Google Statement on images next to ads

Status
Not open for further replies.


What if I place a space or a line between my images and my ads? Would that work?

No. If the ads and the images appear to be associated, inserting a small space or a line between the images and ads will not make the implementation compliant.

Does this mean I can't place ads on pages with images?

You can definitely place Google ads on pages containing images -- just make sure that the ads and images are not arranged in a way that could easily mislead or confuse your visitors. For example, if you run a stock photography site with a catalog of thumbnail images, don't line the ads up with the thumbnails in a way that could be misleading. Consider using a full border around your ads or changing your ad colors, for example.
Click to expand...

So, from reading this, it appears that as long as the images are not aligned with the contextual ads from Google, you're okay. I wonder if that means 3 pics above a 4 ad block with the pics offset would be okay. It sounds like it would.
 
The question though.. is does it say it in their TOS or just on the blog? If it's just on the blog and not the TOS then it's still okay technically.
 
Jon said:
The question though.. is does it say it in their TOS or just on the blog? If it's just on the blog and not the TOS then it's still okay technically.
Click to expand...

Reading through the following pages:

https://www.google.com/adsense/supp...&sourceid=aso&subid=ww-ww-et-asui&medium=link
https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?hl=en_US

I can't find anything that specifically addresses ad placement next to images, but I'm sure there is a "catch all" clause somewhere in all that legalese.

Yep, found it in the first paragraph:
Google reserves the right to refuse participation to any applicant or participant at any time in its sole discretion.
Click to expand...
So, if they don't like the way you dressed today or the coffee you're drinking, they can give the boot.
 
thats pretty fucked-up...that mean all our arbit site is screwed!


What do unacceptable implementations look like?

Here are some examples that wouldn't comply with our policies.

FruitImages.png


GameImages.png


Click to expand...
 
ARBITAGE-OWNED!

You can still put pics next to ads to draw attention to them, just make sure it doesn't look like the two examples they gave.
 
I haven't been placing images next to my ads and they are doing just fine - 40-60%. arbi isn't owned at all.... uh... i mean... yea it is, everybody stop your search campaigns now.
 
This is one thing I really cant stand about Adsense and YPN, they are so fucking picky! What the fuck, im just a squirrle trying to get a fucking nut, why the hell do you have to fucking rain on my parade all the fucking time, im placing your ads on my websites, so that one, I can make some money and two, you will make your cut, why fuck with me? They are way to fucking picky!

If you took an Azoogle offer fashioned it into something similar, would there be a problem? NO, of course AZ is cost per action or sale, but still its advertising.

I really wish there was a compairable to adsense and YPN CPC ad network.
 
The problem jerk is that advertisers have to see a ROI. Putting pictures may improve your CTR but it often comes at the advertisers epxense since some of those clicks are accidental. You are better off having the option of complying wit the TOS rather than getting teminated outright. With a good template you can have a 50+% CTR without pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fenryr
Now im a fucking Jerk? How did I become I jerk? Im fucking pissed, you give ad space to advertisers on the websites you work so hard to build, but there is no flexability. You watch google and Yahoo contextual adversing will die from an affiliates point of view, its going to get to the point that for people making a living off this shit its going to be a waste of time.
 
Yeah I think this sucks ass. I agree that Adsense is way too picky. I think instead of banning all and any images next to ads completely, they should see the benefit of images - IF by all means, those images are general enough (i.e. not product specific, etc.).

I have been using images next to my ads with great success. The sites with images have CTRs in the 50-150% CTR range. The sites without linger around 20-50% so in my experience they have a big impact. And by the way - I always make sure to select very broad and generic images like a woman's face for "half-price Holland hookers" or just a dog if I'm doing "canine viagra".

In my view, the advertisers will only benefit from the increased CTR you can bring with well chosen images. Like the example they gave in that article... What the fuck? They are just GENERAL images of some fruits. And the ads displayed are FRUIT related. Result? The publisher (we) get a better CTR, and the fruit advertisers get more traffic and sales from us because of this.

What I can understand is images that are deceptive to the user. Let's say, you have a site and ads about digital cameras, and you put up images of specific Canon or Panasonic models. Clearly, the visitor will be lead to believe that the link he/she cliks will bring him to cheap Canon cameras or whatever - and then it turns out the advertiser they visited don't happen to offer any Canon cameras. Now THAT is deception, and only benefits the arbi publisher since he got the CPC anyway while the advertiser just wasted a CPC.

The only way Google can monitor the use of images is to do manual (human) screening of sites. And I'm sure they have and will ban some Adsense accounts this way. But if Google wants to be ad nazis like this, they better use a little common sense when screening out deceptive versus beneficial use of images next to ads. And perhaps they should change their TOS to say "be aware that the use of deceptive images next to your ads (with example) is against our policy and is subject to account suspension. If you use images next to your ads, be sure to use very general images not related to any specific product, trademark, label, brand, service, logo, price, offer, or other (with example)"

Just banning ad-images altogether is not the way to go, and it does nothing but limit ROI for both publishers and advertisers in the long run. :moon:
 
This is great news!

No more those fucking endless debates how somebody's grandmom got "it's ok" email from Google about this so Google is 100% sure ok with this and then other fucker is crying how he got banned and it must have been the pictures..

As Adwords advertiser it's funny to see how Google treats content advertising. I don't even do content ads since they are worseless. Those clicks convert like shit and all my advertising money is going to search only ads.

Jerxs,
If you really have to ask yourself why Google is making these changes you really need to pick up Business 101 book. Let's see, I sell $100 product, would I pay $100 to Adwords for content clicks that don't convert just because there's some poor arbi fucker who wants to get few cents every now and then or would I pay $50 from every sale regardless what the affiliate paid for advertising.. tough one man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squirrelinabox
I wonder i they would give you a warning first or just out right ban you? Im guessing just ban you and then keep all of your money. So i guess ive got alot of work to do today
 
Bullshit to 50%+ CTR

Somebody mentioned above, intranerd, about 50%+ clickthrough rate with non-imaged adsense blocks. I say bullshit unless your site is a shitty ass MFA.

I'd like anybody to show me a legit content site with higher than a 50% CTR with just text ads.

Bah humbug - earnings down 50% plus that crappy ass google logo they're putting next to my ads is insult to injury....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom