p2pnet - rss feed: Google yanks p2pnet ads
p2p news / p2pnet: Forbidden - Your client does not have permission to get ********* from this server. Client IP address: xx.xx.xxx.xxx
“The website you’ve just visited has tried to provide you with search results from Google. Unfortunately, the site violates our terms of service so your search could not be completed.”
At the top of the page, there used to be a Google search for p2pnet. You’ll also notice a long, white empty strip on the right. It was once occupied by Google Adsense, or Google Nonsense, as it might be more appropriately named.
“Violates our terms of service”? Looks bad. The implication is: p2pnet must have done something really nasty to merit that kind of treatment.
And this morning we received an email saying, “It has come to our attention that invalid clicks have been generated on the Google ads on your site(s). We have therefore disabled your Google AdSense account.” The full text is at the bottom of this.
And I’m furious! It blackens my name and attacks p2pnet’s credibility.
A long time ago I put a message at the top of the Adsense box asking people to click the ads. And when Google told me this was a ‘violation’ of their terms, I immediately took it down.
More recently, after a dramatic, unexplained diminution of Adsense income, for a short while I had, “Income from the ads below and elsewhere keep p2pnet online.” When Google told me this, too, “violated” their terms, I immediately replaced it with ‘Sponsored Ads’ which, if I recalled the previous complaint correctly, was a Google suggestion. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe that’s another “violation”.
But is this what they mean by invalid clicks? I have no idea because Google doesn’t bother to explain.
And just in case you think I’ve been raking it in, I haven’t.
p2pnet is a non-entrepreneurial site. It depends on its advertisements to keep unspinning the spin and presenting non-corporate news, views and commentaries on events affecting the Net, digital media and distributed computing.
I’m a family man with the usual associated usual debts and expenses, and I run p2pnet full time with no other income. Until very recently, the ads weren’t pulling in enough to cover costs and with my wife’s blessing, we emptied our savings to stay online and although since late last year we’ve been doing a little better than breaking even, we still have to watch our spending very carefully.
When I first started displaying Google Nonsense, it looked great. Between late 2004 and early, 2005, we received $544.41, $538.80, $685.85 and a magnificent $747.53. Wow!
This was especially good news because p2pnet was just starting to pick up steam. But then literally from one month to the next, the Google money plummeted to $353.73, $177.87 and $167.09, despite the fact readership was going up. The payment for June was $216.04.
In January, 2005, we had 266,312 unique visitors with 1,669,952 total page views. We’ve just switched hosts and aren’t yet getting current stats. But for now, in July the number was 415,202 unique and 1,904,336, and for November, 2005, the last month with complete figures, it was 1,153,045 unique visitors with 3,961,721 total page views.
But the Google pay-out for that month was only $295.17.
To digress, I’ve always disliked Adsense, low payment apart, because, as I wrote a year ago, “I knew a lot of the ads were dodgy. But I needed the $$ so I hoped p2pnet readers would turn a blind eye. And maybe they did ; )”
In the same story, I’d posted, “The Federal Trade Commission should act against Mp3DownloadCity.com and MyMusicInc.com which are, ‘deceptively’ claiming to offer legal music and video downloads, says the Center for Democracy and Technology. A third website, Mp3DownloadHQ.com, agreed yesterday to remove claims to be ‘100% legal’ from its website in response to a letter from CDT, it states. The sites say they’ll provide ‘100% legal’ downloads in exchange for a subscription fee,’ says the CDT complaint. ‘In fact, they merely point users to filesharing software and provide instructions for its use. Users of these sites users are led to believe that they are purchasing a license to download and use songs and movies’.”
A reader said in a comment to this story, “Most of the ads on P2Pnet are these same scam download sites. I understand that advertising is what pays the bills, but why are most of these ads on P2Pnet the most deceptive P2P scams imaginable? … If I were running a P2P site using these Google ads, I would be in constant contact with Google complaining about all the deceptive advertising. These scam ads are a disgrace, and their inclusion on this site might even call into question the very integrity of P2Pnet.”
Quite right and I had, in fact, tried to do something about the Google scam ads before the story and the above comment.
There’s a ‘Competitive Ad Filter’ and theoretically, you use it to cut ads you don’t want. Every day, I’d spend time weeding out by hand the likes of Mp3DownloadCity.com and MyMusicInc.com, not to mention baytsp.com and audiblemagic.com. Some vanished, some kept coming back no matter what I did. But there’s a limit of 200 and it didn’t take long to reach it.
So on April 17 I trashed Google Adsense and it felt good. However, p2pnet peer sites, so to speak, were running the same ads and I badly needed the money, even if it wasn’t much, to help keep the site online, and after a while - two or three months? - I re-instated them.
I know people on two other sites who had the same treatment. As one of them told me today, “they pulled the exact same email on us. In any case there is nothing you can do to change their mind, trust me.”
So to sum up:
If I’d “generated invalid clicks,” it was through the wording I mentioned earlier. And even if that was the case, I instantly fixed it both times without further adverse comment from Google. So that can’t have been the reason, in which case, what was?
