banning threads

There does seem to be a bias like that

If you are an ebay powerseller with something like 10^33434 feedback points or whatever you could probably get away with selling cocaine and only a 'warning'. Same goes with paypal members who have 1000+ points.

Adsense publishers who make 5 figures or more a month or whatever have thier own dedicated google rep and have more more influence over the banning process. They could sit and click thier own ads 100000 times and still not get banned but a publisher who makes only $2/day clicks his own ad accidently probbaly get banned in 24 hours. Unfair, but nothign you can do about it.

Just dont click your ads!!! Be very careful!

 

Well put, Emil

 

I don't think so because vertex actually used spaces in between his periods and words.

By the way, I enjoyed the picture of Alf

 

Trying to understand this, is this like:

Man walks into a casino, steals a few chips off a BJ table from a player.

He shouldn't be arrested when they catch him right before he cashes in his chips?

huh?

 

If you got ban, just use alternative to google, just don't make the same mistake. As the others will ban you just as easily.

 

That's a very good point, Google is not the only option for advertising (although it is by far the best in my opinion). Instead of spending time wishing "what could have been," search through the other threads on DP that describe the pros and cons of other services.

 

It is the best, but once yahoo goes public, their going to be just as good, even better.

 

Let me try and take the highly fertile, BS, and get something useful from it.

If you know the dribble you spewed is a fact of G-AS's policies, feel free to post the policies, so we can call read them.

Facts from my experiences with G:

1. G like any other company, or person, can be biased towards people/companies they have a track record with. This seems to be be true, seems, since my questions get answered much quicker now than a year ago, and they seem to contain more valuable information. Or, it is possible that with time, they got better Customer Support, but this only sounds funny.

2. G does not ban because of 'accidental' clicks. I've not met anyone reputable enough to believe that an 'accidental' click has ban them. Let's get another fact out to help squash this rumor, so the newbies aren't scared off by the BS-artists and scammers. I'VE CLICKED ON MY OWN ADS! A couple times accidentally during testing, and a few times, intentionally, I was surfing around and found ads that truly interested me. None of my clicks were to drive up any revenue (here comes a secret, I later notice G filtered my clicks). I've clicked both as a newbie( making almost zero cash), and my last click(accidental) was a month or so ago. I've talked with G (I can not disclose the full conversation), but it seems that 'accidental' clicks are more 'accidental' looking if 100% of your clicks aren't from the the publisher. Do the math. G has disclosed one thing, they are in the business of advertising, and they seem to recognize birds of a feather, and those who are just scammers.

3. G does not ban for inappropriate sites. G has sent SEVERAL 'canned' warnings to me. I've asked them how to 'comply' since I must have been mistake. They followed up with a more personal message about how we all can be happy, publishers, advertisers, and of-course G.

4. Fact, I LOVE PEOPLE BEING G-BANNED! From my experience, if they promote, even indirectly, too many invalid clicks, I love hearing the blubbering about being only a small time crook. Oh I love when G refunds money too, I guess I was a victim of a click fraud, and they caught the pre-pubescent jerk.

5. I get pissed off people pushing dribbled they 'read' in forums as FACT, and scaring off good publishers and future G-AW advertisers. I think G needs more good Publishers and Advertisers. This is the only reason I posted this, since everyone else who knows the truth is avoiding this dumb thread.

6. This is a stupid thread, having we beaten this spot (once there was a dead horse long, long ago here), enough?

tom