The most controversial Ad placement you may ever see...

I wonder just how much money this site has made from Google....let alone, how long Google has ignored an obvious and blatant disregard for TOS. I mean, can anyone tell me this is within guidelines? If so.....I am off to the races with my next site. Just click on just about any video and let it run right to the end.....this blew me away.

http://www.videovat.com

I can't wait to hear your thoughts on this one. -2xS

 

Seems within the TOS to me although I think to be safe its better to put a dividing line between the pictures and ads (The pics themselves seem random enough)

 

lol, nice and with the borders added it should be within the TOS. The owner should remove the 468*60 ad below though, so there's more options at the ad place where the movie was. this surely brings them in good money, but is not very userfriendly imo.

 

Ignor me forgot to click on a vid lol

 

heh smooth. adding the random pics there right by the rectangle ad was a dirty move though...but nice trick nonetheless.

 

You have to watch a movie until the end at which point it redirects to a page that has an ad block with pictures next to it

 

I think its agaosnt the TOS....

 

Based on ?

 

Imo its not against tos, he isnt drawing any "unwanted" attention to the ads and the page actually has content after the video, links to all the other pages he has... besides, google doesnt complain about ad blending with your content...

At the end of the video the only thing you could argue about is the border between the pics and the ads ... but many sites do this and none seem to be banned.

 

So, what's so controversial about this?

 

What's so controversial!? Good grief....

All through the forums, you hear about this, that and the other involving the violation of G's TOS, especially pertaining to image placement in proximity to ads.

So here you get a prime example of ads completely surrounding (moving images) and within pixels of the video itself....anyhow, the argument is moot point, i guess. I think it's genius placement myself, but Google sure does seem wishy washy regarding proximity of ads to media and the whole nudity thing (see my other thread, good for a laugh at least)....I would really like to get solid answers; i.e. Pixel proximity to images and/or video, what do they consider a 'divider' and how thin/thick does that have to be? can it be next to invisible?). Too much vagueness for alot of the banning i'm seeing happen to other people. DP? Any thoughts?

 

Sorry, did not watch any of the videos. I just saw the home page and did not see anything wrong there.

 

does anyone know how to do this?

 

the clips contain nudity. its in violation of the tos.

 

nudity isn't against the terms of service, pornography is.

 

lolz.. what i can see is some porn videos and adsense ads next to it

 

Where? I don't see any of that (although now I see two girls kissing, is that what you mean?)

 

I really can't see what's wrong with the banners on this site ...

 

Google says, "Pornography, adult, or mature content." Nudity is definitely one of those things.

 

nudity, depending on the context, does not have to be pornographic, adult, or "mature" content. google's confirmed this. if you're in doubt on your own specific site, you can always email them.