How did this site change their AdSense?

[flip]

I'm trying to figure out how this site changed their AdSense unit. It's got a larger and different font. Or does AdSense have an ad unit that produces this style? Hmmm...

And you think those bullets qualify as a division between ad and image?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-rapid-detox.htm

[phillip]

edit nvm i read your post wrong

im guessing there a premium publisher

[flip]

Ah...I see. Anyone know if Premium Publishers don't need to put a division between ads and image? Or if bullets are an adequate division...?

[jaree]

I dont think they are PP. I have never seen someone doing that not even PPs. I am guessing its just a change in adsense code which is violation. I am not sure though

[duzins]

I see alot of premium pubs get away with font changes and sketchy image usage.

Jaree, do you really think they aren't pp? How come?

[jaree]

Originally Posted by duzins

I see alot of premium pubs get away with font changes and sketchy image usage.

Jaree, do you really think they aren't pp? How come?

I have never seen a PP even using that kind of format. That is totally confusing. As i said i am not sure but i dont think so that they are or they are allowed to do that

[raje_2000_21]

This site has the best placements of ads. They must be getting lots of click throughs.

[netjobs]

<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
google_ad_output = "js";
google_feedback = "on";
google_max_num_ads = 4;
google_ad_type = "text_image";
google_ad_channel = "9533326166+297";
display_url = 0;
//-->
</script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js'></script>

This is the ad code they are using and it could be against tos...

[pixads]

Looks like a PP to me

[trichnosis]

if you use a bigger ads like 160*600 on the left side , you may get a better result

[akamaimommie]

Actually, it looks to me like the ad block in question is written like this:

<script src="templates/ignlb/a/ad.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-xxxxx";
google_ad_output = "js";  
google_feedback = "on";       
google_max_num_ads = 4;
google_ad_type  = "text_image";
google_ad_channel = "9533326166+297";
display_url = 0;
//-->
</script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js'></script>

It's calling a totally different script that looks like this:

function google_ad_wrap_a(google_ad, text, cls)
{
  return '<a class='+cls+' href="' + google_ad.url + '" onmouseover="window.status=\''
         + google_ad.visible_url + '\'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=\'\'" >' +
         text + '</a>';
}

function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) 
{
  if (google_ads.length < 1 )
    return;

  document.getElementById('a').style.width='';

  if (google_info.feedback_url) 
    document.write('<td class="google_link_cell"><A href="'+
      google_info.feedback_url+
      '">Ads by Google</A></td>');

  document.write('</tr>');
  
  if (google_ads[0].type == 'text') 
  {
    for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) 
    {
      document.write('<tr><td class="ad_links"><ul><li>' +
        google_ad_wrap_a(google_ads[i], google_ads[i].line1, 'main_link') + '</li></ul>' +
        google_ad_wrap_a(google_ads[i],
        google_ads[i].line2 + " " +
        google_ads[i].line3, 'description_link') + "</td></tr>");
    }
  }
  
}

That's pretty slick.

[ohadgliksman]

They are also hiding the actual URL so when we hover with the mouse over the ad it does not show the target URL. This must be against the TOS

[dotcom360]

There not a PP and they are 100% against the G TOS

[duzins]

I didn't even see they were hiding the url.

Shame, shame TOS breaker :P

[udayrajesh]

No guys they are some premium publishers
look also the website of "digg"
their ads also looks similar
try it