March 25th, 2009
What About Ad #201?
Ah, Google. Can’t live without ‘em, but it’s hard to defend ‘em, too. Scams are rampant online, and Google is the biggest ad delivery system online. They take a lot of heat for playing a part in the machine of online scams.
In Google’s defense, the scammers have a lot invested in trying to figure out how to get around Google’s weak filtering system. I don’t completely fault Google for that. I’m sure they’re outnumbered in this process, and do put some resources into trying to plug the holes.
So a site like wafflesatnoon.com, which relies on Google ads to recoup the cost of running it, must do some work too – to weed out those dubious ads that keep appearing. Most sites don’t put in any effort at all to weed out the bogus ads. I can’t say I work on it every day, but I do address the problem several times a week. I just hope that people who read my articles should realize by now that if they see ads for acai, grants, or teeth whitening on my page that they those ads are from probably scammers that got around Google’s filters. So yes, I’ve seen the negative comments … accusing me of bad filtering or accusing me of being “in on it” with the scammers. That’s complete rubbish. I simply need the ads here to recoup my hosting costs. And overall I’d like to think I’m pretty diligent about keeping the scam ads off of my site.
But…
I have recently encountered a problem on Google’s side that I cannot overcome. The “competitive ad filter” – the list of sites I can block from appearing on my site – has a 200 line limit. And with only one URL allowed per line, it fills up fast. In fact, the list I want to use is well over 500 domains. But I can’t use that list due to the 200-line limit, so I have to pick the 200 most actively advertised and add those. There have been instances where I removed one because I thought it was dormant, only to see the url back on my page a day or so later.
It’s a lot of work.
I don’t fault Google for the efforts of the scammers to circumvent their filtering system. I only wish they would remove the 200 line limit from the competitive ad filter so sites like this can be more complete removing dubious ads from displaying on our sites.
I’ve run across forum discussions about topic this from 3+ years ago. People have been asking for this for years, yet the limit remains. Could there be a good reason Google continues to keep this limit? Or perhaps there is a more sinister plot at hand.
What do you think?
March 26th, 2009 at 12:04 am
It would be nice if you could publish a list of the sites you blocked so that we can all add them to our filter lists. If nobody is showing their ads, maybe that will discourage the scammers.
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Janus, I will probably put that list on here soon, and show where the 200-line cutoff is, just to make a point how many I can’t filter. Thanks for the comment, but it’s too bad the url you included had a free offer for “Movie Star Look” from Hydra. Tsk tsk…
March 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
It can be a full-time job just keeping up with this. Interesting thread here on people trying to block adsense ads for the Acai diet scam blogs / flogs from their sites:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1101690
March 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Just to add, there is a tip in this blog post which might be helpful:
http://sockmoney.blogspot.com/2008/09/adsense-tip-removing-placement-targeted.html
March 31st, 2009 at 1:15 am
Hey Waffles,
I really don’t have anything against you, but I’m a bit upset at a few of your comments…
First – Acai, Teeth Whitening and Grant trials are not scams. Scams are fraudulent. Fraudulent people go to jail and pay fines (Which these companies never will).
They may not clearly state in huge, red bold lettering that they’re going to charge you after the trial, but they do let you know pretty clearly before you even order the trial – as well as in the packaging you get. If you’ve been to the confirmation pages you would know this.
Not only that, you have to agree to their terms of service before you even place your order. So, if you want to stick up for people who like checking the box “I Agree To Terms of Service” without actually reading the TOS, then I guess you could say you’re sticking up for people who lack common sense.
There’s hundreds of services out there that do exactly what these people are doing. I could go and find 1,000 different types of companies who offer free trials and then charge you when it’s over. So again, not scams – people just are too lazy to read. Probably for the same reason they’re too lazy to hit the gym (They don’t want to work for anything).
Secondly, you’re completely wrong about “scammers” “getting around Google’s filtering”. First, the people “getting around Google” wouldn’t even be considered scammers. They’re just affiliates of the companies. They don’t actually sell anything. It would be like a gun shop selling a gun to a murderer and then claiming that the gun shop is then in turn a murderer for selling that person the gun. So again, they’re not scammers – they’re affiliates.
Secondly, they’re not “Getting around Google”. They’re bidding on keywords. You write a post with keywords they bid on and bam – it’s going to show up on your site because they are bidding the most. And who cares if they’re on your site anyways? If your readers actually read what you have to say they wouldn’t be visiting those sites anyways.
