Talk:Google AdSense/Archives/2012

An example of google adcode???
Do we need to put something like that? as in this is how it lloks

--Coheed56 (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

XHTML validation
Google currently revamped the Adsense code and it does validate as valid XHTML now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.95.148 (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, XHTML 1.0 Transitional allows iframe tags.
 * Transitional anything allows all sorts of garbage tags, including font and center tags. That's why it's called a "loose" doctype. The article currently says "2: the font tag is deprecated but does not fail validation in any XHTML standard."  Uh, anything that is deprecated is clearly an error in a Strict doctype (HTML or XHTML) and WILL fail validation.  It will not cause any issues with current browsers, who all still support the tag, but it will definitely fail validation.  When you get errors, it's called "failing validation". 217.166.94.1 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The section on XHTML validity reads like opinion or primary research. It should provide a citation, not an analysis and conclusion. 193.113.57.165 (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

==History==

Why no mention of Adsense being created by about.com and sold to google? 24.215.162.119 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is incorrect. I know AdSense was a product sold by Applied Semantics prior to being purchased by Google and competed with Google's own contextual ad system who's original name escapes me. After Applied Semantics was purchased Google changed the name of the product they sold to AdSense. More trivia on the name AdSense, it's an offshoot of Applied Semantics domain name variation product called DomainSense. Keaver (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also the statement that WordNet is the underlying technology behind AdSense is speculation. I've never seen anything from Google say that. It's true that Applied Semantics used WordNet as a basis and included references to it in their promotional literature. Keaver (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ITurdu.Net

The history section in general seems odd. It gives a short history of Oingo/Applied Semantics but doesn't tie it in with AdSense.re

If I were to rewrite the early history section I would say something like "Google and Applied Semantics were both competing in the early contextual advertising markets in late 2002 and early 2003. Google used their contextual targeting with Google's Adwords fulfilling the targeting.  Applied Semantics used an in house contextual targeting engine originally based on WordNet with heavy modifications and additions.  Overture was the primary ad provider with FindWhat, Knoodle and others acting as secondary providers.   In April of 2003 Google aquired Applied Semantics and rebranded their contextual advertising product as AdSense shortly there after."

"Warnings for AdSense Publishers" (now "Criticism of AdSense") section
From 61.149.36.253:


 * Google has been notorious to disable AdSense publisher accounts without notice, citing "invalid clicks", without shown proof or specific reasons why a publisher's account was disabled. Google also refuses to payout any earnings for accounts that were disabled, regardless if the clicks were valid or invalid, again, with no proof or investigation. Additionally, there is no method for a publisher to contact Google, except for a web form that is always answered by an autoresponder. Publishers must also be warned that an attacker can run a script with 3 lines of Perl code and disable any AdSense account in minutes. This lack of due diligence on Google's part, and Google's unwillingness to responed to affected publishers has many webmasters and publishers up in arms. A quick search of the web for the terms "disabled AdSense" or "boycott google" will turn up hundreds of examples. Advertisers should also be weary of Google's pay per click AdWords advertising, considering many of the banned AdSense publishers routinely "click for fun" on AdSense ads in retalliation to Google regarding it's policies. Besides, it is still unclear to the public if Google really returns the remaining funds in disabled AdSense accounts to relevant advertisers. Advertisers interests may be undermined in such black-box operations.

Can anyone back this up with some references and/or hard numbers? I don't see very much in the way of concrete evidence. æle ✆ 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This happened to our own site only last month (which is why I'm visiting this article, because this matter IMO needs more coverage). Our account was disabled for "invalid clicks" with no details given.  After a thorough investigation on our part (Google refused to disclose any information that would have helped us narrow it down), we determined that one or two forumites had taken it upon themselves to randomly click on ads every once in a while, with the intent of helping the site out.  This was done without administrator permission.  We replied to Google with a joint email that the admins worked on, as a team, to make sure it sounded polite, clear, and through; and we did this for each email they sent us.  We received a total of three emails from Google during this process, all sounding very much like form letters and giving no indication that they had considered or even read our defense (other than the cryptic "after reviewing the additional information").  Finally they flat-out denied our appeal and prohibited us from contacting them again.


