1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Adsense tip to boost clicks

Discussion in 'AdSense' started by aaronlamont1, Dec 26, 2008.

  1. Your Lover For Ever

    Your Lover For Ever Peon

    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #161
    I have the same wondering too!!
    SEMrush
     
    Your Lover For Ever, Jan 21, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. ttomp13

    ttomp13 Active Member

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #162
    Exactly. I'm not trying to take away from this post because I know that it's
    become quite popular however, I thought of this quite some time ago. ---> IMAGE
    I don't know whether or not it's against TOS. I think it's about 50/50.

    We need an AdSense expert here. Where'd Jensense go?


    PS: Here's a good answer:


    Welll, firstly, I'd say that you could argue this is still falling
    foul of the Program Policies since they don't actually define
    'image'. All that's there is the line:

    "May not place misleading images alongside individual ads."

    Since, in this instance, the ad is clearly an image - regardless of
    what sort of image it is - then I'd say it still falls under the PP
    restriction. It could also be argued that this is a 'graphical
    gimmick' and therefore falling under:

    "May not direct user attention to the ads via arrows or other
    graphical gimmicks"

    However, these points are arguable so I'd rather say that the practice
    falls simply into the 'other deceptive practices' bracket. If you ask
    the question 'Why am I doing this', the only honest answer is that it
    is known that placing images alongside ads can improve click rate -
    this is why the practice is banned. You are therefore actively
    seeking for a way to circumvent the known rules and policies of the
    program in order to obtain more clicks. The following line from the
    webmaster guidelines is one of my favourites:

    "It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive
    technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it.
    Webmasters who spend their energies upholding the spirit of the basic
    principles will provide a much better user experience and subsequently
    enjoy better ranking than those who spend their time looking for
    loopholes they can exploit."

    Which sums up the sentiment nicely.

    I guess the other thing to think about is whether it actually works in
    this case. The key to the whole image alongside ads technique was in
    getting images that 'matched' the ads in some way and deceived users
    into thinking the ads were a link to another part of the site and/or
    were not ads full stop. In the case you've posted there's not really
    much chance of a visitor thinking that 'CafeMum' is linked to muscle
    building ads! Of course, neither can you control the nature of the
    image ad shown.

    Be nice if an Adsense Pro could jump in here really....

    Jon
     
    ttomp13, Jan 21, 2009 IP
  3. azlanhussain

    azlanhussain Active Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #163
    Bottom line is do not trick the viewers.. and the method shared by our fellow mate does not in any way tricking any viewers.

    Psychologically human like something catchy. That's neutral. And by clicking any images based on its attractiveness is nothing wrong in any way. If it's wrong it's the advertiser that need to be blamed and not publisher like us. Furthermore it's clearly mentioned that it's a Google ads below each boxes.

    Lets not be too critical on this.. if anybody feels scared, so be it, and don't do it. But seeing so many well know, popular, high ranking sites doing similar things, I don't see how it's not permitted in any way.

    Cheers,
     
    azlanhussain, Jan 21, 2009 IP
  4. ttomp13

    ttomp13 Active Member

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #164
    First, I would like to say this: With AdSense I think we can all agree that it's ignorant to assume.

    I understand where you're coming from for the the rules clearly state:

    "We ask that publishers not line up images and ads in a way that suggests a
    relationship between the images and the ads. If your visitors believe that the
    images and the ads are directly associated, or that the advertiser is offering
    the exact item found in the neighboring image
    , they may click the ad
    expecting to find something that isn’t actually being offered
    . That’s not a
    good experience for users or advertisers. "

    And things are pretty and you have a pretty good point until you hit the area
    in red because of the fact that the "neighboring
    AdSense image" may in fact not relate to the actual offer of the text ads.


    Thus, you're breaking TOS due to the fact that you're not providing a "good experience
    for users or advertisers."

    Like I said, you can't assume things with AdSense. I see what you're saying, but you must
    also understand what I am saying. I could be wrong, but couldn't we all?

    Then again, who am I to say anything. I'm not an expert.
     
    ttomp13, Jan 21, 2009 IP
  5. azlanhussain

    azlanhussain Active Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #165
    You got it right.. and exactly what it means is, if the image is provided by the publisher them self then your point suits best. But in our case, it's ads image that is provided & decided by Google.. they should be, at the first place, allocating the most relevant image ads for our site and not us.

