digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Google AdSense Policy changed dramatically!

jensense.com — From now on, it is much, much easier to violate the Google AdSense TOS. JenSense explains the details.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • zoransa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Yes Google is slowly but surely moving to the "hated company" side.

    ShoeMoney is right:
    "Basically now not only can you not run competing contextual products you also cant run anything that looks similar. This REALLY surprises me
    Maybe next Google will come out with a TOS change that if you run anything but Adsense you will be desisted from the Google search engine. Ya its that bad."
    • Heckler078, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, and it almost happened overnight. One day they are a beacon among money-hungry drones and the next they are right there alongside them trying to control the internet.
    • Nitrodist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12If you read the article the solution is very simple:

      Use different colors for between your Google and Yahoo ads.
    • neoknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6just put background for google #cccccc and for YPN at #dfdede or #666666
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Google links = #333333
      Yahoo links = #333334

      sorted!
    • MinaSulo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1I don't get why you morons won't shut up already. Nobody gives a *****.

      --meilennen
      http://www.hapsvav.com
    • pheonix1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So who at Google determines if the ads look too similar? Are there guidelines or is this something they can choose at their discretion? If so, then this is something that will enable all sorts of abuse.
  • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30INNACURATE!!!!

    THIS ONLY APPLIES TO ADS ON THE *SAME* PAGE AT A MOMENT IN TIME. Not the same website, as the article implies. 50/50 rotations are the same as before...as long as you don't have Yahoo and Google on the same page at the same time, you won't get in trouble, whether or not the design is the same. I just emailed Google and they replied back clearing this up...
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10See, now that actually makes sense.
    • BioALIEN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0I hope you're right, for Google's sake. This will anger a lot of webmasters if its true. Google's stock will drop faster than the "twin towers" because without adsense publishers, the adwords advertisers will not have a good ROI. Nobody will be clicking their ads!

      If its indeed true, Digg.com is the first site to suffer since they run their own ads along side Google ads in the same page and look almost identical.
    • dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, the program policies *do* talk about "Web sites" (as opposed to "Web Page"). I'm sure Google knows the difference between a Web Site and a Web Page.

      What I find especially strange is that Google AdSense allows me to customize their ads to look like MY site design; then they turn around and tell me I can't make any other ads look like their ads (which look like my site design). So I cannot make other ads look like my site design. Strange!
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow what a sensationalized and inaccurate description for this submission.

      Not only is not not dramatic, but it's not even that big of a deal. The article writer is blowing this way out of proportion here for who knows what reason.

      I'm going to bury this.
    • Jenstar9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I talked with Google today on all the changes, I questioned them quite a bit on this and it definitely is on a site basis. Previously, you could rotate AdSense and YPN and it was fine as long as they didn't appear on the same page at the same time. This is now all changed. However, it is fine to rotate as long as the ad units look completely different from each other. If AdSense support told you something different, it is because they haven't been informed of the new changes yet.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google doesn't want you to make your visitors see no difference between YPN and Adsense -- the same reason why Coke doesn't want Pepsi using their font and color -- brand image, etc...that much is understandable. However, the article was misleading, saying that you couldn't have similar YPN and Adsense designs on different pages. That isn't the case.

      YPN and Adsense are two different things. That is why Google doesn't want you using color schemes that are identical to other advertisers.
    • Philipp_Lenssen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jen, but the old AdSense policies already stated that "This would also include ads throughout the site that mimic Google ads or otherwise appear to be associated with Google on your site. Although you may sell ads directly on your site, it is your responsibility to ensure these ads do not mimic Google ads." So, they already talked about "site", and that it's not permitted to mimic Google ads. Next to the rewording where do you see the big change?
    • dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Gawt -- Google allows me to customize the ads to match them to my site. This is then actually *my* brand that I'm operating under, not Google's.

      In your Soft Drink analogy, that would be like Coke allowing me to customize the cans to my personal preference but then preventing me from also customizing Pepsi cans to my personal preference (ssuking I'd want to use the same colors and font I'd used on the Coke can). [Yeah - Coke analogies suck almost as much as car analogies]

      I agree there'd be a problem if one were to make different ad providers' ads mimic the "default" Google AdSense look&feel.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, it is more like getting Pepsi, pouring it into Coke bottles and selling it as Coke. People buy Pepsi, thinking it is Coke. If they don't like the taste of Pepsi, they think they don't like the Coke.
    • dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, no. Its getting Coke and getting Pepsi and then pouring each of them into a bottle of my own design and then selling those bottles.
  • westoncampbell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Google AdSense is nice to have but I'd gladly give it up for an alternative service if push comes to shove...

