A google ad complaint

[tankgreen]

Hello. This is my first post, so please forgive me if I have placed it in the wrong forum.

I have sent a couple of emails to google complaining about an advert I saw for the sale of women through ebay. I have not received any response aside from an automated reply to my initial complaint. I have noticed that there are google reps posting in these forums, so I thought that perhaps I could try to have my questions answered by posting them here.

The ad in question was in the "sponsored links" sidebar on google.co.uk and it appeared when I did a search for "women and anger". It read as thus:

"Women For Sale
Low Priced Women.
Big Selection! (aff)
ebay.co.uk"

Naturally, I find the advertisment for the sale of a human being through an on-line auction house completely offensive.

After my initial email, the ad has been changed to read "Find it for sale" yet the link still pulls up a search for women on ebay. I find the original ad, the slight change in text and google's complete disinterest in the matter highly offensive. I would like a complete removal of the ad, for google to answer my questions and a promise that whatever mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that the sale of a human being through an on-line auction house is impossible, are activated. Here are my questions:

- How is it possible that a company which refuses to use its "relevant" textual advertising on websites that use bad or foul language, would consider an advert for the sale of human beings inoffensive or somehow relevant to its users?

- If I had searched for "africans and anger" would I have been offered Africans for sale at ebay.co.uk too?

- Am I correct in my presumption that there is a mechanism in place that forbids the combination of certain words within your "relevant" advertising that would be deemed inappropriate?

- As in, I will not be offered the sale of Africans via an on-line auction house no matter what search I perform, will I?

- If so, why is there no such mechanism in place to forbid the advertising of the sale of women through your website?

- Is it because you consider women to be off less importance than Africans?

- Have you ever heard of the word misogyny?

- What is your opinion of that word and the societal framework that supports it?

- Why was it that, after my initial complaint, only the text of the offending advertisement was changed and not the link itself? Effectively you are still advertising the sale of women through an on-line auction, only using less overt language.

- Since, in the automated response I received, google states that I miraculously saw the advert in the very short space of time between the upload to your site by ebay and its review by your editorial staff, do you not think this a very dangerous practise? This seems like a rather large loophole in which anyone could open an account and upload any manner of malicious, hateful, prejudiced and downright illegal ads. Do you think you should change this policy?

(FYI: Whilst I am aware of the historical implications of the sale of Africans through auctions, the point, just in case anyone is unclear, is that women have always been seen as commodities and still are and that whilst racism, rightly so, is often protected against, misogyny is still extremely rife and normalised.)

I hope I can get some resolution through this forum.

[I, Brian]

It's simply keyword based bidding - eBay sellers especially bid on anything they can get their hands on. Click through and you'll simply be at eBay.

Start a website with AdSense called "gumpdump" tomorrow, and the day after it will show AdSense adverts declaring something on the lines of:

"Gumpdump: Find Gumpdump, special selection!"

I've found it a little annoying where it's applied to company names of my own.

You can remove the ads from your site, by the way - there are instructions in your AdSense admin, with the ability to screen out specific sites.

[AussieWebmaster]

Hey come on.... without the humor that occurs from automatic inserts etc. my life would be that much less...
I need the laughs the stupidity gives me.... hey I find your post offensive - well not really but the act of jumping up on the soapbox for a first post when it could have been a simple this is what is occurring can someone from Google see what can be done would have sufficed.
This is not a concious act of misogyny... it is a computer flaw.

[jogrady]

Tankgreen,

Do you really think someone is trying to sell women on e-bay? I read the ad and laughed. You should too. Lighten up!

My hope is that you are taking your passions into the parts of the word were this problem really exists. Getting upset about somebody's AdWord ad (that only amounts to words) does nothing to improve the human condition. In fact, this kind of righteous indignation actually makes light of people's real suffering.

In other words, I admire your passion, but you have the wrong focus!

