Forum Moderators: martinibuster
So what do I do ?
If I clear out one MFA to replace it with another is pointless.
Google won't close down these sites. [if they do, then they are sure dragging their heels doing so].
Google won't increase the amount allowed to be added. I do not see why this is impossible for them to do. May be they want us to have MFA sites, I don't know.
I am in a quandary as to what to do.
we have all struggled with that problem at one time or another. :)
Ann
1) Site banned from Adsense
2) Advertiser banned from Adwords
3) Advertiser gives up because too many publishers block the site
4) Advertiser runs out of money
I do it every once in a while and free up to 30 slots that way.
What annoys me most are those shady advertisers with plenty of domains that are rotated for advertising. As you never know which site they are using for their spam next, you'll have to block all their domains all the time.
Now that we have a "new ASA" here - how about increasing the filter to, say, "unlimited"? :-)
What annoys me most are those shady advertisers with plenty of domains that are rotated for advertising. As you never know which site they are using for their spam next, you'll have to block all their domains all the time
Unfortunately, this is the norm (in my case) making it next to impossible to free up large amounts of slots at any given time.
Now that we have a "new ASA" here - how about increasing the filter to, say, "unlimited"?
Come on new ASA, help us out with some of the issues we really need assistance with. Many of us here would agree that MFA's and other 'spam' advertisers are a priority issue.
I do it every once in a while and free up to 30 slots that way.
I've managed to drop 3, and reluctently too. If they cannot raise it from what it is now, then I wish you could drop by extension as well. A lot of mine that I have blocked are .info sites
As we have a new ASA here [Hello ASA], then here are a few suggestions.
1: Increase the amount of sites we can block. MFA sites, Directory sites etc are not wanted by us or yourselves. If you won't remove them, how do you then expect us to cope. Esp if your code is on more than one site and different subjects.
2: Make it a time limit from when someone reports a site for MFA etc to a result. I have reported sites months ago and still see them advertising with adsense. Doesn't inspire me to report more.
[may be we should get a cut for reporting such sites. We get a percentage of the earnings lost by the spammer]
3: Link Units. part 1
Please can it be possible for the background colors to match the site. It look terrible if you use it and your site isn't white.
[I am not on about the adverts, it is when you click on them to open out to see the results is what I am on about]
4: Link Units. part 2
Would it be possible to block certain keywords/phrases like you could with advertisers.
That's all I can think of right now. Got sqaure eyes from checking out that list of blocked sites. :/
Thanks for your feedback on the advertisers you have noticed on your sites.
Please be assured that I have communicated your concerns about advertiser quality to our AdWords team. We also appreciate you reporting sites that violate AdWords Editorial Guidelines ( [adwords.google.com...] ) and Terms and Conditions ( [adwords.google.com...] ).
In recent weeks, I have discussed with our product team if we could increase the number of sites a publisher can filter. At present, we have no plans to do so. However, as zett mentioned, you can delete sites from your filter list, to free up space to add new ones.
Although we will not offer the option to filter certain link units keywords or phrases, we will investigate greater customization options for link units.
ASA
I suggest to Google, rather than try to adapt the competetive ad filter to act as an MFA filter, instead give us the ability to set a minimum cost per click. A lot of the concern surrounding MFAs is that they only pay a few cents per click. If we can set a minimum, there would be less need to filter specific ads.
In recent weeks, I have discussed with our product team if we could increase the number of sites a publisher can filter. At present, we have no plans to do so.
That's a shame. You cannot imagine how frustrating it is.
However, as zett mentioned, you can delete sites from your filter list, to free up space to add new ones.
And look where that got me. 4 hours wasted, 3 sites removed, 3 more sites added.
It's getting to be a case of judging mfa/pointless sites of a level of "crappyness".
Although we will not offer the option to filter certain link units keywords or phrases, we will investigate greater customization options for link units.
It would be in the interest of everyone. I have removed adverts from over 1000 pages due to this. And the pages all have PICS-Label
I am surprised that the google code doesn't look at the PICS-Label, it could be one way to avoid gay sites etc on child friendly sites.
