March 6, 2009

Do we really believe that Google refunded those advertisers either....nah?

There are some serious issues involving Google Adsense and their pay per click system in general. I had a client once pay over 40,000 dollars in a single month, because of fraudulent clicks made by one of his competitors and Google refused to address the situation. Now I simply stick to my organic search result listings.

There are two sides to every controversy. In this instance we are given only a few tidbits to form an opinion. While it might be fun to strike a blow against corporate monsters, upon further investigation one discovers that Mr. Greenspan was in violation of Google's TOS.

Quite simply, Google does not allow Adsense to be placed on undeveloped domains without substance and content. Since Greenspan was in violation of this corporate policy, his account was closed. Had he used Google's somewhat new "Adsense for Domains", there would have been little problem.

Google's paralegal did not clearly explain the TOS and the judge ruled without a full understanding of the TOS. Aaron Greenspan becomes the hero who slew the dragon and you the reader are held in awe by story filled with more drama than facts.

John Barremore
Houston, TX

The guy surely has benefitted from this lawsuit - even if through all the links his site got.

I thought it extremely odd when I realized Google wouldn't let me even pay my Adwords fees with my Adwords income. All that such a procedure would need would be a computer entry or two. It would save multiple accounting steps, perhaps the mailing of a check, and/or two bank transactions. The only possible explanation I could come up with why Google didn't want such a convenient feature is that it would show how really ineffective their advertising is. I mean, if you spend $1000 in Adwords to send them to your Adsense page and only get $10 wouldn't that wake some people up? It would make it just to darn easy to test the Return On Investment of their system.

I'm interested on how much he actually won, if it was only $721, was it really worth it? I guess this is more of a pride thing.

Google was definitely wrong this time

I would have to hear both sides of the story in court but I am informed opinion. But if it is true on his side, well good for him. Yeah, that would be interesting how much he made on this lawsuit. Does anybody know? Well if it was $721, at least he was compensated for it. Better than nothing. Although it would be better if he won more.

My Adsense was also canceled because of questionable clicks. I did have some friends who thought it would be funny to click multiple times on the ads on my site ...I explained this to Google and appealed...my appeal was rejected. I guess at Google one strike and you're out.

In reference to John Barremore in Houston, there is not only the fun of striking "a blow against corporate monsters" but the always present annoyance of corporate apologists. In your misleading comment you talk about "two sides to every controversy", "a few tidbits to form an opinion", "Google does not allow Adsense to be placed on undeveloped domains without substance and content", "the judge ruled without a full understanding of the TOS", "Aaron Greenspan becomes the hero who slew the dragon and you the reader are held in awe by a story filled with more drama than facts" - all of these are things you present with no basis in fact but simply pull out of your corporation loving rear end. There is no two sides to every controversy, we all know you wouldn't be interested in a mugger's side of robbing you, so shut up - it's easy to use this often used misdirection when you are dead wrong but want a way to not admit it. Unless Google is paying you to promote propaganda for them, you're a fool - Google doesn't love you no matter how much you tow their line or brown nose them without their knowledge, so why don't you stop? Really watching working class people throw other working class people under a bus and then grovel at the feet of wealth class entities tells anyone watching what the problem is in this society - people who admire entities that make money above doing the right thing. This man earned Google money under a contract that stated that money would be split between him and Google, Google did not see fit to honor that contract nor explain why it did not honor it. This person sought after such an explanation and feeling it is above such a thing to lessor people Google did not provide one until brought to a court where they stood as an equal to people they normally screw over to loud applause from people like you. If you have an inferiority complex where you have to grovel at Google's feet and accept your place as a lessor non-billionaire then that's fine for you, you really show your lack of integrity when you have to scowl at people who don't take your sell out stance, with nothing outside of assumptive reasoning to boot. You corporate butt wipers are disgusting, one great innovation would be segmenting you useless butt wipes off in your own society so the rest of us can be assertive while you just wander in circles not knowing whose butt to kiss.

In response to Rafael at March 11, 2009 5:24 PM

Rafael,

Rather than disparage me, had you bothered to check the facts, you might have discovered that Mr. Greespan had acquired a domain name with no content. Google's policy at the time prohibited Adsense from being placed on parked domains. Since Mr. Greenspan violated the TOS, his account was suspended.

What part of that simple logic can you not understand?