John

[leadegroot]

Ebay affiliates seem to do automated ads - they will bid on any noun and it will go to the ebay page. Its important to understand that no one said 'hmmm, yep, selling women on ebay is appropriate'. Its another item that has slipped through the cracks and I would expect that Google will write a filter for it and it won't appear again.
And FYI there was a minor kerfuffle recently where there were similar ebay ads for africans, although no amount googling will find that story for me right now Those ads also disappeared.

[tankgreen]

but i am really only interested in hearing back from google. as i said in my original post, this is a bit of a last resort to get some answers since they will not respond to me privately. that's terrible customer service regardless.

i noticed in this thread started by marcia that google have filters to screen certain words / ads.

this is what i was asking about really. and if they have it, why do they not utilise it effectively?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

it is a computer flaw

This is the most comon and, to me, the most unacceptable response (usually coming in one form or another from engines) to offensive, illegal or other unacceptable search results or ad impressions.

To me, this is exactly like saying: "No, I did not kill anyone, my gun did". Sorry, but that is nothing but an attempt of running away from the responsibilities you have for the actions you take.

Google is responsible for what they publish on their site. If they leave it up to computer algoritms that dosn't change it one bit. They are still responsible and (i hope) have it under control and if they don't they are the one to blame - not the computer with comments like " ... it is a computer flaw ...". It just dosn't count.

There are really only two possible scenarios here:

1) Google have everything under control and in that case, yes, I think they should be blamed for that ad, or

2) Google do NOT have it under control and in that case they should be blamed even more!


The bottom line is: You can blame your computer, your assistant or whoever you want but by the end of the day YOU, as a pulisher, is responsible for what you publish on your site and that includes Google. If Google publish something that offend people they will leave. If they publish something that is illegal they can get fined. And, no arguments like "oh, but it's just something my computer does" will help. If you can't manage your computer take it off-line!

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by Mikkel deMib Svendsen

This is the most comon and, to me, the most unacceptable response (usually coming in one form or another from engines) to offensive, illegal or other unacceptable search results or ad impressions.

To me, this is exactly like saying: "No, I did not kill anyone, my gun did". Sorry, but that is nothing but an attempt of running away from the responsibilities you have for the actions you take.

Google is responsible for what they publish on their site. If they leave it up to computer algoritms that dosn't change it one bit. They are still responsible and (i hope) have it under control and if they don't they are the one to blame - not the computer with comments like " ... it is a computer flaw ...". It just dosn't count.

There are really only two possible scenarios here:

1) Google have everything under control and in that case, yes, I think they should be blamed for that ad, or

2) Google do NOT have it under control and in that case they should be blamed even more!


The bottom line is: You can blame your computer, your assistant or whoever you want but by the end of the day YOU, as a pulisher, is responsible for what you publish on your site and that includes Google. If Google publish something that offend people they will leave. If they publish something that is illegal they can get fined. And, no arguments like "oh, but it's just something my computer does" will help. If you can't manage your computer take it off-line!

I think the analogy does not quite fit.... my gun did not kill someone I did works if you aimed it and it killed the person... but the mere act of owning a gun that goes off while sitting in the sun is the fault of the manufacturer.. and should not be used as an argument to ban guns.

I agree you should look out for the possibility of error but to think you can control all of them may be a bit overoptimisitic.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

As long as Google keep that stupid mission statement I think it's fair to question results like this. It only takes one thing to remove it: Money and the only reason I can find not to do it is the same

[tankgreen]

i find it curious and in very bad form that the google rep(s) patrolling this forum are refusing to answer my questions.

it's not like they haven't been on the site. ahem.

really though, i shouldn't be surprised, the refusal to address my complaint only serves to underscore its relevancy.

go google. your progressive politics astound me.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by tankgreen

i find it curious and in very bad form that the google rep(s) patrolling this forum are refusing to answer my questions.

it's not like they haven't been on the site. ahem.

really though, i shouldn't be surprised, the refusal to address my complaint only serves to underscore its relevancy.

go google. your progressive politics astound me.

It was covered and dealt with... why do you think a Google Rep should apologize to you???

