Author
Message
DamonHD
Posts:6158
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Google booted 30,000 in December
[www.theregister.co.uk]

Maybe that was why some people saw better results?

Rgds

Damon
January 17, 2010 05:41PM
Joshua
Posts:2831
Administrator
Member since: 2007-03-16
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
Well, I putted a "you're the lucky winner" ad in the filter just yesterday.

30,000 sounds like a good start.
January 17, 2010 06:50PM
Troi
Posts:4431
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
30,000 - thats quite a lot - but I wonder how many advertisers there are - perhaps this is a miniscule percentage.
January 17, 2010 07:08PM
DamonHD
Posts:6158
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I suspect that it's a few percent...

Rgds

Damon
January 17, 2010 07:14PM
Troi
Posts:4431
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
What rather than a fraction of a percent? I wonder if that information is readily available
January 17, 2010 07:24PM
James
Posts:1757
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-29
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I honestly haven't seen anything to block for a while now. Maybe the odd one that appears on an adlinks page, but nothing in the banners or skyscrapers. Good news they have booted a few out though. I guess they were replaced pretty quickly by others though.
January 17, 2010 07:34PM
Joshua
Posts:2831
Administrator
Member since: 2007-03-16
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
From the article:
Quote:
According to new data from AdGooRoo - a search marketing consultant that tracks search ads from a network of servers across the globe - Google permanently banned 30,000 accounts from its AdWords ad system at the beginning of December. That's roughly 5.3 per cent of its active advertisers.
January 17, 2010 08:10PM
Ian C. Purdie
Posts:2220
Senior member
Member since: 2008-12-12
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I find 5.3% hard to believe. That indicates 566,000 advertisers overall?

I would have thought there would have been millions.
January 17, 2010 08:19PM
Joshua
Posts:2831
Administrator
Member since: 2007-03-16
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
No, 566,000 active (read big spenders) advertisers. I don't think Google is after any account holder who is spending his/her $50/$100 free Adwords coupon.
January 17, 2010 08:25PM
Troi
Posts:4431
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I'm very surprised - I thought it would have been higher. But that being said, that is still a lot of revenue - based on the lengthy thread that was on another forum some of those that got caught in this swipe certainly weren't the MFA sites - and some of them spent millions a year. I have to say that I don't see quite as many of the really annoying culprits cropping up any more, but I also don't really get that drawn into filling up filters etc.
January 17, 2010 09:58PM
Joshua
Posts:2831
Administrator
Member since: 2007-03-16
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
Quote:
based on the lengthy thread that was on another forum some of those that got caught in this swipe certainly weren't the MFA sites

Well at least they weren't adding anything to "user experience" either. In the eyes of Google of course as I don't know the accounts/sites affected.

Statement by Google on "The other forum" hence - WMW - [www.webmasterworld.com]
Quote:
In keeping with our mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, we spend a tremendous amount of time and effort monitoring the quality of our search and ad results. As we've stated many times before, Google's primary focus is on delivering the best possible search experience to our end users. To help further this goal, we work with our advertisers in a number of different ways to help them design and run the best ads possible.
Unfortunately, some online advertisers continue to promote services and websites that do not help, and in some cases could harm, our users. For instance, these advertisers may offer free services that bait users into accepting hidden fees. Or these advertisers may attempt to deliver malware to unsuspecting web citizens. Regardless of the practice, these types of campaigns do not benefit our users and we therefore take steps to enforce our policies and prevent such advertisers from running ads through our systems.

Over the last decade Google has implemented a number of systems and processes to identify and disable ads that direct users to these offending websites. However, the ad disabling procedures have resulted in ongoingback and forth between us and these questionable advertisers as they try to outsmart our systems and processes. Therefore, we're being stricter with advertisers who deliver a bad user experience by permanently disabling AdWords accounts that engage in prohibited behavior.

Recently we began implementing this new account disabling. As a result, many advertisers who provide a poor user experience and have previously had their ads disabled will now have their accounts disabled.

We take our user, advertiser and publisher experiences very seriously, and remain dedicated to delivering only the highest quality advertising results to our users. We believe this new process of permanently disabling accounts will markedly improve the overall experience of our users, advertisers and publishers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 10:16PM by Joshua.
January 17, 2010 10:07PM
Troi
Posts:4431
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I suspect, that possibly 90% - or a very large percentage - were sites that probably needed to go. However, from reading through that thread last year, there were certainly a lot of people who were caught in the automated swipe - and had absolutely no recourse, no-where to appeal etc, etc.

If there really is only around 566,000 paying advertisers, and 30,000 got hit, I don't see that as a number that couldn't have been looked at manually. Or at least an appeal system put into place.