I'm not taking sides or pulling facts out of thin air. The details surrounding this case are there in black in white for anyone to see, that is, unless they are opposed to reason and blinded by malicious intent.

Your disjointed interpretation of this affair and your attack against me personally indicates your own inner conflicts and disdain for the world around you. Rather than altruistic motives, I speculate you often lash out at whatever and whomever you find convenient at the time.

In the future before you again stumble on your political views and unfounded anger, be at least wise enough to research the facts in advance of your long winded diatribes.

John Barremore
Houston, TX

If the man's site had no content on it, Adsense would not have served ads... so how did he make over $700 from ads?

Could someone post some links to back up this claim?

And if he was so clearly wrong, why did he WIN the case?

I myself have tried to get a hold of customer support at Google and also found it very frustrating that there isn't any.

I think most people including myself would just give up and move on without the $721 but it's nice to see that this man didn't.

It's very frustrating that Google doesn't have better ways of reaching some sort of support area when it comes to Adsense.

Lesley
http://www.twitter.com/thelesleyshow

I would like to hear the answer. But I am sure, money wins and no one can fight against google. It is really ridiculous that they are making millions by ripping off publishers.

I think google has good only one secret that they don't want to reveal. They want to see the sales of advertisers up. I think they maintains the ratio between sales and cost of advertisers. That is good but my only question is why can't they put everything in their privacy policy and let know the publisher where he went wrong.

If you are not answerable to the court then you are above law and only god is above law. Is google the new god?

Thanks,
Ravi Verma
------------
adsense keyword list
R

I think it is a good thing that Google lost. No one should be so huge that it is possible to take someone's $731.00 without an explanation.

Fine...if he was against there terms...they do have a right to cancel his account and not send the check...that's the rules...

But...they should not be able to do this without an explanation of why.

Even Google has to be accountable.

I think the main stumble here was "no reason given" and I would believe that is the clincher in the case , especially if a large company does it, because to refuse to pay someone for a service provided and not give a reason , is plain wrong , and I am suprised there is not a law against it !
Even if the guy was forcing visitors to the page , a simple explanation is sufficient to hold the funds.
To be so arrogant to insist that self regulation is best , is infuriating, we have all been ripped off by huge companies at some point , and they make millions off it , what can you do , take days off work getting legal advice and then the court case ! I am still waiting for a check from last november from a major supermarket that I won. Was it worth it ?

Hey,

I would like to officially call for a motion to elect Mike as next President - Any seconds?

Seriously though, Mike - I feel right along with you about this incident, and you may be right about that fellow being a little to quick to pay homage - but he does have a valid LEGAL point. For example - the judge made a serious error when he brought up the comment about the color of the eyes. That was irrelevant, nonsensical, and an irresponsible comment having no bearing on anything other than his own self aggrandizement - and being a pro-se litigator myself, I would have had him for breakfast.

Google has the right to cancel your subscription if you agree to a contract. TOS is something you agree to when you climb on board. What is very questionable is whether or not they can keep your earnings - I believe the term is something like "unjust enrichment". That is, Google has used your resources (Your website) and has profited thereby. Now - they state that if the account is canceled, they refund to all advertisers the revenues that were generated due to the so called fraudulent clicks. If this is so, during litigations they should be required to show substantive proof that they indeed returned the money to their advertisers. If not, then they should "pay up".

If more people would litigate this issue, it would probably shine the light on a few dark corners. Google would eventually take measures to make sure its interests were protected. That is, a better means of accounting practices via their automated statistics gathering.

I doubt that google keeps the revenue. That would be a crushing blow for their reputation.

What about Google's self proclaimed mission - Do No Harm?

I agree that without showing just cause for keeping the payment, there is no reason to not make the payment for services rendered, despite the fact that the TOS may have been violated.

wow, aaron is my new hero. and google is so obscure.

Google should give a chance to the publishers before canceling ad sense accounts.

I too as of 8-12-09 have had my adsense account closed and upon review denied reinstatement.
My traffic came from a ppc program so I am out my expense for the clicks. I explained to google that it appeared to be a competitor that did not want me around. Nothing done wrong by me. Google detected and did not pay me for those click. No harm, no foul. Unfortunately, they owed me money for previous weeks clicks and would not pay it.
That's just dishonest. I proved it was not me and I believe they have the data to back that up.
Let's get togehter and class action them

Its a Shame that a company the size of Google has to resort to these kinds of tactics to increase their bottom line.