Why would you NOT want to use the "Allowed Sites" feature?

Why should I?

Why should I?

Did you read all the posts in this thread? Several good reasons.

For the exact reason Leva just posted above you.
I use the feature. For once Google implemented a feature that a lot of us wanted and made it optional too.

For the exact reason Leva just posted above you.

Is that what you mean?

The reason I use it can be summed up in one word: maliciousness.

Or:

Longer explanation: Bad guy gets pissed at me for whatever reason...

Short explanation: I don't think there are bad guys that get pissed at me... Why should Google think I'm a bad guy too if I'm not a target of the bad guys?

Longer reaching question: Do I need to prove I'm innocent before Google proves I'm guilty?

Longer reaching question: Do I need to prove I'm innocent before Google proves I'm guilty?

Short answer to that: yes, as both you and Google can end the 'contract' at any time without explanation.

Short answer to that: yes, as both you and Google can end the 'contract' at any time without explanation.

So, Google can end the 'contract' at any time without explanation even if I use this feature!?

So, Google can end the 'contract' at any time without explanation even if I use this feature!?

Yes, but as Leva said 'I have a heck of a lot more plausible deniability'.

Did you try using Google alerts? You might be surprised where your code is running.

I agree with using it. I just added my sites this morning. Doesn't hurt and it can only help. Google already knows which sites I own and run my code on, so nothing to hide there.

Only reason to not do it is if you are making some cash of scrapers running your site and ads. That could be a fair enough reason to leave it alone. =)

Only reason to not do it is if you are making some cash of scrapers running your site and ads. That could be a fair enough reason to leave it alone. =)

That's a fair enough reason to use it, IMO. That's exactly the kind of thing that could get you into trouble.

Bddmed, it's really simple... Options are just that - options. If Google thinks 'I have a heck of a lot more plausible deniability' they should make this feature mandatory to me, not optional!

Agreed it's an option. If you want to run the risk for fraudulent clicks on sites you don't own, it's up to you. I prefer to deal with sites I *do* own.

If you want to run the risk for fraudulent clicks on sites you don't own, it's up to you.

No, I don't want to run such a risk! If Google thinks (and they should know it much better than me) there is a risk for fraudulent clicks, they should make this feature mandatory!

I know why did they make it optional. Reason is simple greed. But this is another question.

The thing with the internet is that there's always a random nut out there who gets malicious over nothing. And some of the nuts are fairly creative and intelligent. And "attacking via the advertising revenue stream" is a pretty basic method.

Could be someone who has had a psychotic break with reality and thinks you're beaming evil thoughts at them through your web site. Could be someone who's offended by a subject discussed on one of your web sites. If you run forums, the users might discuss someone who will object to being the subject of discussion and react negatively. Could be someone you offended in real life.

Could be someone who wants your domain and figures they could get it cheaper if they get you banned. Could be someone who has a rival web site who wants to make it unprofitable for you to compete with them, by getting you banned from Adsense.

Could be someone who's just jealous -- you're successful, and they're not. Therefore, it's all your fault and they're justified in getting you banned.

There are all sorts of reasons someone could get pissed at you. Preventing bannation via enemy action just seems to be good common sense to me, yes?

Perhaps because they hadn't realized it was necessary before then?

Exactly. There are people posting here who still don't think anyone would copy code and leave the Adsense IDs in place, so how would Google know in advance before the program rolled out that this would end up being a fairly common problem?

After reading about how adsense on pages that have low impressions could be effecting your EPC, I decided to enable this feature. (about a month ago)

As I had noticed my adsense seemed to be appearing on Google's cache and translation pages and wondered if that was the reason I was getting smartpriced. Because each of these pages had a unique URL.

After a week of enabled this, my EPC has more than doubled. I cant be 100% certain this is why, but rather not go back to find out.

All I can say, try it, it might work for you too.

wyweb, we are always complaining when Google makes us do something. So what's wrong now, when they give us a choice?
And why did they "wait" three years to roll it out? Well, why does any company "wait" to roll out a feature that hadn't been there in day one of ANY program? Perhaps because they hadn't developed all of the features of the program right from the get go? Perhaps because they hadn't realized it was necessary before then? Perhaps because enough publishers asked for it?

First of all I've never complained about adsense. I've indicated confusion at times, but I've never complained. I LIKE adsense. At one point adsense liked me. If I'm going to complain re: adsense, I assure you it won't be in this forum.

Secondly, denied sites is a very easy feature to implement. I could write the code myself. You're argument of "it takes time.." would be more accurately phrased as, "How does this effect our bottom line."

Perhaps because they hadn't realized it was necessary before then?

I can go with that also... barely though.

I donot worry if my id used in some other sites.

But I was looking for some feature which will allow
no other ids will be used in my sites. I mean revenue share = OFF,
so that hackers or ISP can not put their rotating adsense ids and steal adsense money.

To make the feature more useful, they can list the sites where the adsense code was found and then allow the account holder to disallow the site, if they wish.

Allowed by default, but deniable by choice.

I have many domains and entering them is a pain so haven't used it.