4 ms·

Quite frankly I don't buy it. Sounds to me like he wanted to play the legal games and during that time Google just happened to review it.

tbsdy 15y ago
Actually, I disagree. Australia has very strong consumer protection laws. Google probably got worried when they started looking into the reasoning for them breaking their contract.
Vivtek 15y ago
You've never been cancelled, I take it? I was -- with the same "we've reviewed it and the answer is still no", until my friend Howard Tayler happened to note it in the comments under his Web comic, and marvelously it was re-reviewed and found to be Just Fine. Google's "review" process is automated. Everything possible at Google is automated. If you don't get the attention of a human, you've got no recourse, and that effectively means if you don't have popular friends, you've got no recourse.
- robryan 15y ago
  I think the review process is manual, it is just that it is still very much a black box. Someone determines the outcome (that someone is probably pretty far removed from the product) and tells you that you have either been successful with appeal or not, no more details. We had an adwords account recently auto banned with a generated email with no reasoning for the ban. To play it as safe as possible we spent the best part of a day submitting a comprehensive document going into far more detail than needed on why the ban was a mistake. We got unbanned last week but as of yet haven't received a single correspondance from Google past the initial automated email from Google.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    You know, this is the first time I've actually ever heard of anyone getting unbanned through the ostensible review process.
    - prawn 15y ago
      I've had a couple of warnings, fixed things, and carried on, but no bans. I'd be interested to see the average earnings of those banned with limited recourse. e.g., is it under $200/mo or are a lot with $1k/mo+ getting done. I suspect that low level sites are more or less ignored and put in the too-hard basket. Imagine how many smallfry sites they'd be reviewing out of less-developed countries where the cost to investigate deeper would just outweigh the early advantages of having them in the program. Easier and cheaper to just ban, piss off that kid abroad with his brand new motor bike forum, and keep raking it in from more established sites.
      - Vivtek 15y ago
        That's actually pretty plausible - my site never earned more than $30 a month, for example. Also it's unbelievably cynical.
        prawn 15y ago
        Only way of finding out (and it'd be flawed anyway) is to set up a site letting people log their dispute and amount at risk, maybe anonymous to the public but with moderators checking info a bit. And collate the responses to compare.
        Vivtek 15y ago
        You'd be biased towards people ticked off about the experience, but it's an intriguing idea.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

tbsdy 15y ago

Actually, I disagree. Australia has very strong consumer protection laws. Google probably got worried when they started looking into the reasoning for them breaking their contract.

Vivtek 15y ago

You've never been cancelled, I take it? I was -- with the same "we've reviewed it and the answer is still no", until my friend Howard Tayler happened to note it in the comments under his Web comic, and marvelously it was re-reviewed and found to be Just Fine. Google's "review" process is automated. Everything possible at Google is automated. If you don't get the attention of a human, you've got no recourse, and that effectively means if you don't have popular friends, you've got no recourse.

robryan 15y ago
I think the review process is manual, it is just that it is still very much a black box. Someone determines the outcome (that someone is probably pretty far removed from the product) and tells you that you have either been successful with appeal or not, no more details. We had an adwords account recently auto banned with a generated email with no reasoning for the ban. To play it as safe as possible we spent the best part of a day submitting a comprehensive document going into far more detail than needed on why the ban was a mistake. We got unbanned last week but as of yet haven't received a single correspondance from Google past the initial automated email from Google.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  You know, this is the first time I've actually ever heard of anyone getting unbanned through the ostensible review process.
  - prawn 15y ago
    I've had a couple of warnings, fixed things, and carried on, but no bans. I'd be interested to see the average earnings of those banned with limited recourse. e.g., is it under $200/mo or are a lot with $1k/mo+ getting done. I suspect that low level sites are more or less ignored and put in the too-hard basket. Imagine how many smallfry sites they'd be reviewing out of less-developed countries where the cost to investigate deeper would just outweigh the early advantages of having them in the program. Easier and cheaper to just ban, piss off that kid abroad with his brand new motor bike forum, and keep raking it in from more established sites.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      That's actually pretty plausible - my site never earned more than $30 a month, for example. Also it's unbelievably cynical.
      - prawn 15y ago
        Only way of finding out (and it'd be flawed anyway) is to set up a site letting people log their dispute and amount at risk, maybe anonymous to the public but with moderators checking info a bit. And collate the responses to compare.
        Vivtek 15y ago
        You'd be biased towards people ticked off about the experience, but it's an intriguing idea.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]