In this kind of circumstance, wouldn’t it be both fair and good business practice and customer relations to, perhaps, simply withhold payment, contact the alleged offender and get to the bottom of things before deliberately publicly humiliating him or her?
As an interesting footnote, this year, Google sent me a Christmas card and nice Christmas package containing various electronic goodies, among them a little laptop wireless mouse.
Very nice. But the mouse went on the fritz after three days.
Here’s the email I found waiting for me this morning:
Hello Jon Newton,
It has come to our attention that invalid clicks have been generated on the Google ads on your site(s). We have therefore disabled your Google AdSense account. Please understand that this step was taken in an effort to protect the interest of the AdWords advertisers.
A publisher’s site may not have invalid clicks on any ad(s), including but not limited to clicks generated by:
- a publisher on his own web pages
- a publisher encouraging others to click on his ads
- automated clicking programs or any other deceptive software
- a publisher altering any portion of the ad code or changing the layout, behavior, targeting, or delivery of ads for any reason
Practices such as these are in violation of the Google AdSense Terms and Conditions and program polices, which can be viewed at:
https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?hl=en_US
https://www.google.com/adsense/policies?hl=en_US
Publishers disabled for invalid click activity are not allowed further participation in AdSense and do not receive any further payment. The earnings on your account will be properly returned to the affected advertisers.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
Also See:
a year ago - ‘Deceptive Download’ Sites, March 5, 2005
trashed Google Adsense - A word from the publisher : ), April 17, 2005
February 1st, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Must be trying to make up some of that $11 Billion dollar loss in their stock
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:26 am
Google is Google. End of story.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 am
I don’t mind those with leftist-leaning politics expressing themselves, but phrases like this really beg the question.
p2pnet has taken advertisers from commercial entities. Did those revenues cover hosting costs only? If not, how is p2pnet a non-entrepreneurial site?
Kinda like those non-profit origanizations whose presidents rack up an easy six-figure salary?
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:36 am
I had the same exact thing happen to my friend on his site. Google said invalid clicks, and there isnt anything you can do about it because what Google says is final, there is no debating anything, nor do they give you a chance to. Google is Google, they can do whatever they want.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 am
Don’t you just love sigs like “Google Adsense Team”
No real contact…just a screw-u message.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:41 am
Which pretty much sums this up, all anyone with a grudge has to do is write a script and get someones adsense account disabled.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 am
Google are awfully quick to suck down the cash from misleading p2p sites and fake spyware removal sites and other such phony sites peddling off fake product.
But when it comes to the good people, they are assholes.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:00 am
Jon, I sympathize and hope you can continue this excellent site.
Aren’t there some other advertising agencies that you can subscribe to?
Also I wonder, if the supposed bogus clicks can get a site booted off adsense, doesn’t this mean that anyone can get anyone else’s ads pulled just by running a script against their site? Businesses could do this to competitors. Maybe some party that dislikes the content has “framed” you with automatic clicks.
– jen_eric999
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 am
Yes its totally possible, and I mentioned it in a post above. Google however does not see it that way, they just give you a big fuck you and thats it, theres no debate, theres no complaining. Google is Google.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 am
The perfect business makes no profit. Just keep that in mind when you hear things like that.
February 2nd, 2006 at 1:51 am
—hope you can continue—
No worries. This doesn’t, and won’t, affect p2pnet, but Google’s careless ‘go-suck-it’ attitude really gets to me.
—doesn’t this mean that anyone can get anyone else’s ads pulled just by running a script against their site?—
Interesting. Is that possible? I’m a total tech idiot, which makes Google’s claim even more ridiculous.
Cheers! And thanks …
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 am
how ironic, but that’s true indeed
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 am
Perhaps some government put in the request to Google to shut down what they could here because you’ve used the word “freedom” before in your postings?
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:20 am
I would like to see someone write a generic script that sends a request for an html page that a user specifies, parses the page to find the google ads, then mimics the process of clicking an ad by sending the http request associated with clicking the ad…. then repeat this process until the user stops the script (hopefully with a decent gui)
If enough people ran the script on enough legit sites that use google ads (ie AOL) google would be forced to change their practices…
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:21 am
I know from experience that it’s impossible to get anything but an off-topic canned response from Google, even when you’re trying to offer them money.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 am
This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last that google has pulled this. They run the ads with the idea that a certain percentage of those clicks have to result in sales or they are bogus clicks, which they term click fraud. They don’t make this clear when they start a new customer.
As has been seen it is so easy to screw over someone’s account. Makes you wonder WHO would have an interest in such tactics? Could we say that certain parties might have taken interest? Speculation could take this a long ways. It’s already been shown here not long ago that bots can be run on forum software. I think Jon spent a while cleaning that one up. I certainly would not go to some place that had such low tactics in use to advertise. If they will do that to a site then you know how their business deals are going to be. The same can be said for those that might object to this forum. Makes you go HMMMM, doesn’t it?
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:44 am
I use firefox with flashblock and adblock, so I never see any ads.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:14 am
Dude, just use blogads or adbrite. Youl set the cost for an ad for one week on your site. People buy, and before it shows up on your site, you must approve the ad.
If you don’t approve, they’re refunded just like that.
