7 ms·

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of thi

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of this, the ability to serve and monetise through all products which depend on AdSense will also be disabled (for example, AdMob and YouTube). > We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary detection system, we’re unable to provide our publishers with information about specific account activity. > Once you’ve made changes to your site(s), app(s) or channel(s) to comply with our programme policies and terms of service, you can reach out to us using our appeal process. Please make sure that you provide a complete analysis of your traffic or other reasons that may have led to invalid activity in your appeal. I realize that the term Kafka-esque is a bit overused nowadays... but this sounds exactly like a plot summary of Der Process.

danudey 5y ago
"We've noticed that you're violating our policies." "Which policies?" "That's none of your business." "How are we violating them?" "I'm not going to tell you." "What can we do?" "Fix the issues, and then appeal." "Which issues?" "I've said too much already."
- breakingcups 5y ago
  Seeing it spelled out like this really puts things even more in perspective.
- obviouslynotme 5y ago
  I am going to save this and print it out with the title "This is why we don't do business with Google."
- mike_d 5y ago
  I used to work detecting ad fraud. Publishers would do bad things, call in, and try to get their account rep to get details. Obviously I can't say "of the last 2500 ad clicks zero of them had any mouse movement over the ad before the click event" because then the publisher obviously just fixes their fraud software. This isn't specific to Google or even advertising. Every company has figured out when dealing with abuse and fraud sharing the minimum amount of information is beneficial to the health of the ecosystem as a whole.
  - vaastav 5y ago
    What about false positives? How did you account for that?
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      You make your peace with the fact that you'll have a certain rate of false positives, where you'll intentionally lose also some legitimate business in order to keep most of the "ecosystem" cleaner. Perhaps an unsatifying answer, but that's it. It's not a situation like putting someone in prison where "beyond all reasonable doubt" is the appropriate mark; you can refuse to do business based on mere suspicion that may be mistaken. There's a limit where extra investigation or appeals is too costly compared to just accepting the lost revenue, and for small-scale customers, that limit is quite low. With fraud detection, you have to balance the tradeoff between false positives and false negatives, but you'll certainly have both.
      - p49k 5y ago
        In Google’s case, this is not enough. They exert too much control over the online advertising industry that it’s simply unfair to ban anyone with no explanation and recourse. It should be illegal. It’s almost impossible to effectively monetize an app or website using ads without including various Google technologies and services, and that’s Google’s own doing; they’re the ones who purchased all of those companies and integrated their own products in a way that makes them inseparable.
    - mike_d 5y ago
      People have this misconception that ad networks some how get joy from turning people off for no reason. Every ad shown is a penny in their pocket, even if its 100% fraud. When advertisers start asking for money back is when investigations are launched and accounts are terminated. There are literally no false positives. It may be fraud, it may be the ad is too close to a back button and gets accidently clicked, it could be the ads don't display right. But at the end of the day, it is a revenue decision.
    - x0x0 5y ago
- busymom0 5y ago
  There are several similar examples on android development subreddit. The best one which comes to my mind if when a developer got their account suspended because they were using a trademarked name in their metadata. The trademark name was "Windows". The developer was referring to house windows, not the Microsoft Windows....
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 5y ago
PSA: "Der Process", English "The Trial", is old enough so you can read it for free on the internet, e.g. on Project Gutenberg: https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849 https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849 It's a really entertaining read. And yes, it perfectly matches this situation - right in the very first sentence already.
- Kliment 5y ago
  For German users who are blocked from Project Gutenberg, here is the original text (in German) http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Kafka,+Franz/Romane/Der+Proze%C3%9F http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Kafka,+Franz/Romane/Der+Proz...
  - greazy 5y ago
    Why is PG blocked in Germany? > As a result of a German lawsuit, Project Gutenberg has blocked Germany from viewing the Gutenberg web site. Oh... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180306/03423339363/project-gutenberg-blocks-access-germany-to-all-public-domain-books-because-local-copyright-claim-18-them.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180306/03423339363/proje...
- aasasd 5y ago
  Note that apparently there's a late-ish ‘restoration’ that seems to correct some of Max Brod's editing decisions so that the plot is more straightforward, if that can be said of the novel. Literally the chapters' proper order is unknown. I listened to the audiobook of that (read by Geoffrey Howard), and while the reading itself is fine, you'll want to avoid the editors' preface because it gives out some plot points and the ending. (PSA: if you make audiobooks, don't put editors' or critics' opinions anywhere before the end, even in ‘footnotes’. Only clarifying notes for unfamiliar terms.)