So again, when you say “the scammers have a lot invested in trying to figure out how to get around Google’s weak filtering system.” All they invested was about 5 minutes to upload their keywords to a campaign and bid on them. I highly doubt any “affiliate” is going to single out your site to advertise on, as it’s not going to convert for them. And in “their” defense, they aren’t doing anything wrong.
And I don’t know who you have hosting your site, but you can get a great hosting plan for as low as $9 a month or cheaper at sites like DreamHost, BlueHost or HostGator. I highly doubt you need to be on a dedicated server. That would be a waste of money. That being said, I don’t think you really need any ads on your site to “recoup” the costs of running this blog. It’s as simple as switching ads (AdBrite, Yahoo Ads, MSN ads, ClickSor, and the countless other alternatives you have).
And not to preach, but you really shouldn’t monetize your site unless you have maybe 2,000 uniques per day. You want people staying here reading, coming back – not leaving your site.
Just my $0.02
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Anonymous. Thanks for the post. Too bad you’re wrong about everything. I disagree that Acai, Teeth Whitening, and grant sites are not a scams. Consumer Affairs disagrees. The Federal Trade Commission disagrees. The Better Business Bureau disagrees. You can’t photoshop a model and post her picture with a phony story about how a product produced weight loss. That alone is fraudulent.
Affiliates are heavily promoting these products. They are purchasing advertising and collecting money. They have a responsibility in all of this.
Google does not accept many types of advertising. I’ve read the affiliate forums. When someone’s fake blog gets blacklisted on Google (or by their host, which is also happening more often) – they create a new one and continue bidding until Google kicks them off again. That is bypassing the system. Sure it takes 5 minutes to get a new site on, but when blacklisted, they have to start the process over again. I’m quite familiar with Adsense and Adwords, and I’ve worked with companies who have been blacklisted.
Hosting? I have a great host, multiple websites, and many domains. You get what you pay for. If I only cared about cost, I’d be over on Godaddy.
Blogs monetize. Or should I just create a fake blog, sell useless products, and advertise on Google instead?
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:20 am
The best way to keep low-grade advertising off your sites is to develop sites about topics that command a decent eCPM.
The vast majority of people can smell ’scam’ when they see the “Flat Tummy” ads on Facebook. CTR and conversion rates aren’t great on those ads, but the affiliates make OK money on them because they’re paying a very low eCPM, often $0.10 or less.
Sites about topics that people actually spend money on command an eCPM that’s too high for scammers, and they just don’t show up.
I’ve got two kinds of sites: (1) sites that get a good eCPM, and (2) those that don’t. I put effort into developing sites of type (1) and don’t put effort into type (2)’s. I don’t run ads if I don’t like the eCPM I get. My type (2)’s are cheap to run (often just the cost of the domain name and 1/1000 of the capacity of a dedi) and I don’t feel bad if I’m running them as a charity or just using them to support my type (1)’s.
Unfortunately a site about web scams is likely to be a type (2) — you’ve got all the keywords to attract bad ads. Your best bet would be to negotiate with specific advertisers, but you’d spend a lot of time selling your inventory and still wouldn’t get much for it.
Facebook and other big sites tend to be type (2)’s because they (a) grow inventory faster than demand grows for it, and (b) they’re not about anything people spend money on — for instance, imeem is about music: but anybody who listens to imeem is someone who expects to hear streaming music for free.
Facebook and imeem are both stuck in the corner where bad ads are crowding out good ads. Bad ads train users to be nonclickers, poisoning the well for PPC. If I was concerned about brand building at all, I’d stay away from the social ‘notworks’ because anything advertised on them looks like a scam by association.
Facebook might make more money if it sold less ad inventory but sold better ad inventory. There’s an ‘irish potato famine’ phenomenon around web ads where failing sites increase ad inventory when eCPM’s fall: this lowers the price of ad inventory and damages the brand of the site… You might think you’ll make more money but it ends in tears.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:36 am
If Google would lift that 200 line limit, I would put Google back on my site. I run a page dedicated to healthy weight loss, and for us it’s non-negotiable that we keep these ads off our site.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Other ad networks allow publishers to approve ads before they go live. There is no reason for Google to deny this power to publishers. The only logical conclusion is that Google wants the spam ads to continue because they are profiting from them. If this is not Google’s intention, then it’s high time Google proves it.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Waffles,
Well said! I agree with you completely.
The word “scam” is defined as obtaining money by means of deception. That includes fake personalities, fake reviews, and fake testimonials. It seems “Anonymous” is affiliated with one of these companies.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Looks like they listened to you waffles
Google has increased the number of URLs you can add to the competitive ad filter from 200 to 500
http://www.memwg.com/bigger-adsense-ad-filter/