Ouch! Have ya'll seen this?

[luvdavy]

Just ran across this. Sounds bad. Be sure to read it all.
Jan

http://www.nationalantispamregistry.com/legal_proceedings.htm

[Daminc]

Wow. Google could be in a bit of a pickle over this. Never mind the bad PR for AdSense.

I wouldn't have thought it comes under the umbrella of Spam but it certainly seems to fall under the jurisdiction of The Federal Trade Commission.

[WebSavvy]

They don't just accept complaints about spam. According to their information they also accept complaints about Internet fraud.

This is a good thing. Too many web hosting companies taking money for hosting then folding and the client is out the cash. There's designers out there who agree to one price, half way do a site and then demand more money before they will finish it.

I've seen lots of stuff like that out there. I have also been one of the clients left in the cold by a hosting company who took a year payment up front, and folded three weeks later. It's fine though, because the idiot that ran it is now in federal prison (on unrelated charges).

[luvdavy]

I can't imagine why Google would think that site was not appropriate for the adsense ads, either. I've always thought it was a very well thought of and perhaps even official site.

It could hurt anyone with adsense in the long run though. If it causes too many problems, Google will either severely limit or even shelf the program. I'd hate to see that.

Jan

[WebSavvy]

I don't believe that Google would willingly "shelf" the program because doing so would cut them out of a rather large revenue stream by limiting their net wide AdSense exposure. I do however, think the adverse affect would be that they may start imposing more restrictions for sites being accepted into the program overall.

It does seem like a large contradiction in terms, considering that the site in question which had applied to the program, must first have been 'accepted' by Google. This means that someone from Google visited that site and determined it was worthy of acceptance into the program under their current guidelines.

The site is the same now as it was when it was accepted, so that being said, under what grounds did the site become 'unacceptable' per Google terms?

This is certainly going to open up a very large can of worms for Google and maybe rattle some bones in the closet.

[Daminc]

If Google wasn’t defrauding website owners they would provided written statements of accounts, as well as documented proof that the advertiser was never charged for any clicks on any website Google accused of generating fraudulent clicks.
This caused my eyebrows to raise a bit!

I would have thought that would be SOP for any commercial company that enters a contracted agreement. I, for one, wouldn't enter into any commercial/marketing venture without being able to itemise and record all outgoing and incoming expenses. It would be so easy for Google to provide a report.

[luvdavy]

Well, I guess for most of us they just consider that they are doing us a favor to pay us at all. So they don't specify WHAT they pay or make any promises at all.

It's really a great way to make money on a popular website. I just wish they would utilize something besides the ad content that matches the page content. I'm not able to put them on any of the sites that I manage because of the amount of competitor ads. You can block them, but there are too many, and it requires constant monitoring. To me, it's really only perfect for a directory or non-selling site. And, money is money....:)

Jan

[WebSavvy]

Google does provide an itemized list by date for clicks, exposures, and earnings, for those who participate in the program.

What they do not do, is tell the webmaster who participates in the program exactly what ads were clicked and what revenue share was earned from it.

I don't believe there's legally any set rule that demands Google must divulge their revenue model to webmasters who participate in their program.

If you've ever joined any other network to sell your site real estate in exchange for a revenue share, (like Burst Network, etc.) they only tell you what share you have earned per banner you've shown based on clicks/exposures. They do not divluge sensitive information as to how much they charged the advertising client to place that ad.

None of the networks hand out that information, and they shouldn't have to. If it were public knowledge, their competition can go to the advertiser and say; "Company X charged you this amount of $$ money where we will only charge you this amount. Our advertising model is more cost effective for your business."

Based on that information if made public, their prospects would jump ship before they've even pulled into shore. Common business sense for anyone who wants to get ahead dictates that you must keep all internal company issues and data private.

[luvdavy]

All true.
I consider it a "favor" myself...so I don't complain. I only wish they'd get on a more timely schedule.

Did you make it to Charleston, Savvy?

[WebSavvy]

Not yet Jan. I will be there in a few weeks. Right now we have lots of ice here. I never fly when the snow and ice are this bad.

