I know you aren't supposed to put any images that mask the adsense units, but I was wondering if something like this would be legal (or on the edge)? http://www.imagemule.com/uploads/adso91M.gif
http://adsense.blogspot.com/2006/12/ad-and-image-placement-policy.html This is the updated policy on images next to ads. Good luck
What would be the point in putting bullets before ads. This would be deemed attrracting attention to the ads, would it not?
I would steer away from doing things like that. Instead do some old fashion SEO work. It will pay off in the long run.
well, Link units is ads also, placing images cleared by Google, "DO NOT USE IT", you will be breaking terms, the rules are simple enough to understand ....
roger that. The big G is unforgiving, so I ask. I used to have it like this when I used Adbrite and had a lot of success. I can live without having it.
I agree that working on traffic building (which includes SEO) is definitely the primary priority of a site - but I also think that a degree of Ad optimization is always need if you are looking to maximize a site's earnings. I think you will find that Google would let it go - I know I implement what is essentially the same thing and they said they approved it, and I have been using the method for months no with no problems. That said they might have let me do this because of the revenue that my sites pull in - I'm not sure if this would be approved for everyone, but that's why I just encouraged Erind to ask them - because at the end of the day the only person's who opinion is of any significance is Google's - and for the life of me I don't understand why people look for clean cut answers from DP members about grey area things - it is obviously a difference case when they just want people's opinions, but for things like this if there is any doubt you should just contact Google. This is what Google says: 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. Now my interpretation of that is that you can line up images with ads that suggestions a relationship between the images and an ad - with the key word being "relationship" obvious a grey circle has no obvious relationship to the ads therefore isn't in breach of their image and ads policy. The only issue that might arise is the issue of "drawing undue attention" to the ads but I searched through the TOS and Policies and I couldn't find a mention of it, they may have edited the clause out all together, but even if it was in there it is arguable that it isn't bring undue attention to the ads - it is just a circle - and I think you will find Google will agree with me. The rules are simple but there are open to many forms of interpretation, and there are many things that can be derived from what seems to be simple rules. The fact the rules are simple in places is what opens AdSense up for optimization like placing images next to ads, because people read and they say to themselves "well it says I can't do this this and this, but it doesn't make any mention of this - therefore I should be able to do it and be within the TOS" which is exactly why Google had to rewrite the TOS and policies. I personally think that optimizing is important and that if done with approval from Google along the way you shouldn't be running the risk of losing your account. Where you will run the risk is if you take everyone's advice on DP as "fact" - I mean a lot of people have chimed in here and said their two cents worth, myself included, but like I said above the only person's opinion that counts is Google's. Just send them an email it will take 10 minutes.
However the following says it very similarly: May not direct user attention to the ads via arrows or other graphical gimmicks
Ugh... a circle in now way looks like an arrow nor does it have the same attention grabbing purpose of an arrow and I'm again quietly confident doesn't fall under the classification of what Google would describe as "other graphical gimmicks". But feel free to prove me wrong by sending Google an unbiased question on the topic - I know that is what I did when I implement a similar strategy on my sites - and I know for a fact that a Google representative gave me the OK.
Ah, but what other purpose to those gray balls serve? It doesn't have to point at an ad like an arrow to be a graphical gimmick. It accentuates the ad, but let's see what the OP gets back as a response. In the images clarification: http://adsense.blogspot.com/2006/12/ad-and-image-placement-policy.html The first ad of the second example is hardly any different than the gray circle. The green pentagram has nothing to do with the ad but is not welcome. Granted, there is no separating line in that example, but I sure wouldn't stake my website on it lol. Again, let's see what the G says.
There is a distinct relationship between the green pentagon and the ad. The other shapes are associated with games that are called "yellow square", "blue circle" etc etc by placing a "green pentagon" next to the Google Ad you are trying to get your visitors to relate to the ad as being a game like the others. That technique is misleading visitors. Just placing a circle next to an ad isn't misleading, but it does grab attention but it isn't what Google would call "undue" attention. It's the same technique as blending ads to look like content - it is just increasing the likelihood that the ad will be read - it's not misleading visitors into thinking the ad is something that is isn't - and that is what Google is trying to avoid. Google wants as many people as possible to click on the ads, they make money, we make money, the advertisers make money hopefully there is a happy customer at the end of it - everyone wins. What they don't want is people clicking the ads expecting to get something else which invariably means that the advertiser is paying for a click that has no chance of conversion and the visitors time is wasted and the only real winners are us and Google - and we only win if the advertiser doesn't claim invalid clicks. At the end of the day it is in Google's best interests to obtain the highest ROI for advertisers, because if advertisers are getting good conversions then they are going to remain loyal to the program, and Google are going to benefit and so are we as publishers. Now if advertisers aren't getting ROI then will leave and then there will be less advertisers and less money which will mean lower EPC for publishers because there will be over supply but a shortage of demand. So good are worried about quality not quantity - they love clicks on ads - they love people placing ads in prominent positions - they just want to make sure that people clicking them know what they are clicking.
It violates the TOS . According to google no image should be place near the ads that misguides the users to click the ad. ..:: peace ::.. Jeba
I don't think google will allow it (take a look at their example BAD ad placements with images) But, it's all up to google, email them and find out for sure or not if you are worried about it.