[The Generator]

Originally Posted by AussieWebmaster

Hey come on.... without the humor that occurs from automatic inserts etc. my life would be that much less...
I need the laughs the stupidity gives me.... hey I find your post offensive - well not really but the act of jumping up on the soapbox for a first post when it could have been a simple this is what is occurring can someone from Google see what can be done would have sufficed.
This is not a concious act of misogyny... it is a computer flaw.

True that AussieWebmaster. I've noticed that eBay is guilty of this on Overture as well. I have much respect for eBay's business model and find that their online auction system is pure genious as a way of making money. However their method of inserting keywords into ads just simply lacks creativity and their ad about "women for sale" has hit an all time record for utter stupidity.

MY SUGGESTION TO EVERYONE: If ever an Adwords (or Overture) ad rep tries to deny some of the keywords you propose due to "lack of content," just find a handful of your terms that eBay is bidding on (trust me, there will be enough) and present that as your case.

[I, Brian]

Not bad. I just saw the following AdSense on a news site:

"Isreal Terror: New and Used, get your Isreal Terror here..."

This issue is going to go somewhere.

[Chris_D]

Dynamic insertion. Don't ya love it!



It only takes a few minutes to find a few humourous eBay ads on Google:

These are on Google OZ right now:

Nuclear Waste Sale
New & used Nuclear Waste.
Check out the deals now!
www .eBay.com

Rubbish Sale
New & used Rubbish. aff
Check out the deals now!
www .eBay.com

Used Rubber
Used Rubber for sale. aff
Check out the deals now!
www .ebay.com

Brains
Brains for sale. aff
Check out the deals now!
www .eBay.com

Prophylactics Sale
New & used Prophylactics.
Check out the deals now!
www .eBay.com

Personally, I would have though that acceptable ROI on that last product would have already been achieved, without having to sell 'second hand' ones....

[AdWordsRep]

tankgreen, I certainly do apologize if you were offended by an AdWords ad.

Is the ad you saw regrettable? Yes, certainly. And for that you have my apology.

Does the ad you saw represent a misogynist attitude on the part of Google or the advertiser? No, it does not - as has been addressed by others in this tread. What it does represent is an unfortunate choice of keyword on the part of an advertiser, whose ad was either un-reviewed at the time you saw it, or which may have been missed by the Editorial team, during the review process.

I'm guessing that you are not an AdWords advertiser, and so are probably unaware of how it is possible for an advertisement such as the one you saw to appear - so I've tried to detail this below. As background, per the AdWords Terms and Conditions*, advertisers themselves are responsible for all of their keywords, ad content, and linked-to sites. Then, to maintain ad quality and relevance a human reviewer reviews each and every ad, usually within 3 to 5 business days. This time frame is highly dependent on volume, and may certainly be shorter or longer.

Some info that may assist you in seeing what happened in the case you found offensive:

* Picture, very conservatively, at least 50,000 advertisers, each of whom may have 25 campaigns within their account. These may be changed at any moment.

* Within each campaign, advertisers may create up to 100 Ad Groups, giving each advertiser a total of 2500 Ad Groups per account. These, also, may be changed at any moment.

* Within each Ad Group, advertisers may create a large number of actual ads (called creatives). Lets say that each Ad Group has two creatives (although many more are possible). This gives each advertiser the option to create 5000 ad creatives within their account. And yes, these too may be changed at any moment.

* Each advertiser submits a keyword list, per Ad Group, which, when searched on, will cause one of their ads to appear. There has always been a 'suggested' limit of 50,000 keywords per account. However, until recently this was not strictly enforced, and as a result there are many advertisers who are running their ads on hundreds of thousands of keywords. It is also worth noting that these keyword lists may be added-to or edited at any moment, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

* While Google strongly feels it is a practice to be avoided, many advertisers will apply vast keyword lists to their Ad Groups, created virtually at random - so that when a user searches on just about any word, their ad will appear.

* Many of these advertisers also employ a tool known as keyword insertion, which will insert the keyword searched for by a user into the ad itself, often into the headline.

