Making ads seem like they are exactly part of your content, is this okay by Google?

Discussion in 'AdSense' started by thesamemanhal, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. #1
    I have a question a bout this:

    ------------------------------------------
    10. Do not mask ad elements. Alteration of colours and border is a facility to blend or contrast ads as per your site requirements. I have seen many sites where the url part is of the same colour as the background. While blending the ad with your site is a good idea, hiding relevant components of the ads is not allowed. Also do not block the visibility of ads by overlapping images, pop ups, tables etc.
    ------------------------------------------

    This is #10 taken from here:

    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1004540&highlight=common+mistakes

    Is this correct?

    In fact I have seen many tips here saying to make the ads looks like exactly as part of the page/content (i.e using the same exact background and the same title style) but what is mentioned above makes me wonder if this is okay by Google ?
     
    thesamemanhal, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  2. Lex350

    Lex350 Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,889
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    215
    #2
    You cant do this. If the Adsense url color is the same as the background color you would not be able to see it at all. This is masking, hiding, whatever its called, its illegal.

    People are referring to blending the content of your site with the content of the ads and the font and the colors. You will lose your account for sure if you move towards deceptive practices like masking urls.
     
    Lex350, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  3. Vmtech

    Vmtech Peon

    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Blending the ads the way that the visitors of your website not differentiate between ads and contents is not allowed by adsense TOS.
     
    Vmtech, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  4. thesamemanhal

    thesamemanhal Active Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    #4
    @Lex350
    I see the idea now, of course hiding urls is not allowed but what about making it looks similar to the contents, I am sure there are many sites where the ad-link looks very similar as the menu items or as the content titles.
     
    thesamemanhal, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  5. ryanrigney22

    ryanrigney22 Peon

    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    not worth it. Don't do it
     
    ryanrigney22, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  6. ipunkbali

    ipunkbali Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    123
    #6
    It's Okay. Look at http://ezinearticles.com/?Used-Kind...on-Cheap-Kindle-DX-and-2.0-Edition&id=3611296

    Website link and adsense look very similar. I've seen so many websites violates this kind of guidelines.

    Adsense is too strict. Adsense do not allow copyrigted content, yet.. so many duplicate contents site out there, eg; lyrics, gossip sites with copyrighted images.

    Just one thing, don't click your own ads. or u banned forever!
     
    ipunkbali, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  7. john8765

    john8765 Peon

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    It's really just common sense. Think about why people are clicking your ads. Is it because they see something advertised by Google they are interested in or is it because they think they are doing something else? Any attempts at deceit is not allowed for obvious reasons. Make them blend in and look neat but site visitors need to know what they are.
     
    john8765, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  8. geomark

    geomark Peon

    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    20
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    No, not ok. I followed their original guidelines from long ago that allowed blending them to look very similar to content. Then they tightened up, requiring ads to be easily distinguished, and I was contacted by Compliance telling me I was violating the TOS. I pointed them to their original guidelines, they responded that either I change it or get terminated, f'ing a-holes.
     
    geomark, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  9. bagasjr

    bagasjr Peon

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    i think the term blending with hiding/masking/other stuff like that are different.
    blending that allowed if you doesnt change the ads script, doesnt make ads too close with content.
    but still in visualization the ads looks like part of the menu or other ver of related content.
    so visitor can read the title (ads by g) thats the safe way i hope.
    cmiiw
     
    bagasjr, Jan 21, 2010 IP
  10. wanksta22

    wanksta22 Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    35
    #10
    Blend as much as you want .... the TOS is meant to stop people who hide the ad behind images. remember all your ads still say ADS BY GOOGLE
     
    wanksta22, Jan 22, 2010 IP
  11. thesamemanhal

    thesamemanhal Active Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    #11
    just for example look at this site

    http://www.wanginternet.com/adsense-background-for-more-clicks.htm

    okay, i consider myself as a webmaster and i know exactly what is adsense, but even with all that, i am really having hard time to differentiate between ads and the contents (try to count how many google ads placed there?)
    On the mentioned site, ads appear to be directly associated with the contents which may confuse users
    or draw undue attention to the ads and result in unintentional clicks, look at it again, it is completely blended in a way that typical users will never know those links are actually ads!!!

    now can you tell me if this is okay with google ?!!!!
     
    thesamemanhal, Jan 22, 2010 IP