I can't now recall the details, but I do remember reading a couple of posts from bods that sounded like they really did have legit sites. I think the problem for one of them went along the lines of .... I sell blue widgets. I am the number one site for blue widgets. Google like my site so much that I am listed in number one spot in organic listings for blue widgets. However, I have now lost my account due to "poor landing page QS". This particular bod - if I remember correctly, had 5 staff employed purely to look after his adwords accounts. He sold a product, was the market leader - and faced total wipeout. He spent many millions a year with Google, and had been a customer for many years.

I agree they need to monitor - and zap - but I don't think it is fair that innocents get caught in an automated process with no right of appeal. this is peoples lives and livlihoods that they are playing God with. Or there should be a way of disabling ads landing on certain pages - giving the client an opportunity to sort out the issues - or at least find out what they are.

Only recently someone in here had their site hacked - now if he had been using adwords, that would probably have been sufficient to have given him a lifetime ban - with no right of appeal. Is that fair???
January 18, 2010 07:54AM
DamonHD
Posts:6158
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
Clearly G is not going to be able to easily manually check in detail every one of 30,000 a/cs that need to go according to automated checks.

However, I'll bet anyone turning over millions per year on their AW a/c will have had special scrutiny or indeed an a/c representative.

Not that it's any fairer to stomp on small sites, but G has been quite prepared in the past to slap big household names when they have misbehaved and thought themselves above the rules...

Rgds

Damon
January 18, 2010 08:26AM
Troi
Posts:4431
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I'm sort of with you Damon - however, from what I read, it didn't matter if you had an account representative or not - it was automated swipe - and there was no appeal. You would have thought otherwise, ie automate the smaller accounts, but if there are companies spending many hundreds of thousands a year - and with long established accounts, that they would at least have had the ability to talk/communicate with someone to ascertain the problem etc. This was not the case. I really can understand peoples frustrations. Google has been happy to take perhaps millions of $'s off of particular companies for nearly a decade, then overnight they are turned off.

I'm fighting my corner here - I haven't used adwords for a long time, so nothing has impacted me here - but I do understand the devastation that this may have caused - and just prior to the xmas period.

There was one chap I read about who had a bespoke furniture business - all his traffic was adwords generated, - perhaps he didn't have the skills/ability to get good organic listings - but I looked at the site, and it was totally legit - and he got wiped out and had no way to appeal. Very tragic.
January 18, 2010 08:42AM
DamonHD
Posts:6158
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
A subtle point here, but although there may have been no appeal once blasted, I suspect that high-value a/cs had internal appeals before that point (or possible requests for improvements over previous months)...

I really doubt that G wants to be high-handed and throw money away, whereas it is worth remembering that some of those swiped *will* be sociopathic liars who will say *anything* and will fail to take any responsibility. They will be very loud and not a good guide to the actual volume of errors committed by G.

Rgds

Damon
January 18, 2010 03:00PM
Pengi
Posts:3345
Senior member
Member since: 2006-12-17
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I'm with Troi on this.
I've no doubt the G's action was well intentioned, any giving them the benefit of the doubt, I expect that a large proportion of the the accounts affected were not really in keeping with the spirit of G's policy.
However, I would be amazed if there are not a number of legitimate businesses that have been effectively destroyed overnight because they have fallen foul of G's latest algorithm, and I'm afraid that I do not share Damon's confidence that those turning over millions per year will have had proper scrutiny or even provide a direct contact to discuss the issues.
The effective G assumption always seems to be
"you've been caught by the algorithm, therefore you must be a black hat, therefore we will not give you the courtesy of even talking to you about it.
The arrogant way G treat suppliers (of advertising space) and customers (for advertising space) is my one gripe with G.
January 18, 2010 09:42PM
Joshua
Posts:2831
Administrator
Member since: 2007-03-16
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I'm with Damon.

I don't buy it for a minute that a million a year (or hundreds of thousands) accounts would be killed by a algo.

I do know "blue widgets" often means:
- Open source package sold for 9,- (bandwidth costs)
- Friend finders on mobile devices (impossible)
- Free ringtones (with hidden three times a week additional tones for 3,- until you drop dead)
- IQ tests for 0,50 per question

For a million you can employ someone for about 16 years. I just don't believe G drops really big accounts without giving it any thought and certainly not by algo alone.
January 18, 2010 10:05PM
Ian C. Purdie
Posts:2220
Senior member
Member since: 2008-12-12
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
Well I have to agree with Jo, you just don't do all this jazz and cut your own throat. Without good reason.

I personally suspect they're aren't as many big players involved as are claimed.

Wholesale clean out of 1,000's of "white hat" AdWords players with multi-million dollar annual budgets?

I really don't think so.

Among the big players actually involved in the AdWords clean out are the "usual suspects", none of them are among those whom we, who are "white hats", would tolerate.

In Adsense revenue terms? A drop in the bucket versus long term improvements to not only revenue but, also to reputation and credibility.

At the end of the day, I think it's probably a long overdue "clean out'.