 * At no time during the process did they offer any justification for any action they took, or any indication that they were reading our correspondence. They never answered any questions we asked them.  We felt like bugs on a windshield. 204.145.242.1 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Request: I would like to request content on prohibited use of Google Adsense in depth, for example, promoting sites that contain Google Adsense using autosurf, and whether it is accepted to promote blogs with Google Adsense using services such as blogadvance, blogmad and blogexplosion

I had my AdSense account disabled without warning and was given an autoresponder message that it was due to clickfraud. I was not allowed to even discuss the matter, and never even got to speak to a representitive of Google. I have never participated in such fraudulent behavior and it is insulting to be accused of this. I have seen numerous reports of similar things happening but unfortunately they are usually people posting on blogs that discuss advertising options. The worst thing about my experience with AdSense was that I never could get in touch with a live human being to discuss problems with my account. I had tried to email them over an issue of ads not displaying on certain pages and never got anything other than automated messages and then when I tried to appeal my account be deactivated I had to deal with the same crap. I am a huge fan of Google in other respects, but this experience has really made me think twice about them. I'm sure that there will be more vocal critics in the future if this type of treatment continues. Sorry I can't provide you more than anecdotal evidence, but at the moment it is the only thing I can offer. Vaginsh 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened to me and all my sites. Disabled with no chance of appeal, lost about $150 woth of revenue. I emailed several Google times but they just said they could not discuss it. It appears that either my name/address or websites are on some kind of block list now. Because I recently tried signing up again and i was not approved. Because my approval was unsuccessfull I cannot re-apply even with new websites because my two emails @evilmerc.com and @gmail.com are now not allowed to be used on adsense? Awful --Mercifull 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Payment Method
I would like to know what the method of payment is for google adsense is.. check, credit card?

Google will pay by paypal or check. Their advertising programs are documented here: Google Ad Information GameMan


 * They also support EFT in several countries, and cheque is available by "Secured Express Delivery" for an additional fee. 24.87.22.207 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The cost for webservers
I really feel that the math example of how much the millions of requests costs Google, is irrelavant. It doesn't lead you to any conclusions, except that i requires a awful lot of money


 * Agree; it is arbitrary amounts made up with no basis in actual research. The real numbers, as anyone who deals with money knows, are probably wildly different than this utopian estimate. 128.175.205.52 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spam
The external links section on this page is constantly altered to include spam. Is there some sort of protection that could be placed on this page so that wikipedians don't have to babysit it?--Geedubber 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding page protection, "protection" and "semi-protection" are occasionally used, the former in cases of extreme editing disputes, and the later for extreme cases of vandalism by anonomous or new users. Usually, occasional spamming isn't much of a problem to remove, but semi-protection can be placed on a page if it's being attacked by a number of open-proxy/sockpuppet spam-bots. seems to be rather active at removing anything perceived as link-spam, and I also have this page and a few others on my watchlist, so I can pick up wherever Linkspamremover leaves off, and it isn't too much of a bother. —  The KMan  talk   18:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
-What does everyone think about including info on how to block Adsense ads from displaying? Alternately, perhaps the page can link to the pages on ad filtering or the hosts file.

External Link
I think this link should be kept in the external links section: www.discussitonline.com DiscussItOnline - Community about improving AdSense Performance
 * Rather than adding a link to your personal website, consider adding content to this Wikipedia article. The thing with this page is that it attracts spam links and "example" websites. Such links are discouraged and will often be removed on sight.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gooooogle
can anyone explain why some adsense blocks have "google" headings containing more than 2 o's? Goooooogle
 * Hmm, perhaps so it's more eye catching? I've also heard that it was some sort of test by Google. Not entirely sure though. —  The KMan  talk 16:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is number of o's specified by the user or automated? If automated, how so?  Random or parametric? etc.

