That's a bold statement. Are you ominscient and know all the facts?

I wasn't referring to the OP. I was replying to the person who was warning about (esp) n00bs trying to inflate CTR.

And yes, I do have all the facts. Show me how to be accepted for Adsense without having to agree to a TOS.

If someone steps off a curb without looking and gets run over by a bus, did they get what they deserved?

Yes. I have no pity or simpathy for such people. I never slow down when people walk across the road when us drivers have a green. I make the buggers move.

I have no pity or simpathy for such people. I never slow down when people walk across the road when us drivers have a green.

So you are in the right for willfully killing someone's child? No pity? You don't slow down?

How many times a year do you run people down?

So you are in the right for willfully killing someone's child? No pity? You don't slow down?

No pity. No slowing down. I have been known to swerve at the last moment. Hopefully it will shock them from doing it again in the future. I do the same with cars who pass a red light at crossroads. As soon as I have a yellow, my foot goes down. If a car is passing in front of me and I happen to hit it, then so be it. It will be his fault for passing a red.

How many times a year do you run people down?

None. They get out of the way... but it rarely happens anyway. Going back to your original point about bus drivers knocking someone over. Why is it the bus driver's fault for the person walking out into the road without looking ? Why is he/she to blame for someone else's supidity.

You don't slow down?

I do for wild animals and pets.

Maybe a blind guy with a cane too? He may have missed the walk signal.

BTW, crosswalk lights sometimes malfunction, not often, but it happens.

Google sometimes malfunctions too. They may be able to see abnormal CTR, but there's no way in h3ll they always know the motivation for it. Greed, hurting a competitor or enemy, or some seo just testing on a 3rd party to see what happens.

Maybe a blind guy with a cane too? He may have missed the walk signal

The Mod stated "If someone steps off a curb without looking..."
Blind people with sticks or dogs are an exception, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does, i'll let you know what the outcome was.

Getting back on-topic, we do not know what caused the ban. We do not know the site (please do not post it), so we don't have a clue without all the facts.

They often close without reason...

So I have opened 1 account for each site, with different names and bank accounts, a lot safer ! I don't trust the robbers anymore...

They often close without reason...

There is always a reason. Unfortunately, Google likes to use umbrella terms for violations, rather than give you exact reasons, or examples.

In Europe and the USA it's a common perception that if you link to the source of a piece of content that it's ok to publish online It's actually a common misunderstanding worldwide that if something is published online, literally publicly available, that it's ok to re-publish

In Europe very very few people believe this..( our copyright laws are considerably more strict and protective of creators than those in the USA )neither do many in the rest of the world..Europe does not have the widely abused "fair use" doctrine which scrapers ( and search engines ) in the USA attempt to hide behind..But those in the USA do constantly try to include Europeans in this "common perception"..

Some Americans claiming, "everybody thinks it and does it"..does not make it true..not ethically or morally right , nor legal in many, if not most, jurisdictions ..worldwide, in Europe or... even in the USA..

Even if everybody did believe it and was doing it , it would not make it "right" ..and as it is far more commonly done by USA sites ( claiming "fair use", whilst actually doing it purely for ranking and revenue, but knowing that it is wrong ) , and Chinese and other Asian sites, who at least don't try to hide their larceny behind claims of "fair use"..trying to Drag Europe into the "guilty" camp..is disingenuous..

You'll note that the crowd sources scrapers are all VC'd into existence in the USA..

In Europe, if proposed as a business plan to be started here, they would never see the light of day, because their lawyers know that they, and their VC backers, would be sued into oblivion and ruin..if their primary place of business was considered to be on European soil..and thus they were subject to European laws..

I'm calling publishers with over 100k page views PER DAY that has over 1.5% Ctr to come forward. Then I will agree with your statement.

jbayabas...I think you completely missed the sarcasm in my post where I said:

A high traffic site should never have less than 1.5% CTR. But WTF do I really know as I'm just basing this on my observations...which are very limited given how many sites I have AdSense on and how many sites there are with AdSense.