Tim222 has a good point about minimum cost per click. That should get rid of a lot of MFA sites in one go.
In recent weeks, I have discussed with our product team if we could increase the number of sites a publisher can filter. At present, we have no plans to do so.
This response confirms my initial thoughts on the "new ASA". A new face does not really "make spring", it's just a new face to an otherwise faceless machine. Good to see and hear and talk to, but pointless for trying to change the machine itself.
I guess that there are also no plans at present to enable all the other requested features, in this or the countless other threads in this forum. Sad.
In recent weeks, I have discussed with our product team if we could increase the number of sites a publisher can filter. At present, we have no plans to do so.
...so "back to square uno" as they say.
However, as zett mentioned, you can delete sites from your filter list, to free up space to add new ones
What Zett hasn't mentioned (because it's been said countless times before) is that most of us are all too painfully familiar with this method of quality control, which often amounts to nothing more than a exercise in futility.
We are constantly working to improve AdSense, and appreciate your valuable feedback. While I am unable to discuss details of possible new features, we will let you know as we roll any out.
As I communicate all your ideas to the relevant teams, I would disagree that it's pointless to suggest improvements to AdSense. I encourage you to keep providing us with your feedback. While some ideas may not be implemented, others could be.
ASA
Once it is full I start exchanging sites I just don't like (email cultivators, get rich quick etc...) for new more scammy ones (parked pages full of ads etc...) Sometimes they come back up so I just switch them with another until I fine one that is defunct or the auction just keeps them out on bid price alone.
1. Contact the advertiser directly and ask it to filter *you*.
2. Cut down on the number of ads showing on your site (bad adverts are often from bottom feeders).
3. Allow screenable site-targeting for your site. Quality advertisers you can allow in; jerks you can block out. Enough good advertisers squeezes out the junk.
4. Test on-page text and titles to see if any words are poisoning your Adsense ads (triggering stupid ads based on keywords).
5. Check some of the advertisers you filtered out long ago. They may have left the building or been banned. Delete and replace.
6. Buy Google and revise Adsense Policy.
p/g
1. Contact the advertiser directly and ask it to filter *you*.
Against google TOS to contact an advertiser.
2. Cut down on the number of ads showing on your site (bad adverts are often from bottom feeders).
Did that.
4. Test on-page text and titles to see if any words are poisoning your Adsense ads (triggering stupid ads based on keywords).
Sometimes impossible due to the theme of the page.
eg: And American Indian with the name of "Bacon Rind" or Fetish Jewelry. [which has nothing to do with sex]
5. Check some of the advertisers you filtered out long ago. They may have left the building or been banned. Delete and replace.
Sadly, they still exist.
6. Buy Google and revise Adsense Policy.
Yeah right.
I rely on adsense money as I am disabled. I can barely get by from month to month, let alone purchase google.
Recently I had my GF start a company apply to Adsense, then spun off all my small sites to her.
Now there's a man who lives dangerously. :)
FarmBoy
I am in a quandary as to what to do.
I'm going to post the following and you can do whatever you think is best.
A few months ago I was in exactly the same position. I hated the thought that my site visitors were seeing some of these ads and maybe associating them with my site.
In December, 2007, I stopped chasing. I stopped adding new URL's to my filter. In February, 2008, I cleared out my filter completely and I haven't added anything back in.
My stats are up - CTR, earnings, etc.
FarmBoy
Publishers currently bear no responsibility for the content of the ads and can pass the buck to AdSense if readers complain.
If publishers were given the opportunity to review ads, they would have assumed the responsibility to review each and every one and could justifiably be castigated, boycotted and maybe even sued for inappropriate, illegal or misleading advertising on their sites.
We do not filter ads on our site (except in a few instances when required to do so by court order or legal settlements), not even our direct competitors. If our competitors want to send us their money, they're welcome to do so.