    I love you Google and I love my Gmail... Don't disappoint me.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you like Adsense and don't plan on using YPN, then the article doesn't apply to you.
  • BaByB0y, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"I love you Google and I love my Gmail... Don't disappoint me."
    I do too, i love google calendar also and GTDGmail help to a lot of things with Gmail. Thanks again

  • despisedIcon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Add Block Plus
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Thanks for supporting the sites you visit. If only every Digg user had it installed, then maybe Digg wouldn't make a cent off advertising and would shut down...
      My choices for my own website: Run ads or charge for memberships.
    • bazmail, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@lcarsdeveloper

      I use Adblock plus. I do not OWE digg.com anything, or any other site whose ads I block. There is NO social contract in place that forces me to do so. You may view all the ads you wish. Thats up to you. Better still you could go install some adware and further finance the internet and feel like a REAL hero!!

      either that or stop crying.
    • Elbart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If the sites would pay the hundreds of MB I'd have to download to see the ads, I wouldn't use adblocker, but this way, no thanks.
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My policy is this:

      Any ads that animate, move, flash, change, or make any noise are blocked.

      Anything else has the privilege of appearing on my screen.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What? It isn't a "social" contract. If you like what the developer of a site is doing, click an ad for him and help him cover his bandwidth, and thank him for not putting up "OMG! NO WAY!" or "Fart Button" banner ads, or charging for subscriptions.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ah, @Elbart.

      You definatley do *not* download hundreds of MBs of ads from Adsense.

      It is three lines of Javascript code (about 1KB) and maybe another half KB for the text. Plus, as far as bandwith goes...it is a fraction of what that space could be...for example, a PNG image could be about 30KB for a similar size. That is 15x the size...
  • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Adsense pays for my monthly dedicated server web hosting bills. I also run Amazon Associates (including Amazon Omakase Links), but those look nothing like Adsense because Google doesn't show photos of products in their ads.

    Google does a great job, I've tried 2 different companies and have barely made enough to pay for domain registration, let alone $175 in server bills, vBulletin licenses, and various other expenses. It feels like to me that this will only hurt those stupid websites that are flooded with ads and designed specifically to make a profit. My ads don't interfere, I could be greedy and put them everywhere but I don't because the content and the user come first.
    • pheonix1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But what happens if/when they create a froogle ad unit that displays photos of products?
  • bazmail, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Shame on Google they are gradually becoming the new Microsoft while wiping their ass with their laughable "Do no evil" edict.

    Also +1 for Adblock Plus.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Read the article before you post stupid comments like that. I'm a webmaster and I can't see anything wrong with what they're saying, I don't have to change a single thing on my site because I haven't been greedy and flooded my visitors with ads.
    • sid0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What "evil" have they done?
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4State sponsored censorship in China for one.

      "do no evil... unless we can make money then you lot can go fudge yourself"
    • sid0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The censorship disturbs me, but I was referring to the ads.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1IMO complying with a Governing body of people is not being evil. If you guys knew what kind of censorship went on in China, you'd drop all charges against Google. I was doing a research project ~5 years ago for Mandarin class, and we took a school trip to a local school in mainland China. They didn't know what the Tiannamen "Unknown Rebel" photos were. They didn't know what the Tiannamen Square Massacre was. It was glanced over in textbooks...
  • bazmail, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@lcarsdeveloper

    You retard. It's not about the quantity of ads, it's about preventing the user from using competing services
    • sid0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why should I as a company shoot myself in my own foot?

      They *aren't* preventing you from using competing services. R. T. F. A.
    • slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It actually seems to be about preventing confusion -- I would guess that Google got complaints about Yahoo ads and got tired of trying to explain that the two ad programs looked identical on a site.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry man, I'm not retarded.
      At least I know how to use the Reply function.

      I believe slapshot24 is right, I have been to sites and thought I was looking at Google ads, only to realise that they were a different company later on. Especially if a rival company is more flexible on types of ads that can be displayed. "Google, I'm getting complaints from people about porn ads on my site! What's going on?? Oh, my bad, I had another look at the screenshots and they are Yahoo ads. My bad".
  • wakayama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1when weenies whine....
  • Philipp_Lenssen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My own analysis almost comes to the opposite conclusion Jen did, but I guess it's open to interpretation:
    http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2007-01-18-n28.html
    • dtietze1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I assume that's because you didn't point out the change from "Web page" to "Web site", which is the more significant change they made.
    • Philipp_Lenssen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not necessarily. Quote from the *old* policy (note the usage of the word "site" twice): "This would also include ads throughout the site that mimic Google ads or otherwise appear to be associated with Google on your site. Although you may sell ads directly on your site, it is your responsibility to ensure these ads do not mimic Google ads."

      But, I asked Google press and will post an update to my blog post should they reply with something enlightening.
  • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Is it just me or does it seem that no matter what the topic is about, no matter who posted it, or no matter what the article says, IT ALWAYS ENDS UP THAT EVERYONE SITS AND WHINES ABOUT SOMETHING IN THE COMMENT SECTION!

    ads are a part of life, get over it wheiners!
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1stop wining about something which has nothing to do with the topic at hand
  • Oral69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh well, it's time to update codes
  • abuser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yet another in line of annoying and stupid articles.