I mention all of the above to give you some idea of the truly vast number of ads and keywords that are submitted, and then reviewed, in the AdWords program each day. And while it is unfortunate, occasionally a potentially offensive ad will shown until it can be reviewed. And, equally, when a reviewer is looking at 10,000, or 50,000, or maybe even 250,000 keywords, they may miss the fact that a few of them may be inappropriate when inserted into the ad itself.

Of course, it is in everyone's best interest, not least of all Google's, to maintain the quality of the ads that are shown through the AdWords program. Towards this end, efforts are always underway to improve both ads quality and ad relevance.

And for the occasional lapse, tankgreen, you have my apology.

AWR

* PS - By the way, should anyone wish to review the Terms and Conditions of advertising with AdWords, you'll find them here:

https://adwords.google.com/select/tsandcsfinder

[AussieWebmaster]

In the fun that the EBay auto-ad maker offered I came across a very interesting find... there are absolutely no ads for social diseases which has 7.76 million pages in organic.... no one have anything to sell in that niche?
What about herpes creams etc.

[I, Brian]

Maybe social diseases just aren't very competitive?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Thanks for th reply AWR. However, it dosn't match what I see here in Europe. I constantly see ads for large portals such as Kanoodle that clearly should not be approved running weeks after weeks. Many of them go to totally empty result pages at Kanoodle (so they can't be of much value to them either). This is not a question of new ads but a question of Google accepting this. And they do.

Let's be honest here. Large advertisers do seem to get a lot more slack when it comes to these automated creatives and batch keyword selections. If you really DID want to enforce this strongly off course you could. At least much better than what you do now. I mean, you guys can do almost anything on the organic side of search, employ hundreds of brilliant programmers and yet when it comes to simple AdWords issues you claim you can't do much. I am sorry but I simply refuse to beleiev that.

Google chose to go light on this and take the money and thats fine with me but honestly I find it funny that you first take the money, accept the "job" and they try and exuse it. Sorry, I took the bribe but I did not use the money

[tankgreen]

AdWordsRep,

Thanks for responding.

If you have filters in place, as has been confirmed in this thread, why are you not ensuring that highly offensive advertising, such as I saw, is not permitted?

Are you then saying that ebay, (or whoever), can advertise the sale of Africans as well as women (and perhaps 15 year old Thai children) through your company, even if only for 3 to 5 days?

What google must understand is even if they leave their advertisers responsible for the advertising on their site, the sheer use of google as a vehicle for this advertising leaves google itself at risk of guilt by way of association and promotion.

I maintain that if filters exist to prevent offensive ads from being displayed, and yet were not put in place to prevent the sale of women, then you are engaging in an act of misogyny if only by implication and sheer negligence.

I hope you will answer my questions sooner than last time.

[AdWordsRep]

If you have filters in place, as has been confirmed in this thread, why are you not ensuring that highly offensive advertising, such as I saw, is not permitted?

I maintain that if filters exist to prevent offensive ads from being displayed, and yet were not put in place to prevent the sale of women, then you are engaging in an act of misogyny if only by implication and sheer negligence.

Tankgreen - exactly the same filters are in place for all of the examples you've mentioned, including 'woman' and 'women'.

And while I've tried to provide additional details in post #15 as to how the ads you mentioned could have appeared, the essential answer to your questions is the same as that found in the earlier thread which you've linked-to in your post above.

Quoting from that post:

...I'm sorry you had that experience.

Yes, there are multiple levels of filtering designed to prevent this exact thing from happening, and they work very effectively - considering the truly vast number of keywords/ads submitted each day.

Still, on (fortunately rare) occasions, it's possible from something to slip through.

Please know that your points have been heard and understood - not only by me, but also by our policy team - to whom I have forwarded them, since your initial post. And again, I sincerely apologize on behalf of Google for the AdWords ads which you have found offensive.

Should you see other such ads in the future, which have not been caught by the filters, then, by all means, please write to adwords-support@google.com. We'll be happy to review the ads, as quickly as email volume allows, and remove them if they're found to be inappropriate.

AWR