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.

Banned from Ad Sense - Almost

Discussion in 'Guidelines / Compliance' started by joeychgo, Jun 23, 2005.

  1. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #61
    Well, obviously. The question is what was the trigger for them to review the original decision to cancel? Joey's email? Or the email from The World Peace Herald?
     
    minstrel, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  2. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #62
    Yeah - but I dont know if I would have got any attention if not for the news site contacting them - that little pressure could have helped alot.
     
    joeychgo, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  3. noppid

    noppid gunnin' for the quota

    Messages:
    4,246
    Likes Received:
    232
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #63
    Don't forget about my appointment Monday. ;)

    We aint done here.
     
    noppid, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  4. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #64
    I guess so, eh? That's why my reply started with, "Well, obviously"...

    I don't know where you thought you saw that... I certainly didn't see anyone suggesting it. And I don't believe for a minute that ANYONE wopuld believe that Google would overlook fraud because some reporter called or emailed them...
     
    minstrel, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  5. noppid

    noppid gunnin' for the quota

    Messages:
    4,246
    Likes Received:
    232
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #65
    ...Commited by the site admins. That does not preclude fraud by another.

    We'll know more tomorrow, But I bet we get a gag order though or keep your mouth shut clause.
     
    noppid, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  6. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #66

    No - It didnt make them reinstate the account - but it may have motivated them to look a little closer. There was no fraud on my part to find, so they were somewhat obligated to reinstate. I would guess my inquiries went into the hopper with the inquiries of a thousand others and I would have just got a boilerplate response had the media not stepped in.

    On the other hand, maybe they do take such inquiries seriously and look at the account more specifically. Who knows?
     
    joeychgo, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  7. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #67


    Lets not publicize that until we know more. We dont know what he found yet, just that its something conclusive.
     
    joeychgo, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  8. noppid

    noppid gunnin' for the quota

    Messages:
    4,246
    Likes Received:
    232
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #68
    On point one, the person is stealing, there are many things in the google cookie and intent can be easily proved. It's in everyone's best interest that we prove this and prosecute for it. The records exsit and with time are going to be revealed. Many people are interested in this besides us webmasters, don't take it lightly. It will be a win win for everyone.

    The google software is really top notch. Hiding behind proxies is of no use.

    Point two: Just watch how quiet I can get when needed. ;)
     
    noppid, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  9. noppid

    noppid gunnin' for the quota

    Messages:
    4,246
    Likes Received:
    232
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #69
    I'm no attorney, I have no clue as to that possiblity and what resources beyond the stats I'm aware of are available to do such.

    But being as it's classifed as interference with commerce, it's a federal crime and very easy to investigate.
     
    noppid, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #70
    I may be way off base but for some reason I have a suspicion that there may be another agenda here... if that's incorrect, no offense is intended and you have my apologies in advance.

    That said, in the context in which the statement was made, it seems clear to me that it meant that Google "didn't want publicity about cancelling an AdSense account where there was no evidence that the owner of the account had committed fraud"... I find it hard to believe anyone would interpret that to mean that even if the owner HAD committed fraud Google would be so worried about the publicity that they'd cave in and reinstate the account anyway.
     
    minstrel, Jun 26, 2005 IP
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #71
    But you were suggesting it might be what was being implied:

    and my point was I don't see where anyone but you implied that...

    Whatever... it seemed like a curious comment to make and I wondered if there were something else behind it. If not, no matter...
     
    minstrel, Jun 26, 2005 IP