http://forums.dealofday.com/showthread.php?t=59859&highlight=survey+affiliate The last post with the adsense in it has "deal of day coupons" next to the name. It is actually linked to the deal of day coupons which can be argued that is it's main purpose, but I think not. I doubt its against TOS but it is slightly misleading.
Yes , That's one of Joel Comm's $25000 Site and he has used "Best Deal of the Day" Instead of this (In his book). And about the traffic What's Going On? Currently Active Users: 1237 (14 members and 1223 guests) Deal of Days' DealTalk Statistics Threads: 136,292, Posts: 822,736, Members: 158,115 I think google will not ban joel's account
My guess is that he probably already emailed google about it and had a special arrangement or something. I'm sure he knows the TOS.
If people look closely at this site the actual post is not titled. What you are seeing as the title is actually the name of the poster and the rating of that user. So I would say that it is well within the "ok" range. Also think that the color changes and horizontal rule make it clear it is not a title so I don't even think this is in the iffy range. Forum posting of ads by an adbot can be done so there is also no violation there.
So for example if I own DP and I make my name "free offers" and my rating "click these", and put only adsense ads in my post, thats ok? Bnix is probably right Joel earns enough to be able to get away with these things but surely that sort of labeling is at least "iffy"
I think if you used CLICK THESE as your rating then you would be pushing the envelope too much. Because it would put "click These" too close to the ads. If I were to do this with a forum I owned I would actually ad a title to every ad that read "sponsored links" this would sperate the name that is very misleading(but not really against the rules) from the ads. Once again I think I must say a discalimer on this particular issue. Do I think what dealofday is doing is RIGHT MORALLY? No and I think if he/she was smart they would change it to be less BAD. But if you are reading the T&C then it is obviously not a TRUE letter of the almighty Google law violation.
Yes I agree. I would also add my disclaimer that as I said earlier I diddn't think it was against google tos but as you say it is morally iffy.