    Though an image and an "image ads" are physically the same, but intentionally not. So you see, this are totally two different things. With a very simple explanation in the TOS pertaining this issue, I don't see how it's hard to understand...

    It's not assuming ignorantly, but naive in understanding simple plain explanation..
     
    azlanhussain, Jan 21, 2009 IP
  6. lvtim

    lvtim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    130
    #166
    Can't someone just ask Matt Cutts about this? :)
     
    lvtim, Jan 21, 2009 IP
  7. aaronlamont1

    aaronlamont1 Guest

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #167
    Ok everyone I have emailed google to get this cleared up as some of you
    still have concerns.


    The only reason google adsense changed their terms because people were trying to trick the viewers into clicking by placing standalone images beside ads and the ads would be relevant to that image.

    So for example someone put a green apple picture beside an ad and the adsense ad beside that was a small ad saying discount green apples then people would think it is related to the website and click through.

    Google went against this because it was an image used beside an ad.

    This is not a standalone image it is just to ads and therefore shouldn't trick viewers.

    It works.
     
    aaronlamont1, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  8. azlanhussain

    azlanhussain Active Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #168
    Great job mate.. now everyone can safely test your idea & rest assured not getting any red card from brother G..

    I personally have used this too, but I don't find much difference from other combination, probably my content is not that catchy enough.. :(
     
    azlanhussain, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  9. ttomp13

    ttomp13 Active Member

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #169
    Could we see a quote from Google Please?
    Thanks for clearing this up, I just want to see the actual email.
     
    ttomp13, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  10. aaronlamont1

    aaronlamont1 Guest

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #170
    I will put up a screenshot as soon as I get a reply.
     
    aaronlamont1, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  11. t3nt3tion

    t3nt3tion Peon

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #171
    This is very interesting. Gonna try it my self.
     
    t3nt3tion, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  12. skbcabey

    skbcabey Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    #172
    you cold get banned for that.. its against google policy
     
    skbcabey, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  13. ttomp13

    ttomp13 Active Member

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #173
    Alright. Thanks man. By any chance do you have a blog?
     
    ttomp13, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  14. Hendricius

    Hendricius Peon

    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #174
    You are right, that's actually the only good use of image ads. However, the main factor for a decent amount of clicks is to have targeted ads. Image ads are usually not as targetted as text ads and forcing image ads to show usually reduces how targeted your ads are.

    You might think: oh, that's no problem, then I am getting general ads, so? No! That's a big problem!

    General ads result in less conversions. People don't buy something after clicking on a general ads. Low conversions means low ROI for the advertiser. Google tries to fix that for them and cuts your CPC.

    What I am saying is, yes, you can do that, but the best way is leaving the targeting completely to Google. Setting text ads only (in case you want that) is usually safer as setting image ads only.
     
    Hendricius, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  15. mdamin76

    mdamin76 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    146
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    #175
    Interesting. I should try it.
     
    mdamin76, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  16. slo007

    slo007 Banned

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #176
    sure i will boost your clicks, unless it violates adsense TOS
     
    slo007, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  17. williamjack

    williamjack Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    324
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #177
    unless it is against the TOS it is good. i dont think this violates the TOS because image is a ad so as both text and images are ads how can it be look as a rick.

    However

    Lets wait for aaronlamont1 to post what he gets in reply from GOOGLE
     
    williamjack, Jan 22, 2009 IP
  18. ttomp13

    ttomp13 Active Member

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #178
    Anybody solve this one?
     
    ttomp13, Feb 2, 2009 IP
  19. zawjane

    zawjane Peon

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #179
    how about to boost clicks? is joining this forum make ur clicks boosting?
    please share this here
    thanks
     
    zawjane, Feb 2, 2009 IP
  20. aaronlamont1

    aaronlamont1 Guest

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #180
    Just to let everyone know I still have not got a reply from google in reply
    to the email I sent, I am going to try and search out a phone number or
    go down to the google offices here in ireland.
     
    aaronlamont1, Feb 3, 2009 IP