of the rules of the shady game they're getting into, but they really ought to be triggering more filters and failing more manual reviews than bingo card creation.