Six O:s for targeted/relevant ads. Two O:s for random untargeted ads. http://adsense.blogspot.com/2006/02/gooooood-question.html 81.229.109.4 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but your reference doesn't say that. 128.175.205.52 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

bid increment above what?
"Additionally, for any given click received, advertisers only pay one bid increment above the second-highest bid."

I don't understand this sentence. --Gbleem 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is old but I will explain by example

Company A bids 5 cents per click. Company B bids 10 cents per click. Bid increments are maintained at 1 cent increments.

Company B then wins the bid, but pays 6 cents per click.

All numbers made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.196.34 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can This Blog Be Added To The Main External Links?
Hey Fellow Wikipedians

I believe this blog Adsense Success should be considered to be added to the Main page. Why? This Blog Gives great advice to anyone who is trying to use google adsense to make money for their website or weblog. Its all free advice, and the page is not piled high with spam and affilaite links here is the site adress:  adsense4sure.blogspot.com Adsense Success Official Blog
 * Hi. I don't think it really adds much to the article. Thanks but no thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New interesting link on adsense
Hello ,

please can i place this link ( http://bo uazza.che zda vid.ath.c x/forum/discussion/15/quelques-renseignements-sur-google-adsense/ Google AdSense tips for beginners] ) on the article ? Its not a spam, its an adsense guide for beginners , and its my own hand writing content , its not copied from another website.

Thanks !

PS : Sorry if my english was bad :S.
 * It's in French, contains no useful or meaningful information, and is full of adverts. Please read the external link guidelines, which would indicate a negative response. Linkspamremover 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Article On Adsense
This article gives some good hints and tips on Adsense, would make a good link on the external links section.

www.imafish .co.uk/articles/post/articles/124/making-money-through-google-adsense Making Money Through Adsense


 * Wikipedia is not a link directory nor is it a vehicle for advertising. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Competitors (external links)
Why not include external links to the sites of Adsense competitors?
 * http://www.collogic.com is one of them, for instance.
 * Because Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting a Public AdSense Abuse Database
Please, report AdSense abuse and policy violations to the AdSense Abuse Google Group. Post the violating website and the advertisers that are being cheated. --jeolmeun 11:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference
After much discussion with the page administrator ZimZalaBim I have been given the permission to assign citation to techshout rather than eweek. The reason for the change is listed below.

I have studied all posts on the issue available on the internet. But the original article on techshout had the most detailed explanation in this matter. It also showed example picture of this Trojan running which the eweek article didn’t have. Due to the fact it broke the story and as it contained the most detailed information on the Trojans activity, it deserves to be in the reference rather than the eweek article which has derived all the information from the original source (techshout) and added quotes.

Zack1234 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not "the page administrator" but just another Wikipedian who also is an administrator, and I didn't give (or could withhold) "permission" for Zack's edit. I merely provided advice. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this useful link?
I've found http://adzenze.googlepages.com It's claimed as AdSense Blog Agregator containing latest entries from Google AdSense Official Blog, del.icio.us/popular/adsense, WordPress Tagged AdSense and another blog. I think it's nice enough because of displaying various intro opinion about AdSense from various source currently. So, is that including useful link can be placed in this AdSense article? Thanks before.125.160.98.238 07:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've added a link to the official blog at http://adsense.blogspot.com/ instead. Adding links to unofficial blogs about AdSense is liable to abuse since most of them have self-interests in their own AdSense-related commericial services at the same time. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Bias
This article is one of the most biased commercial endorsements in Wikipedia. Frankly, it sounds like it was written by Google, as it is substantially similar to their own documentation for this service. I suggest that someone who is not an avid AdSense user examine this article and decide for themselves whether it reads like brochure. Even the image sample contains a direct sales pitch for the product, as opposed to its logo, or the sample given on the adsense homepage. Compare to the article for AdWords to see a less biased approach. Note I hesitate to edit this article myself for fear of drawing the ire of the many wiki editors who are devoted Google fans. Tpbarber 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not unusual for articles about a company or service to use that company's own information, as long is the info doesn't violate WP:NPOV rules. I don't see any obvious problems with the content...can you give an example of of a sentence or passage that you feel is biased? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire article reads like a very positively worded advertisement. The AdSense service just happens to be paying money to a very large number of wikipedia editors, and also the new wikimedia-related venture search.wikia.com.  When a traditional news media outlet runs a story that pertains to a business partner or shareholder, the fact is typically disclosed in good faith.  In this case, the premise of editor objectivity may be a lost cause due to a serious conflict of interest.  Making the article more balanced would be a good start. Tpbarber 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So. . . can you give an example of of a sentence or passage that you feel is biased? Or, better yet, an edit that you think would improve it? 68.163.35.175 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the picture: "precisely targeted"... 213.93.203.102 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
This section is very ambiguously written, and needs to made clearer. The first sentence makes little sense to me. Who is criticizing who? Who or what is generating the fraudulent clicks?