    I won't even read it (the title alone makes me wanna puke), but here's my message to the poster:
    ***** YOU, I EAT WHAT I WANT!
    Nobody tells me what I should or should not eat.
    I even stopped listening to my mom 30 years ago.
  • v3rb4t1m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0the beginning of the end of google...
  • airjrdn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was pretty lame before. They owe(d) me about $50, cancelled my account overnight when site changes hadn't occurred in months and absolutely would not provide a reason why.

    Google is twice as evil as Microsoft is
  • liquidboy2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2from a webdesigners perspective i want to display consistency within my pages and within areas in my pages. If i choose to serve google adverts in a particular style and then change to yahoo adverts i would want to display it to the end user in a transparent way (ie. have the adverts as similar to each other to not confuse the end user) .. Thats a decision i the site designer should make, not be dictated to by googles TOS!!

    Anyway everyone has there own eye for design and alot of you would differ to my views!!

    Google keep your adverts, ill stick with Yahoo!
  • wiz0rian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly liquidboy, now I have to make my yahoo adds pink and my google adds blue so that google can be happy... This means one thing guys. Whilst we hate google someone can form a better company.
  • bitemegates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google owed me $75 and canceled me for no stated detailed reason. They are evil. First abuse of absolute power is greed. They have become the evil tyrant they so openly opposed in the beginning. Don't get me wrong, Google search and google mail, etc are about the best out there. I like both and use both. However that will be changing now. I see no reason to be a fan-boy of Google when they things like this, and refuse to give me on what criteria they canceled my Ad Sense account. I moved to Linux because of Microsoft's boo-chit. I am moving away from google for the same inherent reason. I'm not an expert of any type. The few ads of theirs I used matched my two sites, and there were NO other ads on the pages of sites. I can not imagine. They claimed click fraud, when in fact, I do not even know how to do that. Yea Ive read about it, but had no reason to resort to illegalities. I was picking up a few clicks here and there legitimately, and they still canceled me. So ... albeit to say, I am NOT impressed with their Draconian methods. Adios Google.
  • ajeetjesmit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0scammbuster.blogspot.com is also busy with an issue with google. it seems google is been having more than one problem lately. It seems more advertising is shown on splogs than on regular sites. i'm not surprised that policies are changing. i wish they would block people urging others to spam the web with Adsense splogs and pages.
  • Evroccck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only means something if they are going to enforce the rules

    http://www.marketingshift.com/2007/1/adsense-updates-policies-crouching-tiger.cfm
  • nusuni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Join me Luke and together we shall screw all webmasters, mahahaha!" *pushes "update page rank" button*
  • kh77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not true that adsense can be shown on the same page as YPN - as Jensense explains, this makes it 'illegal' to show adsense-look alike ads on the same WEBSITE (instead of page, as previously) as adsense ads. Google is really taking steps to consolidate their monopoly.
    • pheonix1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I totally agree with you. I actually mentioned in my post the whole anti-trust angle. Google is or will soon become a monopoly. That, by itself, isn't illegal. However, this new AdSense policy can be viewed as anti-competitive - that is illegal.

      Google is the new Microsoft. It took them less than half the time to get there. The question is - when do people get concerned enough to stop using AdSense? When do folks make more noise about this. If I had a sight, I'd be very wary of using AdSense - if I become really successful then Google will kill me for the added revenue and margin. The worse part is that they have all this data about what users do and care about on my site via search and AdSense.

      This is the same reason why some ISVs started moving to open source. Why build on top of Windows and SQL Server. If my enterprise solution becomes popular, Microsoft's own business solutions group will copy it, bundle it with SQL Server and Windows Server, and crush me. Makes no sense to support Microsoft in this scenario.

      Google is the same thing. Just replace ISVs with web sites and Windows with AdSense.
  • pheonix1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is really really interesting.

    I used to work for Microsoft back in the throws of the anti-trust days (IE into the OS, etc, etc) and the similarities are striking to me.

    With this move, Google is moving into a clear anti-trust issue between tieing their search engine with ad results. This is similar to MS' strategy to integrate functionality like IE and WMP into Windows. Google is slowing going down the path of killing all the vertical players in the same way Microsoft went after the ISVs of that era. Microsoft had to go after Intuit, had to go after CRM, etc., because Microsoft needed the revenue to feed wall street and meet expectations in order to keep the stock price healthy.

    Google is doing the same thing with their own verticals, in the web era, they are things like Google Finance, GMail, etc. I've looked carefully at Google's SEC fillings and the reason they will continue to do this is for ther revenue. They make more revenue at a better margin on AdSense ads displayed on their own properties than they do on 3rd party sites. In the end, they need the world using all Google verticals with AdSense on all of them to maximize revenue and feed Wall Street.

    There is a natural tension, because it was the quality of search results and the fostering of the niche site ecosystem that got them to where they are.

    I am really surprised there isn't more Anti-trust talk around what Google has been doing lately.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.