Does Google tolerate AdSense spam?

[Bernard]

I am aware that item #1 of the AdSense TOS (https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms) requires participants to comply with the Google AdSense Program Policies (https://www.google.com/adsense/policies). Within the policies, under Ad Placement it states:No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

In a recent discussion with the developer of a CMS system that features the ability to scrape SERPs from a variety of search engines for re-publication on auto-generated pages (with or without AdSense), the developer claimed that his own AdSense account was approved using a site built with his CMS as the required sample. He further claimed knowledge of at least one individual who is making a lot of money with AdSense on pages built with Traffic Equalizer.

I suppose one could argue whether or not TE pages or the SERP scraping CMS are generating pages "specifically for the purpose of showing ads", but it certainly looks that way to me! How long is Google going to profit off of these keyword driftnets built for AdSense before enforcing the TOS? Does Google really care that their SERPs are getting clogged up with these worthless sites as long as it drives a revenue stream for them?

[Jenstar]

Some publishers using TE pages with AdSense have been suspended due to lack of original content, and others have been warned to remove it. But I know others who have been approved for running AdSense with TE pages, and are quite happily receiving their checks each month. It depends a lot on how scraped serps are used, and how cleverly it is disguised - and if the AdSense compliance team member who happens to be the one checking the page decides that the page does actually have value to Joe Surfer who happens to visit it.

Google obviously doesn't have the manpower for someone to sit at a computer and check every single AdSense-displaying URL for compliance. Some higher paying keywords do seem to get spot checks performed on pages running them though. I would bet the majority of publishers who receive warnings are receiving them because someone reported them to AdSense for whatever reason.

[Bernard]

But I know others who have been approved for running AdSense with TE pages, and are quite happily receiving their checks each month. It depends a lot on how scraped serps are used, and how cleverly it is disguised - and if the AdSense compliance team member who happens to be the one checking the page decides that the page does actually have value to Joe Surfer who happens to visit it.

Are you claiming that you know of people who are scraping sites and republishing without permission (copyright infringement); that Google knows about it; and Google has implictly endorsed them/their sites by engaging them in a business relationship to profit from it?

[NFFC]

>Are you claiming that you know of people who are scraping sites and republishing without permission (copyright infringement); that Google knows about it; and Google has implictly endorsed them/their sites by engaging them in a business relationship to profit from it?

Like this? (http://www.google.com/search?&q=copyright)

[Bernard]

Also, I'm sure Google has the resources and technical brainpower to develop a spider to check pages using AdSense for footprints.

[Jenstar]

Nope, that's not what I am saying at all.

that Google knows about it

It can be cleverly hidden as I mentioned above - even some people very familiar with the different scraped serp programs out there cannot tell that is what some of these pages are, so AdSense doesn't neccessarily know it is either. It is all in how it is disguised. I would bet the vast majority of these problems have been brought to the attention of AdSense when someone (usually a site-owner whose content appears) goes and spam reports to AdSense.

AdSense has also had steps in place for quite some time for copyright owners to file a DMCA against an AdSense publisher for using stolen content:

https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=9894&topic=145

People have used this successfully against publishers. Do follow the DMCA instructions to the letter though, and it takes up to about 10 days.

[Bernard]

NFFC, I would appreciate it if you would not change the subject or derail this thread. The issue of whether or not search engines are violating copyrights by spidering them and publishing snippets in SERPs (or cached pages) is a topic for a separate thread (and has been discussed before ad nauseum in various fora).

I am looking forward to the AdSense reps response to the topic at hand.

[Bernard]

Jenstar, OK, I get you now.

[NFFC]

Bernard you miss the point.

The point is just because "some" of the information is derived from the content of other sites does not mean that the page is of no value.

[Bernard]

NFFC, if that was your point, please explain how the value of Google SERPs is pertinent to the topic of my original post. If you mean to argue that the auto-generated keyword driftnets using scraped content alongside AdSense are not created "specifically for the purpose of showing ads", then please elaborate.

[I, Brian]

I'm curious how "spam" is applied to AdSense.

AdSense is specifically designed to display results in line with the context of the page in question. If a surfer is looking for information on a particular issue, finds such a "spam page", and clicks through a relevant context AdSense ad to a relevant context site, then at what point does the issue of "spam" come into the equation?

Perhaps I'm having a Sunday Evening mental block, but this thread seems to imply that there is an argument now against on-context advertising??

Let's face it, a lot of the internet is "junk", pure and simple - whatever it's origins. The sooner people are directed to key information sites as required, the better?

[Nick W]

Interesting point Brian, you can also apply that to the whole "cheating" argument that's bandy'd about so often.

