Where are the ads? i dont even see them? hehe. They've got em pretty well blended with the page there.
i'm wondering if most people "play to the whistle" and push things untill google taps them on the shoulder and warns them.
People uses this technique all the time. It's the next "big thing" in ad blending, a smaller version of the "put pics next to your 336 ads". As long there is some space between the image and the ads, as they are doing it here, it should be okay. Google has approved this many times before.
I don't think that integration of the pictures is problem with this site main problem of this site is lack of any content. I think that is violation of TOS.
you don't think the ads are made to look like part of the navigation? i clicked on an add by accident.
That is the point. Since Google suggest you blend the ads to begin with how far you can go is all up for interpretation. I would say they are within the TOS except for the fact that the ads are labeled with "latest tutorials" that is a huge grey area.
My opinion: its against the TOS. If I do remember correctly there should be more space and a border around the pics. ______________________ http://petspalace.blogspot.com
google has oked these type placements as long as the "ads by google" is visable. Email them they will tell you this placement is fine
I don't know if it is against TOS, but in my opinion this type of stuff is going too far. Blending is one thing...... Edit: Now, that I look at the site more and went through more pages, I think the headings on each list may be against TOS. 'Most viewed tutorials', 'Our text tutorials', etc. What does everyone else think?
Of course it is against TOS when they say that you cannot libelled the ads other than "sponsored links". For example this page has nothing else than 2 ads: http://www.sigtutorials.com/tutorials/animation/
It is really hard to say what Google thinks is a border. The SQUARE already has its own border just by the picture ending. And using this site as an example there is actually a tiny bit of white space in comparison to the REAL links. So he has done what Google has asked. Now does it make it RIGHT? No prolly not. As far as "sponsored links" That is the proper listing. Google also accepts "advertisements." Here is an exact quote from the Google help pages
Hi, im the owner of sigtutorials and found this forum when I checked my backlinks on google. I already contacted google and asked them if my placement was ok, they said it wasnt allowed, because the images make people click on the adds, withouth knowing it. But they didnt say anything about the "latest tutorials" on top of my adds, so I guess that is allowed. Here was the answer from google for the people that can read dutch Ik heb vastgesteld dat door het gebruik van plaatjes op http://www.sigtutorials.com/ onnodig veel aandacht wordt gevestigd op de Google-advertenties die u via Google AdSense weergeeft. Op deze manier worden gebruikers aangespoord om op de advertenties te klikken die u via Google AdSense weergeeft. Als gebruikers echter op advertenties klikken, maar niet de intentie hebben om klant te worden, kan dit de kosten voor de adverteerders kunstmatig verhogen. Dergelijke activiteiten zijn daarom niet in overeenstemming met ons programmabeleid. Code (markup): Im now trying to find out a way to stay inside the google tos, anyone got some suggestions for my website? (Its a pitty my adds arent allowed, I easily have a 10%+ CTR on most pages, with adds bringing in something like 40 cents a click)
Honestly don't bother, try this and you will be so surprised: One 728x15adlink at the top of your page then just below three 728x90 leaderboard! set thecolors like you want, doesn't matter. Try this for a day and please report here for the result! ps: use collapsing units if you know what that is.
i would have guessed that your tutorial pages, which are nothing more than "Our whatever tutorial" and then a bunch of ads would have gotten you tossed already.. Looks totally MFA, and a slap in the face for us with sites with some actual content in them.. (but it does LOOK nice)