I'll be there in about 3 more weeks. I'm going up there for about 4 days first, and then when I return here, will be leaving shortly thereafter. I am looking forward to it though. Doug's already told me he's going to give me the grand tour of Charleston, so that should be lots of fun. :)

How are your real estate directories doing?

[Erik]

Originally posted by savvy1

It does seem like a large contradiction in terms, considering that the site in question which had applied to the program, must first have been 'accepted' by Google. This means that someone from Google visited that site and determined it was worthy of acceptance into the program under their current guidelines.

The site is the same now as it was when it was accepted, so that being said, under what grounds did the site become 'unacceptable' per Google terms?

Google does not visit and accept ALL these sites.
Once a site has been accepted by Google you can use Adsense on other sites that you own.

[WebSavvy]

I know that. However, they applied for ONE site and that ONE site must first be visited by Google in order to be approved.

They did not run AdSense on any other domains. They ran it on the one with which they applied which Google had to visit to approve, and then later deem them unfit for further participation.

I also have sites that run AdSense, so I do know how it works.

[Erik]

Maybe Google got complaints from advertisers and evaluated the website again?

[Daminc]

I also have sites that run AdSense, so I do know how it works. I don't, but I'm learning ;)
Once a site has been accepted by Google you can use Adsense on other sites that you own. This doesn't make sense to me. Why would you have to get a site approved if you were able to use Adsense on sites that are not approved :confused:

[WebSavvy]

... This doesn't make sense to me. Why would you have to get a site approved if you were able to use Adsense on sites that are not approved ...
According to Google's rules, you have to be approved first and after which you may also include your ad code on other sites which you own.

They have the mediabot out crawling to determine what type of ads to display on pages, individually, based on the on the page content.

It does seem an odd way to conduct the program because it leaves too much leeway for abusive site owners to promote Google Ads on sites that are of unsuitable content (e.g., soft porn, warez, etc.)

[luvdavy]

Originally posted by savvy1
Not yet Jan. I will be there in a few weeks. Right now we have lots of ice here. I never fly when the snow and ice are this bad.

I'll be there in about 3 more weeks. I'm going up there for about 4 days first, and then when I return here, will be leaving shortly thereafter. I am looking forward to it though. Doug's already told me he's going to give me the grand tour of Charleston, so that should be lots of fun. :)

How are your real estate directories doing?

Awful, Debbie!
It seems that Florida just now happened with "restaurants" and got my first directory booted. I'm tweaking and tweaking trying to get it back. Mr. Condo's site is back to the top on everything and he is happy....but I don't have time to start anything else yet. It's driving me nuts....all kinds of domain names and no time to use them! LOL.

Jan

[Quadrille]

It does seem an odd way to conduct the program because it leaves too much leeway for abusive site owners to promote Google Ads on sites that are of unsuitable contentYes - but Google reserves the right to cancel the contract (on terms favorable to Google) if you break the rules on any site.

I have no idea about this particular case, but I have heard of people thinking it clever to sign up for a straight site, then put most of the ads on a crooked one. One complaint to Google from an advertizer, and that game's over. And you can be sure Google will have kept records for evidence. For every one that's headed for court, my guess is 100 idiots knew thay hadn't a case. And I'm betting that half the folk who developed software to 'randomly click' will have failed to beat the system.

Say what you will about Google, I'd be very surprised if beta testing hadn't prepared them for most of the amateur scammers around!

So I'll be watching with some interest ;)

[WebSavvy]

I agree. :)

I've never had any problems with Google AdSense and have no complaints about Google or their program.

I imagine the click programs have been used. WebClicker comes to mind ... and others like it.

Any software developer who runs ad tracking/management software can tell where clicks came from and if they're automated. People using web clicking software to try and defeat Google AdSense are pretty lame if they think they're going to get away with it.

As small as our directory is, and as simple as our textads system is, we still know where clicks came from. We don't do PPC or PPI though (even though our software has it set up if we chose to run it that way), we just do flat rate for a specified time length.

[StepForth_Jim]

I just put a call into the Federal Trade Commission asking to see any public files they have accumulated on this issue. Their investigator will be getting in touch with our office, hopefully within the 48-hours promised. If there is anything to this from the Federal level, I'll post it here immediately.