Maybe you missed it because English isn't your primary language but what I'm trying to politly say is exactly what netmeg said:

Nobody in this forum - nobody - can speak with authority about what is normal or average for any sites other than their own, no matter what they think or want the rest of us to think. Remember that. Only Google has that information.

That includes you, me, and everyone else. For all I know there could be many sites with a CTR much higher than yours that are just as high traffic. Doesn't mean you can apply your metrics and say they are going to get banned.

First a very interesting discussion between martinibuster and Lame_Wolf :)

I will have to say that a few of google's recent rules are virtually impossible to follow. Recently several sites running adsense have been notified that ads are disabled on some sites (but not all) because they host copyrighted content or link to (or drive traffic to) pages/sites hosting content that violate copyrights.

I can understand the former but the latter is not that easy to comply with. The problem is compounded by the fact that these notifications are not very specific but just give one example. Expecting people to know who owns the copyright to a content and link only to the right sources or never link to that content at all is going too far IMO. How do people online know who owns the copyright to a piece of content? They link to it because they find it relevant and cool. The real copyright owner can in several times be decided only by a court of law.

It is very difficult to know this information and Google are sending these notifications because they probably know who is violating and who is not based on DMCA notices they receive. It would be only fair if they pass on such specific information and ask the site owner to remove such links. Without that information, it would be very difficult for site owners to know what link outs are considered to be not within their TOS. Further, google disabling ads on the site as a whole is not fair. If they were to apply the same rules tho their properties, they should never run ads on youtube then, but will they?

I also agree with Leosghost that linking to the source does not in any way become fair use of content like images or videos.

I would like to give my experience of a friend, I know very well. He had an adsense a/c in his name.He also run one in his de facto's name.He also had employed a programmer who also had an adsense a/c.
All 3 a/cs were accessed daily by the programmer, and 2 a/cs were accessed by my friend.
All a/cs were complying with Googles TOS
One website held my friend, started to get a surge in traffic from referrals from a few comparison shopping sites that had been newly created by a fortune 500 company.
The friend thought this is great! He assumed that these sites were buying traffic as he could not see them in Search engines.He put all sorts of related affiliate banners hoping to maximise his profits but to his dismay he could not make a sale.
Nor was the adsense for the site increasing that much compared to the traffic.
It was not long before not just that adsense account was shut down by Google but they shut all 3 down.The defacto's, the programmers and his own.
All the appeals from all the parties didn't help. There was over $12000 owed and all uncashed checks were bounced.
After much investigation, my friend is convinced those comparison shopping carts, who were getting paid per click, were manufacturing traffic through bots.My friend was just unfortunate in that these shopping sites had a link on one (and only one) of their pages on each site.
So I am guessing that you freely accessed both accounts from 1 computer and have had both accounts closed by association.

The good news is that my friend and the programmer were both able to start new adsense accounts with the same websites.

Looks like last straw for cash grab.

How do you figure?

They just lost 30% of your total monthly earnings.

Logic, it's not just for Vulcans anymore.

So I have opened 1 account for each site, with different names and bank accounts, a lot safer ! I don't trust the robbers anymore...

That in itself is a violation if I'm not mistaken, unless you're registering a separate business per site.

If you consider them robbers and you're still taking their money... 'nuff said.

It's a business, it's a contract, there are rules and a T&C on what's considered acceptable and if your site breaches it they cancel it.

Simple business and that doesn't make them robbers.

However, if your site does manage to defraud advertisers in any way, fraud is a real criminal penalty. Canceling AdSense is the least they could do and many have gotten off lucky that's all they did as some have been sued and worse.

I never slow down when people walk across the road when us drivers have a green. I make the buggers move.

Pedestrians have the right of way - Good way to make your family homeless and earn some jail time. Go for it.

