...what about these awful ad?

Do you KNOW they are awful? Or do you just THINK they are awful?

If you know they are awful then ban them.

If you just think the ads look awful but don't really know as a matter of FACT, then do a test to see if removing them improves your earnings. If your earnings go down, then you know the ads are not awful.

If earnings go up, then you've confirmed that the ads are awful.

Nobody can tell you how an ad will perform on your site. They can only tell you how ads performed on their own sites, which could differ from your experience.

Also, be sure to note if someone is sharing their opinion of such ads or their experience. Experience counts for more.

This is something you have to find out with testing on your own site.

Let us know how your tests go.

Thanks for bringing up this topic as I've always wondered about these kinds of ads.

Best,
;)

Roger Montti

Just play with the ad balance and normally the "awful ads" will go away

Thanks a lot martini for your reply! I will test with these ads but will be very difficult because there exist tons of these type of ads...like 300 variant of it and block them all will be so hard!
Unfortunately, i don't know why but on my account i don't have no more the ad balance settings :(

In my experience trying to block them in the ad review centre is a waste of time. I finally got rid of them by blocking the entire ‘software’ category.

What Martinibuster suggests is not testable by any means. There is far too much variability in earnings on a day to day basis for all sorts of reasons that makes impossible to attribute the removal of a single advertiser from your inventory to a drop or rise in earnings.

That said, blocking an add will always (in theory) result in lower earnings, this is due to the fact that ads are sold on an auction basis. Blocking an ad will result in it being replaced with the next highest bid (the blocked ad being the highest bidder), so it will earn less by definition. And often the ads will be replace by an equally questionable ad. Blocking ads comes at a cost.

The question I ask, is the cost of blocking the ad more than the cost of not blocking the ad? Both these cost are nearly impossible to measure. The cost of not blocking the ad is the impact that the ad will have any your websites reputation and trust with your users. If you have a site say about health and fitness with authoritative articles and you show ads for diet pills and bulkling scams, then you reader is less likely to trust your articles, share your articles and link to your articles. So the cost IMO of allow those ads is relatively high and they must be blocked.

The good news is that most of these low quality, spammy ads do not pay much, they are generally symptomatic of a low demand for your ad space (that is why they often get replaced by equally spammy ads). How is this good news? As Elman suggested, you can use the ad-balancer to "block" these ads. The ad-balancer doesn't simply block the ads, it removes the lowest earning portion of your inventory and does not replace it. So spam is not replaced with spam. The cost to block is relatively low, as you are blocking the ads earn you no or very little money, and the user benefits by not only not seeing the spam but seeing fewer ads in general thus allowing them to focus on the real high value ads and your content.

The ad-balancer is not perfect, so I still do daily ad-review but with the ad-balancer in place there are far fewer ad-units to review and blocking is rarely required.