If a site guides a user to what a user wants, is it spam? :eek:


and while we're on the subject: If a trees falls down in the woods and noone hears it, does it make a sound? :D

[Bernard]

Brian, I chose to use the term in this context to characterize auto-generated driftnets designed specifically for displaying targeted AdSense (and not for providing a content resource). If the application of that word displeases you on a Sunday evening, please do not defacate on my thread because of it.

If you re-read my original post, you will see that the only value judgement that is being made is whether or not such sites are built specifically for displaying AdSense (ie. in violation of the TOS). Neither you nor Nick addressed the topic at hand at all. I would thank you to take your tired "what is spam?" routine to another thread.

[Nick W]

I think maybe you misunderstand how discussion works Bernard.


please do not defacate on my thread because of it.


Dont be so touchy, it's a discussion, what are we all supposed to do? Answer your question directly without pause to look at the broader issues or anything that might deviate from what you want to talk about? - If that's the case, maybe their are better channels in which you might seek answers.

Take a rep hit for being rude to Brian young man! :)

[Nick W]

If Jen is still around i'd like to ask a question regarding the human reviews if I may?

I've only used adsense a bit but had no trouble getting sites that had no original content whatsoever on them in the system. They were arranged and categorized uniquely and the information was ordered in unique ways certainly but nothing was original.

Is that acceptable to adsense or does that fall under what Bernard is talking about? "adsense spam"

[Jenstar]

If whatever you are doing has VALUE to Joe Surfer, it will generally pass a hand review. There are other factors as well (no excessive keywords, enough content, not asking ppl to click the ads, etc), but as long as the page has value to Joe Surfer, it should be fine. However, if you get a DMCA files against you, that's a different story ;) But not that many people use that avenue.

As we can see, spam has different meaning to different people ;) I am all about the value, lol.

[Nick W]

No, no worries about dmca Jen, not spam or 'iffy' at all. (how could you think such a thing :eek:) heh....


As we can see, spam has different meaning to different people I am all about the value, lol.


It certainly does! Personally i could care less what a site does to get to the top providing it gives me what im looking for :cool:

[Bernard]

I think maybe you misunderstand how discussion works Bernard.

Dont be so touchy, it's a discussion, ...

Nick, neither you nor I are forum newbies. I am well aware of how a discussion works. I believe that you and most SEW members are aware of how many forum threads are derailed into the same old dead-ends.

Surely you are aware that Danny has split up threads before in order to try and maintain them on-topic (remember the "SEMPO hydra" after Mike's article?). I started this thread to discuss something very specific. So far, Jenstar has been the only other contributor to this thread with any substance.

..., what are we all supposed to do?

I would suggest contribute to the topic at hand, start a new thread if you want to go off on a tangent or move on to something else.

I have seen threads where moderators requested people to keep posts on-topic. I am asking for no less consideration.

[Marcia]

Here's an "unofficial" Google thought about those scraped pages

GoogleGuy
And of course if you see some crufty/scraped/machine-generated page, you can always drop us an email to tell us about it.
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2721

Does Google really care that their SERPs are getting clogged up with these worthless sites as long as it drives a revenue stream for them?
Yes, it would appear they do - at least unofficially.

[ogletree]

Adsense is not very picky at all. I have sites that have thousands of pages with no menu. As a matter of fact I have the adsense on the left side so it looks like the menu. I had adsense send me an email once that I had keyword density problems. I made a few changes and told them about it and they said I was fine. I have had checks come via Fed Ex. The account is over a year old. You just have to know what they want. It's not much.

[andrewgoodman]

Let's be perfectly clear. Advertisers don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "I wish I could send a check to a webmaster who creates automated pages." Anyone who sees the whole picture beyond their own short-term interest also might want to consider that ruining the user experience is bad for anyone trying to make a living online.

Moreover, Google advertisers are given no choice in the matter (it's the whole content network or nothing).

There are ways we as advertisers can avoid sending our money to the generators of low-converting pages. By chopping up our content-focused campaigns into many ad groups and tracking them all, we'd be able to follow ROI performance of lots of little buckets, and then turn bids down or off for the little buckets that seem to be attracting the junk clicks. But many big brand advertisers will not take the trouble to do that for a couple of years. Some webmasters know this and will continue bilking them.

So this potential ability for advertisers to avoid getting ripped off really is not the end of the story. It's also a moral/legal issue. Google needs to continue weeding out this type of "partner." No one has the "right" to serve ads on their site. Frankly sometimes I think Google should just scrap the whole AdSense program and start again with new and stiffer entry requirements for publishers. Maybe in a Florida-like move in October 2005 such that it would be a "Blue Christmas" for dishonest AdSense partners.