In the second paragraph, I'm not sure if it's publishers or advertisers who can protect themselves by using click tracking programs.

I changed the 3rd paragraph to make it less couched in the passive voice and negative terms.

Finally, I think the criticism section should be moved above the abuse section. Many readers care about the criticism of Adsense. The abuses described here are Google's problems. Paulgush 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * click fraud —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.213.51.202 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I feel that "many users have complained" is a very vague statement of questionable usefulness. I did a (very) quick search and couldn't find complaints regarding Google closing the account maliciously, but did find several complaints stating that Google closed the account for things outside of the owner's control which was viewed as unfair but somewhat reasonable. Do you think this line should be removed? DynamicUno (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links Strange/Broken
Some of your external links are strange. http://www.fin/darticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HDN/is_2000_May_25/ai_62332783 doesn't even mention adsense or anything adsense related. http://www.info/today.com/newsbreaks/nb1220-2.htm is about searching, not content matching or anything to do with adsense. http://www.for/bes.com/1999/10/04/feat.html doesn't even exist anymore! I would recommend http://www.internet-heaven.co.uk/adsense/ as it gives an overview of the system AND all the scams and pitfalls currently associated with it. I know the guy that wrote it, the site has been running for 6+ years so the link will remain for as long as your encyclopedia will! (Disclaimer: can't sue me if it doesn't though) 90.242.41.211 19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No thanks. We're an encyclopedia, not a referral service for "make money using AdSense" guides, schemes or services. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not link to spams please (I disabled the links)! Acaciz 13:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is "customers" the right term?
The article calls people who serve AdSense ads and get paid for clicks "customers". Is that the right term? Usually, the "customer" in a transaction is the one who pays money and gets goods or services in exchange. In the case of AdSense, that would be Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.163.35.175 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * They are furnishers of space for ads! Usually customers are nod paid as you have noticed! Acaciz 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned for life?
I don't see y'all discussing this so I want to raise the issue of Google's adSense customers whom have been banned for life. I'm one of those folks. I was a bad boy and clicked the Google adSense links on my site and went looking to verify that clicks were recorded by Google. I was never able to see a correlation between my clicking and their counts. During this process they decided (rightly so) that I was doing something that they said to never do; QA their work. So now I'm banned for life with no method of reinstatement. DaleEMoore 14:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Dale E. Moore DaleEMoore@gMail.Com (I must like still Google I still search and email using their tools.)
 * I believe users are not banned for life. I said that for completing the article and make it correct. Acaciz 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you like, Google will ban you for life for no apparent reason and they will not even give you a reason. I lost my accout and they stole my money just before making the payment (how convenient). I never clicked my own ads and I dont even know why I was banned. At least they could have given a warning so one would know what to improve or tell me what I was doing wrong. To me Google are nothing but theifs. I did their dirty work and then they stole my money. They can obviously do what they want. Dont encourage them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.227.230 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A tutorial
Could us add this link to a tutorial: Link to tutorial. I believe it may instruct users to avoid to be disabled! Acaciz 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