danudey 5y ago

"We've noticed that you're violating our policies." "Which policies?" "That's none of your business." "How are we violating them?" "I'm not going to tell you." "What can we do?" "Fix the issues, and then appeal." "Which issues?" "I've said too much already."

breakingcups 5y ago
Seeing it spelled out like this really puts things even more in perspective.
obviouslynotme 5y ago
I am going to save this and print it out with the title "This is why we don't do business with Google."
mike_d 5y ago
I used to work detecting ad fraud. Publishers would do bad things, call in, and try to get their account rep to get details. Obviously I can't say "of the last 2500 ad clicks zero of them had any mouse movement over the ad before the click event" because then the publisher obviously just fixes their fraud software. This isn't specific to Google or even advertising. Every company has figured out when dealing with abuse and fraud sharing the minimum amount of information is beneficial to the health of the ecosystem as a whole.
- vaastav 5y ago
  What about false positives? How did you account for that?
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    You make your peace with the fact that you'll have a certain rate of false positives, where you'll intentionally lose also some legitimate business in order to keep most of the "ecosystem" cleaner. Perhaps an unsatifying answer, but that's it. It's not a situation like putting someone in prison where "beyond all reasonable doubt" is the appropriate mark; you can refuse to do business based on mere suspicion that may be mistaken. There's a limit where extra investigation or appeals is too costly compared to just accepting the lost revenue, and for small-scale customers, that limit is quite low. With fraud detection, you have to balance the tradeoff between false positives and false negatives, but you'll certainly have both.
    - p49k 5y ago
      In Google’s case, this is not enough. They exert too much control over the online advertising industry that it’s simply unfair to ban anyone with no explanation and recourse. It should be illegal. It’s almost impossible to effectively monetize an app or website using ads without including various Google technologies and services, and that’s Google’s own doing; they’re the ones who purchased all of those companies and integrated their own products in a way that makes them inseparable.
  - mike_d 5y ago
    People have this misconception that ad networks some how get joy from turning people off for no reason. Every ad shown is a penny in their pocket, even if its 100% fraud. When advertisers start asking for money back is when investigations are launched and accounts are terminated. There are literally no false positives. It may be fraud, it may be the ad is too close to a back button and gets accidently clicked, it could be the ads don't display right. But at the end of the day, it is a revenue decision.
  - x0x0 5y ago
busymom0 5y ago
There are several similar examples on android development subreddit. The best one which comes to my mind if when a developer got their account suspended because they were using a trademarked name in their metadata. The trademark name was "Windows". The developer was referring to house windows, not the Microsoft Windows....

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 5y ago

PSA: "Der Process", English "The Trial", is old enough so you can read it for free on the internet, e.g. on Project Gutenberg: https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849 https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849 It's a really entertaining read. And yes, it perfectly matches this situation - right in the very first sentence already.

Kliment 5y ago
For German users who are blocked from Project Gutenberg, here is the original text (in German) http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Kafka,+Franz/Romane/Der+Proze%C3%9F http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Kafka,+Franz/Romane/Der+Proz...
- greazy 5y ago
  Why is PG blocked in Germany? > As a result of a German lawsuit, Project Gutenberg has blocked Germany from viewing the Gutenberg web site. Oh... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180306/03423339363/project-gutenberg-blocks-access-germany-to-all-public-domain-books-because-local-copyright-claim-18-them.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180306/03423339363/proje...
aasasd 5y ago
Note that apparently there's a late-ish ‘restoration’ that seems to correct some of Max Brod's editing decisions so that the plot is more straightforward, if that can be said of the novel. Literally the chapters' proper order is unknown. I listened to the audiobook of that (read by Geoffrey Howard), and while the reading itself is fine, you'll want to avoid the editors' preface because it gives out some plot points and the ending. (PSA: if you make audiobooks, don't put editors' or critics' opinions anywhere before the end, even in ‘footnotes’. Only clarifying notes for unfamiliar terms.)