Or are Google so desperate that they NEED the money from the MFA crowd?
It can not be a technical issue. Just look at the IP address of the landing page when the ad is submitted, and if it points to a parked page, reject the ad. Google can't be serious with their "quality scores for advertisers" as long as they do not fix this very serious problem.
If they stopped accepting these ads, I could free up about 25-30% of my filter slots right now.
(Yep, these are real problems of a real publisher. I certainly will not participate in a daily/weekly/monthly feature request thread that just provides another proof for the helplessness of Adsense publishers.)
In December, 2007, I stopped chasing. I stopped adding new URL's to my filter. In February, 2008, I cleared out my filter completely and I haven't added anything back in.
I have started to do that since my earnings dropped, but for about 1/2 a day at a time. I was getting around $44 a day, but now lucky to get $39, even though I am getting about 20% more clicks.
Today is the 1st full day that I have taken them off [except ebay]
I will watch to see if it climbs.
Today is the 1st full day that I have taken them off [except ebay]
I will watch to see if it climbs.
Update: Recently, by midnight in the UK I would have $30. It is now 04.00 and i've only just broken that barrier. So the filters are going back on.
I used to get $30 around 21.00 but those days look long gone.
~sigh~
Anyway, we used to have this problem with full filters. Ehe way we handle the filters now is that every now and then just delete the whole thing (save it off first just in case things DON'T improve) and let the site run for 24 hours with (almost - except for actual competitors) nothing in the filter. Then take a look at the ads on the busiest pages. Most of the time half of the garbage ads will never show again, because GAd has moved on with trying out new ads and REALIZED which legitimate ads are giving better, higher paying results, and these will now become "preferred" to Adsense. This also, almost always raises the CPM because NOW instead of being eliminated, those cruddy ads are now BASE SUPPORTING the bids and thus making the legitimate bidders pay more. Once you do this "bootstrap" procedure a few times, you're likely to see far fewer arb and MFA ads in general because they can no longer compete with the price your preferred LEGITIMATE advertisers are paying. Nowadays, I quickly scan the highest traffic pages daily and add only MAYBE up to 3 new MFA's a day, most of which are ones I've never seen before. Like someone else said, 95% of arb sites are transient and don't last more than 30 days.
It sucks because I know it's costing me money, but there is nothing I can do about it. I've gone through the list of advertisers I have banned, but I can't justify removing any of them...
I have to add as well, that my filter is full, and I have no choice but to show MFA ads, or ads for ringtones, and other crap.
IMO Google want you to have MFA sites. They do not close down accounts that are clearly MFA. I reported one over a month ago and it is still operating.
If we could ban pub-id, then we wouldn't need so many filters.
If google acted quicker to closing accounts, we wouldn't need so many filters.
I am wasting my time reporting MFA sites. I am giving google a free service, and nothing changes. I have better things to do with my time than report them. Why should I bother ? They don't care.
It sucks because I know it's costing me money, but there is nothing I can do about it.
How is it costing you money?
FarmBoy
I fear that is one of the reasons certain niches see their income falling.
If I could be able to ferret them out I would filter them.
In Jan and Feb. I saw some ads advertising for 2007 so I filtered them..fast but cannot figure out how to tell the difference.
I have actually spoken with some who have had this happen with their ads...no I did not contact advertisers my talking was via forums and while it may be a good thing for advertisers we, and even Google, are not making anything off this arrangement other than Google inflating their advertisers numbers for shareholders. I think it is more likely though, that it is a program error that is not yet detected.
Ann
In Jan and Feb. I saw some ads advertising for 2007 so I filtered them..fast but cannot figure out how to tell the difference
Yeah... I've seen this too.
I just recently blocked several advertisers who were site-targeting me. They had ads from February 2007 running. They banners that promoted a movie that came out in Feb 2007.
I figure G serves the highest paying ads... It sounds like a waste of time that would be much better spent improving yoru sites.
I disagree; as I find that Google sometimes serves low paying ads over better or high paying ads.