[ogletree]

Neither you nor Google know what people think. Some people hate it some people like it. Most people that hate it probably won't click on it anyhow. I have had great success with spam sites. I have affiliates beating down my door to get my traffic. It converts real well. If my sites were poluting the net then why do I make so much money. I don't do scraper sites but my sites provide about as much as a scraper. I am able to rank in G for my pages. My pages normaly rank in low traffic areas where none of the sites in organic or ppc provide much help. My pages are very targeted and have ads that match what the surfer was looking for.

[Jenstar]

Google needs to continue weeding out this type of "partner."

They do continue to do this. There was a case earlier this month where a group of advertisers successfully lobbied AdSense to disallow specific pages from running AdSense (it is unclear if just those pages were blocked from running AdSense or if the publisher was suspended entirely.) So advertisers can take action to see terms-violating or low-quality pages/publishers removed from the AdSense program.

I do believe that AdSense relies heavily on user and advertiser feedback about specific sites to review for terms and policy violations, because with the number of pages and publishers they are serving, they can't check everything to make sure it is up to quality.

[ogletree]

I know a lot of people and know of a lot of scraped sites and made for Adsense junk sites that have been approved by Adsense and continue to get checks. I have an email from Adsense telling me my junk site is fine now that I made the site look more legit. (it is not a scraper) The site basically had word tracker info seo'ed on thousands of pages using auto-generated content. It is still junk. Adsense is not picky at all for the most part. I'm sure there are some exceptions but it is more common for Adsense to do nothing about it.

What Google is doing however is taking care of it from another angle. They are very aggressively hand-banning sites. If you turn in a site to the Google spam report it will be hand banned within a month. Because of the use of word tracker it is very easy to find these sites. Just type in some real obscure phrase from word tracker with quotes and you will get a list of junk sites. I have a phrase I type in every day to see the current list of spam sites. It changes a lot. The top sites disappear quite often. The spammers in a spam report war are going to eliminate themselves if this keeps up.

[Apollo]

No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.

Does this mean that if I have a Shopping Directory site, and then a page within it about (let's say) car stereos, that I can't place adsense on this page because it was specifically put up to show ads about car stereos?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

And of course if you see some crufty/scraped/machine-generated page, you can always drop us an email to tell us about it.

I am not sure how well this works in the US but over here (Scandinavia) it dosn't work at all.

I have documented a bunch of sites for the Scandinavian Google team over 6 month ago - stuff they agreed should not have been approved. Why it was approved in the first place when it is clear that it should not have been only have one answer: Greed!

Anyway, the sites have NOT been removed yet - the crap is still here. Google knows about it and they agree it is crap with no value to users whatsoever, but they still accept it. One of the sites in question have even been banned by editorial and had a case with Google legal for violating their trademark - but they still accept them for AdSense.

Sorry, but this is a disarster! I have asked the Google team here several month ago to show me just 3 examples of Scandinavian sites with a quality representation of AdSense. So far they have not been able to produce that. To me, AdSense here looks like nothing but a scam and I advise everyone to turn it off.

Oh yeah, and then the smart pricing... The way it works here is that the totally non-converting AdSense ads are charged at a HIGHER CPC than the search ads. Sorry, but I don't buy into that.

[Bernard]

No More "Made for Adsense" sites (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=11314&page=1&pp=10)

Looks like a mixed bag of anecdotes, but perhaps Google is starting to act?

[MikeDammann]

I think Google is already acting ...

[Bernard]

So this webmaster has an idea of "combining random text with Adsense" (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=11286). Forum members believe the site is in violation of the AdSense TOS and report it. Turns out, the webmaster had asked Google about it prior to posting publicly. Google's response (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=11580) just leaves me wondering if they really care about advertisers at all.

[I, Brian]

So this webmaster has an idea of "combining random text with Adsense" (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=11286). Forum members believe the site is in violation of the AdSense TOS and report it. Turns out, the webmaster had asked Google about it prior to posting publicly. Google's response (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=11580) just leaves me wondering if they really care about advertisers at all.
Well, it's worth bearing in mind that the nonsense pages would require effort on the webmaster's part to promote to develop any kind of natural traffic.

Added to that, there is a danger to the webmaster of random text simply bringing up free public service ads.

In Google's position, rather than weed out offenders one by one, they are almost certainly going to prefer to observe developments - and tweak the ad display parameters, so that use of stop words and topic association simply becomes tighter to prevent perceived abuse.

In other words, Google says: "Fine, do what you want - but we'll not guarantee any paid ads will show tomorrow if your content is determined as non-relevant."