Thanks for the find luvdavy.

[luvdavy]

You are quite welcome, Jim.

When one has no other life but the internet, one does tend to find some obscure but interesting things....LOL

Jan

[StepForth_Jim]

Well, at least we got a response from the FTC. Unfortunately, the FTC will not confirm or deny an investigation. The person from the FTC did tell us that if charges of any sort were laid, information on the matter would be considered open to the public but, until then no new gnus on the Fed's take on Google's AdSense complaints.

At least they got back to us in less than 24-hours. (Try getting the CDN gov't to respond within a week).

[ArmenT]

Did anyone bother to do a whois on their website (nationalantispamregistry.com). These fine folks seem to have registered the domain in December 2003 and it is hosted out of a webserver owned by a Canadian outfit. Pretty interesting for a site that prominently displays the stars n' stripes to be hosted in Canada, don't you think? Just because they call themselves "national" doesn't mean that they have anything to do with a federal government organization. Heck, I could put up the Statue of Liberty and the Stars and Stripes and call my site the Goverment Spam Hunters Internet Technology (at least it makes an interesting acronym for a domain name). In fact, if you dig deep enough into their site (go to their FAQ), they even mention that they aren't affiliated with any Government agency. I believe that statement is just to avoid legal problems in case someone accuses them of fraud.

Personally, me thinketh it's a crock of the proverbial stuff and makes excellent fertilizer.

[StepForth_Jim]

Check your geography friend... I grew up across the lake from Tonawanda NY. Last I checked, that's the USA. You are correct, anyone can fake it, even volunteer organizations but, you can't fake the placement of Tonawanda NY.

Domain name: NATIONALANTISPAMREGISTRY.COM

Registrant Contact:
-N.A.S.R Corporation
N.A.S.R Corporation (corporate@nationalantispamregistry.com)
+1.9853510223
Fax: -
270 Rogers Road
Tonawanda, NY 01137
US

Administrative Contact:
-N.A.S.R Corporation
N.A.S.R Corporation (corporate@nationalantispamregistry.com)
+1.9853510223
Fax: -
270 Rogers Road
Tonawanda, NY 01137
US

Technical Contact:
-N.A.S.R Corporation
N.A.S.R Corporation (corporate@nationalantispamregistry.com)
+1.9853510223
Fax: -
270 Rogers Road
Tonawanda, NY 01137
US

Billing Contact:
-N.A.S.R Corporation
N.A.S.R Corporation (corporate@nationalantispamregistry.com)
+1.9853510223
Fax: -
270 Rogers Road
Tonawanda, NY 01137
US

Status: registrar-lock

Name Servers:
THUNDER.ICA.NET
HURRICANE.ICA.NET

Creation date: 10 Dec 2003 13:51:58
Expiration date: 10 Dec 2004 13:51:58

[ArmenT]

I never said that these guys were not from the US. Just pointing out that Government Agencies usually aren't hosted by a canadian hosting company and they have a .gov extension.

I have no doubt that Tonawanda is a real place. For all you know, the address may be real too, just doesn't necessarily mean that this Corporation is really located there. It could be a Mailbox address for all you know, or just some fake address with a real street name. A lot of unethical folk/spammers use this technique to set up bogus organizations. If you look carefully, the area code for the phone # is in Eastern Lousiana. That's pretty far away from NY, wouldn't you say :) The zip code is also not the zip code for Tonawanda (which has a zip code of 14150). Their zip code doesn't exist in the US (See for yourself: http://www.brainyzip.com/)

[edit]MapQuest shows a Rogers Ave. not a Rogers Road in Tonawanda. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1419826,00.asp has some more info about these guys. Seems that the domain registration info is fake.

[StepForth_Jim]

it's pretty far from Canada as well.

After reading the EWeek article, my faith in the site in question is, well, in question. I am not really interested in them though. I am interested in Google's AdSense program and seeing if anyone else has had that sort of experience with Google. I have a client who has had a very recent questionable experience with AdWords charges. While Adwords and AdSense are said to run as separate operations, one certainly affects the other.

Anyway, no offence intended and no back-and-forth necessary.

thanks for the digging.