About competitor
Actually the list is very long and not comprised only of Yahoo. I suggest to suppress this section that is useless (and may change frequently). Acaciz 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial?
A loaded word like controversial needs a citation and supporting information. This is an encyclopedia. Uncited matl's can be removed from an article until such time as a reliable source is surfaced to substantiate it. If you've read a lot about it being controversial, identify those sources, cite them, and you're golden. - Ageekgal 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Put another way, though -- every company, product and service has its detractors. Does that make Ford Motor Company a controversial company, breastfeeding a controversial practice, Walmart a controversial store, etc.? Get my drift? - Ageekgal 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Critisism Take 2
While adding a link for the AdSense program policies, I noticed that the french video site referenced doesn't contain an external link, either. I didn't add it, however, because it references a porn site. Any thoughts on this?

Also, could someone take a look at the section real quick and see if I missed anything in my copyedits? I want a second opinion before removing the copyedit request from the section.

Marc Weil (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How AdSense Works
I don't really understand what the fifth bullet is saying:

For referrals, Google manages the subscriptions on a long term, to add money when the visitors either download the product of subscribe, that depend upon the sort of product.

Could someone who is more familiar with the AdSense system than me copyedit this? I am worried if I do I may kill the original meaning.

Marc Weil (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Referrals and YouTube Videos
I would like to add a few sections to this wiki entry about Google AdSense Referrals and YouTube videos, I'll be posting suggested edits here in the next few hours for review.

Civicseo (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC) My sence for how it is try realizing the method many youtube celebertys do. For instance youtube partner perk. Shane dawson as an example would often say rate and what not into the video most are cheap tactics for youtube partners.... Try see an archfiend video his point are valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.180 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed External Link
Removed AdSense laden external link 76.197.229.157 (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) The Money Hit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.236.60 (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing
I did some copy editing on the article, most of which consisted of adding wikilinks: Gmazeroff (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1998
 * 2001
 * affiliates
 * Applied Semantics
 * April 2003
 * August 2008
 * banner ads
 * beta version
 * beta-testing
 * click
 * data validation
 * DOCTYPE
 * Gilad Elbaz
 * HTML
 * HTML tag
 * HTML#Attributes
 * Internet
 * Internet search
 * keywords
 * May 2005
 * MIME Type
 * Oingo
 * pricing
 * RSS reader
 * Santa Monica
 * search engine
 * URL
 * Web traffic
 * webmasters
 * website design

History of AdSense
I agree with Keaver who posted in December 2008 on this same topic. Simpli did not create the technology behind AdSense. To site them and their founders as a resource for the history of AdSense is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetacalc (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

= Fraud ===

I recently bought Google adsense from the website and I was charged the original price and then my card was charged an amount much greater than the original the next day. My bank shut my debit card down for fraud, they steal your debit card #, watch out.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.233.180 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One does not buy Google Adsense. If someone on the internet asked you to buy Adsense, then that was a scam-artist preying on uninformed internet users (which it sounds like it was considering what happened with your bank). With Adsense, at no point is money going from your pocket to theirs, rather, they would be the ones paying you. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

High level volume of transactions
An encyclopedia should include how much money Google makes through AdSense ($1 billion? $100 billion?), what percentage of Google's revenue comes from AdSense (75%? 90%?), or global clicks-per-some-period-of-time (million clicks per second?).

AndrewHZ (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Adsense is mostly the other-end of Adwords. So, the money they make from Adsense is mainly the money they make from Adwords and Adsense combined. When someone clicks on an ad, the percentage that Google keeps for itself varies depending on a number of factors, so there is no static percentage. Typically, the people who provide ad-space get the larger percentage, not Google. As for percentage of all of Google's income coming from Adsense/Adwords, it use to be larger, but Google has long been diversifying what their company does (media, telecommunications, energy production research, investments in various things, etc). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
I've made a few edits. Mostly grammar. I've also removed the fragment "but you will not be provided with any proof or solution" since it's not really encyclopædic. I suspect that this section was written by somebody that had been banned from AdSense. Anyways, someone might wanna double check it, in case I missed anything ZellDenver (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)