Best part is, it doesn’t matter how many clicks go through, fraudulent or not, because the person already prepaid for the ad. (Of course they’d prefer real traffic, but you get my point)
As for what to charge, you look at your visitors stats and do some math. Here’s some approximates:
1 million visitors in a month = 30,000 visitors a day
if .5% click one ad that day = 150 clicks a day
at twenty cents a click = $30 a day
so for a one-week ad you could charge over $200.
And then the company’s software tracks the number of clicks. If the number of clicks goes up, raise the weekly price. If it goes down, lower it. But keep the cost per click reasonable, say around twenty cents, to ensure repeat business.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:06 am
Then someone should build a bot to get thousands of accounts disabled - then perhaps they’d revisit the idea.
Ok, I’m not being serious - just annoyed. I’m sure you’ll find better advertisers Jon.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:25 am
www.scroogle.org
googlewatch.org
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:30 am
second link should be www.google-watch.org
figured you might as well check that out while you’re pissed at them anyway
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
“I’m a total tech idiot”
oh stop, you are not! Big up yourself! You have a better understanding of P2P than a lot of people out there
Im sure you’ve learned a bunch working here too
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Its apparently how e-business evolves: First they are small, they are heroes and they a all in favor of the common man. A few years later they are generating billions, you cant contact anybody, they are apparently on auto-pilot and they make their own rules which they regard as laws. At that point maybe a small business can make some money with them, maybe not. But the big guy could care less as their fortune has been made. Within a year Google will be as hated as Ebay or AOL.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Here we have a free newspaper that is constantly digging up dirt on corrupt politicians, dirty cops, dodgy rich enterpreneurs, etc. Yet the many pages of ads that support the papers crusades are mostly whores (er…escorts), work at home schemes, mortgage companies, bars, the usual run of scammers and beggars and bums. Guess its how the world works.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Google Ads removed them because you violated the TOS, if you are mentally retarded or cannot read then thats your problem. What you fuming over for? Your stupidity and unability to read properly? That is YOUR fault, and get used to it.
If you haven’t heard there is something called donations. Here is a definition:
Donation: A donation is a gift to a fund or cause, usually for charitable reasons.
You can use this to raise money, instead of blaming Google for your own retardness.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
“WE DON’T MONITOR READER’S WRITES”
THAT IS WHAT IS POSTED UNDERNEATH THE COMMENTS. MY COMMENT WAS THAT YOU WERE TOO STUPID TO READ THE TOS, AND NOW SINCE YOU HAVE VIOLATED IT YOU ARE BLAMING GOOGLE. DO YOU KNOW HOW STUPID THAT SOUNDS?
DONATIONS, TRY USING THEM HMMMM….
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
i think you’re the one who is “mentally retarded or cannot read”
no need for that kind of comment
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
>>for your own retardness.
I love when people do this. It is “Retardedness”
A harsh word even if you made it up.
It’s even funnier when you read something in spray paint.
“Dumb/Stupid ethnic-slang” where one or the other word is spelled wrong.
Which brings us to the point…if you are that challenged writing maybe you are equally challenged reading. Maybe you didn’t read that he doesn’t know why he was cut off. So dimwit, you are only guessing.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:26 pm
If Jon answered you…the reply would have read Jon.
Gods you are so slow.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Things HAVE been heating up a lot lately.
A noticeably larger number of what “might” be considered
industry shill posts. All of which have been getting shot down
more and more frequently.
The industry is having a HELL of a time closing the big PR hole
that sites like this opens.
Sounds just like something they would do.
But then,
It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove.
( unless you’re a billionaire or a corporation, then no proof necessary, just submit payment in full )
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
>>industry shill posts.
I want that job!
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
“At the top of the page, there used to be a Google search for p2pnet.”
umm, isn’t that a Google search box I see at the top of the page?
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:26 pm
—umm, isn’t that a Google search box I see at the top of the page?—
It is. But it’s not the ‘pay’ version. Gurgle took that down when it had its hissy fit. This is just code that let’s people search your site.
Gurgle gets the benefit for free.
Cheers!
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:49 am
Seriously now, p2pnet has probably pissed off a lot of people for exposing them or writing less-than-flattering articles about them.
Is it in any way possible that one of these companies or individuals has just sat down and clicked on the Google ads until it looks like p2pnet is trying to defraud the advertisers?
[/very plausable explaination]
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Why are you so pissed at Jon?
Are you perhaps a paid astroturf troll, employed by a company to try to fabricate some sort of anti-p2pnet resentment?
Signs point to yes.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 am
I too have just recieved the email from google qabout the adds on my site ( http://www.wachadoo.com/forum/ ) not following googles rules. I have only been running the adds for about a month now, and had around $40.00 worth of clicks. Somehow, with me not clicking myself, and I didn’t even put the allowed “Sponsored Link” over the adds. I guess since my site has a lot of information about constitutional rights, and anti-Bush information, maybe they just didn’t like us. Does anyone know of a good alternative to Google Adds? I am running the site out of a depleted bank account, and need the support.
- James H
June 19th, 2006 at 8:02 am
is anything your fault John? it seems not..