I'm always reminded in these types of "threads", over at the other place, where after a day or so of back and forth and 60+ postings, little bits get dropped by the OP where the "publisher" isn't quite "white hat" after all.

Having said all that:

Google needs to get off their high horse, stop being imperious and realise there are imperfections in their system.

Google's arbitrary arrogance is absolutely breathtaking. Yes it's the "American Way".

Ultimately it will be their undoing.
January 19, 2010 08:23AM
Troi
Posts:4431
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
I think that they wouldn't get half the flack if they put in place an appeal process - so that those unfortunate ones that get caught in these changes can appeal - and/or have the opp[ortunity to correct their sites. Surely that would be in everyones interest. If the site is in breach of adword policies - then state it, if the algo mistakenly "thinks" it is breach, give the advertiser a period of time to sort out what the issue is.
January 19, 2010 10:17AM
DamonHD
Posts:6158
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
But suppose for a moment that G had had a quiet word with all the non-blatantly-unethical advertisers before the "swipe" and those that were culled had simply refused to fix up their sites and behaviour to G's liking.

There may have been a few who G could not contact, or who G could not contact for fear of 'tipping off' others... Note that 'tipping off' fraudsters that you have noticed that they are up to no good can actually be a crime in its own right.

I don't know, clearly, but just having sat though another round of financial compliance training, etc, etc, I suggest that G may have done by-and-large the best that it could.

G *will* have made mistakes, but avoiding getting in back-and-forth pointless arguments with loud and unpleasant sociopaths may be right.

There are *always* routes for quiet careful considered appeals. I just had to contact the CEO of Bank of America to get them to resolve a foo-bar on a small personal account after call-centre staff up to supervisor level told me there was 'no appeal' to resolve their error. And likewise for maybe about 1 or more incidents per year for the last 20 years for me (I have one other still outstanding at this moment for example, where the 'normal' route has not worked). Make the case rationally, respectfully and quietly, and reasonably-run organisations will generally try to undo their errors... Just because robotic first-line support claims "computer says no" doesn't mean "CEO says no" in the face of horrible PR/reputational and other costs.

Rgds

Damon
January 19, 2010 02:10PM
Harold
Posts:2494
Senior member
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
"Only recently someone in here had their site hacked - now if he had been using adwords, that would probably have been sufficient to have given him a lifetime ban - with no right of appeal. Is that fair???"

That would be me. I don't agree that would have happened. The sites G. axed seem to be ones that had been doing something wrong for a long time. Even that bespoke furniture business--yes, a legitimate company--may have been up to something that isn't apparent from examining their site and that they didn't admit to when talking about it....

On the whole I'm glad that Google did this. They need to keep the network clean. As for the lack of an appeals process, I frankly don't think that's just due to arrogance or over-reliance on algorithms. I think it's a business decision informed by legal advice. If you HAVE an appeal process, with publicly available information about it, you can count on two things: many more people appealing than have actual legitimate gripes, simply because it's there, thereby tieing up some of your staff to deal with this; the appeals process being used as justification for lawsuits (we appealed, they made the wrong decision, we now have no choice but to sue...). Having an appeals process would be the thin end of a wedge that Google does not want to let people bang on.

And as Damon says, for those with a REAL basis for complaint, and a modicum of nous, there surely are ways around the brick wall.
January 19, 2010 06:46PM
Pengi
Posts:3345
Senior member
Member since: 2006-12-17
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
Quote:
those with a REAL basis for complaint, and a modicum of nous, there surely are ways around the brick wall

I have heard of people who have not found this to be true.
January 19, 2010 07:38PM
DamonHD
Posts:6158
Moderator
Member since: 2006-11-30
:: Quote ::
Subject: Re: Google booted 30,000 in December
Are these people you directly know and can vouch for? The trouble with FOAF (Friend-Of-A-Friend) stories is the inconvenient details that you *don't* get to know about.

I say again, I've been on the wrong end of injustice and stupidity by organisations of G's scale, and I don't think I've yet failed to get things at least somewhat restored in line with 'natural justice' and reasonably quickly too, normal lines of appeal having apparently closed or been exhausted. In some cases customer services staff have received 'additional training' as a consequence of my bringing the issue to the attention of senior execs. You'd recognise at least two or three UK household names from the last few months. Me, trouble? B^> But it does require being (a) very persistent/patient/firm and (b) reasonable and (c) clear about what resolution is wanted and (d) not gold-digging ie aiming for no more than having the wrong put right.

I'm not saying that G doesn't screw up. (It tried to hire me about 5 times and then rejected me: one or both of those was surely an error though it remains unclear where the balance of error lies! B^> ) But if G gets into public pissing contests with ex-account holders, which by the terms of its Ts&Cs it need not, it'll get sued, eg for defamation. So should it put up with being bad-mouthed, or get bad-mouthed AND sued?

Rgds

Damon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2010 08:01PM by DamonHD.
January 19, 2010 08:00PM

Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.