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?
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.
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...
...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.
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?
Lets not publicize that until we know more. We dont know what he found yet, just that its something conclusive.
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.
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.
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.
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...