Is this allowed

I've just come across a site that has 3 728x90 adblocks on a page. What was different was the fact that the last 2 blocks do not have an 'Ads By Google' header (actually they don't look like ads at all).

Looking at the source you can see on the last 2 blocks they only have the second part of the script (i.e. no google_ad_client, positioning etc).

Are you allowed to do this, I'd have thought not but just want to make sure.

 

In a word, 'no'.

 

Maybe they are premium

 

share the url and let the adsense police check it out lol

 

It is a premium site.

 

Or a coding error. Some use wizzy wig editors...they don't always copy and paste code properly, ie. DW.

 

If you don't put up the correct code no ads will show at all.

 

Where's the URL? It is probably premium. Why would 1 display Ads by Google and 2 not?

 

Not sure if I want to get involved in, let alone start, another AdSense police thread
I would be very surprised if it was a premium and that also wouldn't explain why the first block was legit. Site (and sample page) in question is
csharpcomputing-com/Tutorials/Lesson20.htm
I expect it's a coding error though other motives wouldn't come as a surprise

 

Hmmph! I tried to look at the page and was told that the page was unavailable to look at on 'this machine', which I'm guessing means there is an IP range block in place. Ho hum.

 

Daft question but I assume you changed the - to a .
Actually that proably wasn't that obvious.

 

I only see 2 ad blocks (3 in the code). 2nd indeed without the ads notification.

Seems like a copy-paste error or the webmasters thinks that if the variables are declared once, he can just call the

<script type="text/javascript"
  src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>

Code (markup):

code another few times after that.

I don't think it's allowed. They clearly state all code has to be copied and can not be tampered with. I doubt it's premium. If it was they wouldn't use standard lay-outs (well... I wouldn't!).

Now... Who's gonna send the letter? j/k

 

For me I saw three ad blocks but there was only one ad in the third block so it didn't look like an ad at all.
I wonder if they even gets credit for clicks in blocks 2 & 3

I think it's more likely a genuine error so will drop the webmaster an appropriate email.

 

Someone please explain to me what/where the code is wrong.
As far as I can see:
They have the relevant code blocks. There is the script block specifying the ad_client, format, type etc. The the script block calling the show_ads.js
They've used exactly the same call to show_ads.js further on in the page, and it has displayed differently - I can't see why this should have happened.

 

That's exactly what I thought. This guy has made an honest error using a wizzy wig html editor. I use DW sometimes and when I try to copy and paste Google code this is exaclty what happens. But the ads still display 'ads by Google'

 

Hey, Josh! We have a new mission for you....

 

Looks like an improper manipulation of the code to me. Anyway, it's not up to us to decide what is right/wrong. I'd defer to Google.

 

Attn. DP police: I really don't think this was intentional...what does the webmaster stand to gain by this? Maybe the original poster could just contact the webmaster and let him know. If we are that concerned

This incident is a far cry from 'I ask you to click on the Google banners at the bottom twice, it helps keep us going' just my thoughts

 

Homer you rock!

I agree.. All this complaining is counter productive. The coop can police itself, because it is just that, a coop. As for Google, they can police themselves just fine.

 

Thanks for the kind words mia.

Sometimes we are on a fine line here. Nobody likes a cheater unless you are a cheater. I totally agree that Google can police their own offenders.

I would hate to think that one day Google decides to make an example of a vigilante group that takes matters into their own hands...'All participants in this thread are banned from using AdSense...'

NOW THAT'S COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.