Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeromec | Hacker News Reader

You are right that he was careless and didn't look after his own business interest by studying the contract carefully and thinking through the implications of such statements.

I don't think anyone has to "study" Google's terms for an AdSense account to know they don't want fraudulent clicks. I'm pretty sure Google tries to make that very, very clear during the account set up process. As my earlier comment notes this guy seemed to know something was wrong with openly encouraging AdSense ad clicks.

View on HN

Of course, but you're using an extremely expansive definition of 'fraudulent' here.

Expansive definition? Okay, to satisfy my curiosity I just checked. At the top of the first page to sign up for AdSense the first check box reads as follows:

[ ] I will not place ads on sites that include incentives to click on ads.

At the bottom of this same sign up page just above the "Submit Information" button to sign up there are three more check boxes, two of which read as follows:

[ ] I agree that I will not click on the Google ads I'm serving through AdSense.

[ ] I certify that I have read the AdSense Program Policies.

The "AdSense Program Policies" is an underlined link. Clicking that takes you to a clearly readable page, probably around 500 words total, titled "Google AdSense Program Policies" where the first sentence admonishes reading the program policies carefully. And the very first two bold labeled sections at the top of this page are entitled: "Invalid Clicks and Impressions" and "Encouraging Clicks".

Under Invalid Clicks it says: Publishers may not click their own ads or use any means to inflate impressions and/or clicks artificially, including manual methods. and has an underlined link to "learn more".

Under Encouraging Clicks it begins: Publishers may not ask others to click their ads or use deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks and clicking the underlined link to "learn more" here brings a drop-down list of bullet points saying what publishers may NOT do. Here are the first two:

- Compensate users for viewing ads or performing searches, or promise compensation to a third party for such behavior.

- Encourage users to click the Google ads using phrases such as "click the ads", "support us", "visit these links" or other similar language.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how much clearer Google could be about unacceptable behavior.

Here's one way Google could be clearer: have the text the customer has to agree to on the screen instead of pointing to a link. I don't know about you, but with any physical contract I've signed, the relevant information is always included (the exception being laws that the contract refers to which I don't need to explicitly agree to).

Indeed, but I'm questioning your use of the term fraudulent, not unacceptable. The OP does not argue that he's right and Google is wrong, or that they tricked him: he admits carelessness. Now, I do think contracts become considerably more meaningful when you've got a powerful motivation to pay attention to the details than when you're just trying to find where to click OK so you can try out the product/service hidden behind the wall of text; equally I think Google does work hard to simplify the complexity and make it accessible. So I don't excuse him by shifting blame to Google - other than disputing the wisdom of perma-banning him for very minor violations.

When you say fraudulent, you're saying he deliberately tried to deceive Google, or at best, was totally indifferent to the risk that they would believe something (his acceptance of the adwords conditions) which was not actually true. Yet if you look at the sequence of events, he started putting up videos to showcase his work, later found himself making enough to subsidize his sailing project, and later again got the idea to monetize the HD video because he was receiving so many customer inquiries about the YouTube videos.

When he signed the adwords agreement, he didn't even have a sailing video sideline, much less an expectation of milking it for a little extra money. Where is the willful intent to deceive here?

Very minor violations: he mentions $3000 over a 6 week period. More than that is coming out of those advertisers' accounts. He's not a small-scale customer.

It's fraudulent because he's deliberately trying to deceive advertisers who run through Google. There's this little nugget:

>Oh yes, I was also running little blocks of adverts provided by Adsense and, yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers – all of whom were interested in selling stuff to sailors.

Which is explicitly attempting to game the system. A second's thought of how it works will convince you: advertisers are charged by click, but they make money by purchases. Having extreme CTR with extreme bounce rates means the advertisers are being scammed. Actions caused by willful ignorance in this case look almost identical to willful intent...

And they very nearly are the same thing here. Say you noticed your bank rounded up for certain transactions. Would running thousands of those transactions with the intent to make money - the same as the article - count as willful intent to scam the bank? Would the bank be right in penalizing you for doing so?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com