The following 7 messages were cut out to new thread by incredibill. New thread at: google_adsense/4493565.htm [webmasterworld.com]
4:57 pm on Sep 10, 2012 (PST -8)

Of course texting while walking/driving is right up there with people that sign up for AdSense and then violate the T&Cs and wonder what went wrong. You either pay attention to what's going on or you don't and suffer the consequences. Problem is nobody takes any personal responsibility for anything and it's always "their" fault, those "robbers".

Sorry, but AdSense isn't that complicated to stay in compliance. In almost every case I've ever investigated of sites that have been banned, most were deserved. In only a handful of cases was the webmaster entirely not at fault, and in a couple Google simply didn't want to have that site in their system because it simply wasn't ad worthy. However, that's their prerogative because, like it or not, it's their business and they have to protect the advertisers.

Even if the problem was out of the webmasters immediate control, like invalid third party clicks, bad traffic, etc., it's still ultimately the site owners responsibility to block that traffic and the source of those third party clicks otherwise AdSense will assume you're in cahoots with those parties or soliciting that bad traffic.

That's why I block bots like crazy, use NOARCHIVE to eliminate scraper sources in SE cache pages, disallow internet archives, etc. to make sure I have pretty tight control over my traffic sources and only authorize my AdSense to run on very specific sites.

Here's a simple example of why I go the extra mile:

Imagine you allow Baidu to index your site and someone decides to start click attacking your AdSense cached pages in Baidu. You have zero control over what happens over on Baidu and if they don't provide any anti-scraper/hacker/click fraud protection you're just hosed. Therefore, the best way to stop the problem is to be proactive and not allow cached pages on ANY search engine with NOARCHIVE on every page. Even better is to simply block all crawlers that don't provide any traffic because they are still a resource drain and a potential AdSense vulnerability. Not worth letting them crawl whatsoever.

If I get banned it certainly won't be for lack of trying to keep my account clean.

Why do I get the feeling for every webmaster reading this that adds NOARCHIVE to their site another one will be over at Baidu clicking the competition in cache?

If I get banned it certainly won't be for lack of trying to keep my account clean

While we've had disagreements over the years I find that very hard to believe.

Yes I still have:

<meta name="robots" content="noarchive, nofollow">

On many pages.

While we've had disagreements over the years I find that very hard to believe.

You find it hard to believe I keep my account clean?

I'm squeaky clean as I don't mess with the mortgage payments.

IMO, Webmaster Welfare (AdSense) should be treated with respect as long as it keeps paying the bills! ;)

You find it hard to believe I keep my account clean?

I'm squeaky clean as I don't mess with the mortgage payments.

IMO, Webmaster Welfare (AdSense) should be treated with respect as long as it keeps paying the bills! ;)

Thank you, sir.

Expecting people to know who owns the copyright to a content and link only to the right sources or never link to that content at all is going too far IMO. How do people online know who owns the copyright to a piece of content? They link to it because they find it relevant and cool. The real copyright owner can in several times be decided only by a court of law.

Sorry, but I gotta quote from something written over 200 years ago. The author was then at Eton, though he later grew up to be a distinguished parliamentarian. Here we are in No. XI. of the Microcosm, dated Monday, February 12, 1787. The article is a parody of ballad critism. Boldface mine; italics in the original.

  "The Knave of Hearts
  "He stole those Tarts."

Here attention is awakened; and our whole souls are intent upon the first appearance of the Hero. Some readers may perhaps be offended at his making his entré in so disadvantageous a character as that of a thief. To this I plead precedent.

<snip>

We may remember ... that in Virgil's poem, almost the first light in which the Pious Ćneas appears to us, is a deer-stealer; nor is it much excuse for him, that the deer were wandering without keepers; for however he might, from this circumstance, have been unable to ascertain whose property they were; he might, I think, have been pretty well assured that they were not his.

I think, have been pretty well assured that they were not his.

Nice. Well said. Check and MATE!

You find it hard to believe I keep my account clean?

Not at all mate, I'm sorry I expressed myself rather poorly. I meant I'd find it hard to believe you would do otherwise.

You can find more help here:
[support.google.com...]