Google Comes After This Blog Again

Posted by Mitch Mitchell on Sep 29, 2010

It’s a good thing this blog has made almost no money from Adsense. In a weird bit of timing, after not running Google ads for a long time, a couple of weeks ago I decided to add it back with a large ad. I’d had it before and it hadn’t made almost anything, but I figured why not, since the blog seems to be getting fairly popular again.

Well, like Sire, Google has decided that one post out of more than 820 posts is enough for them to decide this blog isn’t worthy of Adsense. No problem, I figure, but I’m also going to share the letter here:

Hello,

While reviewing your account, we noticed that you are currently displaying Google ads in a manner that is not compliant with our policies. For instance, we found violations of AdSense policies on pages such as http://www.imjustsharing.com/cleavage-yeah-im-going-there/. Please note that this URL is an example and that the same violations may exist on other pages of your website.

As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with adult or mature content. This includes images or video content containing lewd or provocative poses, or close-ups of breasts, butts, or crotches.

As a result, we have disabled ad serving to the site.

Your AdSense account remains active. However, we strongly suggest that you take the time to review our program policies (https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&stc=aspe-2pp-en) to ensure that all of your remaining pages are in compliance.

Please note that we may disable your account if further violations are found in the future.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

Now that’s pretty ridiculous, and it’s duplicitous. As others have said, it’s amazing how Google can decide that one post on this blog isn’t up to their standards when you can go to Google, look up “sex”, and not only get tons of listings but also get ads advertising sex and the like:

Heck, look up “breasts” and you get this:

Oh yeah, click on the images to see them bigger.

So, there’s some major hypocrisy going on here. But that’s okay; it’s their ball, so they can do what they wish with it. I have taken it off here, since it made almost no money ($9.29 in 2 1/2 years to be exact) and I’ve replaced that space with an ad that you really should check out if you want to learn how the top leaders of industry do what they do, Meet The Boss. It cost nothing to join and if I get 4 people to click on it and sign up I earn $10 (it’s based in the U.K., so I’ll earn a pound per registration, which pretty much equals $2.50 I believe).

First page rank is taken away and now this. And on with life we go. What does the ad below have to do with this? Absolutely nothing, except basketball camps have opened and MY Los Angeles Lakers are the two-time defending champs. That is all.

Tags: Adsense, banned by Google, cleavage, Google, Google ads

24 Comments »

Sire:

What a joke! Just goes to show that Google had absolutely no idea as to what we in the real world would consider to be of ‘adult or mature’ content. Man, I remember that post well and there was nothing about it that I would consider worth banning.

If they think that was of adult content they may as well ban the majority of stuff that’s on the net.

BTW, I just went back to have another look at all those bodacious babes and I noticed that something was screwy with the post so you may have to check one of the links.

Oh yeay, thanks for the link luv

Mitch Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Thanks for the heads up, Sire. Man, somehow tons of code got in that post and messed up a lot of things; I wonder how that happened.

As for the ridiculous part, it’s the hypocrisy that doesn’t make any sense.

September 29th, 2010 | 9:33 AM

Karen Cruz:

Hello Mitch, now I am very curious. Would Google would have also taken the same actions if this post was titled ‘My Search for Sex’ and when they showed up here, saw that you had screenshots of their search engine results? It seems they have a “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality. **I just came back from reading the cleavage post. The pics you included were that of celebrities and other that you would find on public domain and saw nothing adult or mature about it. Did you Google to get those pics? I really find this ridiculous and see that I wouldn’t even be able to use AdSense on my blog as I actually have adult content there and even though it’s artistically done, that obviously wouldn’t matter to them. At least you freed up some space on your blog. I see it as their loss which is your gain on the insights of just how they operate things over there.

Mitch Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Karen, I got all those images from Google; I don’t have any of those just sitting around (cough). And I know it’s not the images but the content because that’s what they dinged Sire for. And the content is tongue in cheek; makes absolutely no sense at all.

September 29th, 2010 | 9:45 AM

Scott Thomas:

That cleavage post is a blessing and a curse, isn’t it? LOL Give me a break Google. I doubt any person created this. I’d complain to them out of principle.

Mitch Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 10:20 AM

If I could figure out who to complain to I would. They’ve never responded to anything else I’ve ever sent them, and they don’t answer the phone, so it’s almost like why bother.

September 29th, 2010 | 10:07 AM

Karen Cruz:

That post was written in January. Why are they only now taking action 9 months later? Were they expecting this blog to give birth to something else before taking action?

Mitch Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I think it’s because I had taken Adsense off this blog for awhile and just recently added it again. I wasn’t even thinking about that post; I really don’t think of it all that often except when trying to figure out why so many people seem to find it.

September 29th, 2010 | 11:14 AM

Klaus @ TechPatio:

That’s just plain stupid. I wonder how they figured out, did somebody report your site (post) by any chance?

Mitch Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Does anyone really report sites these days? I mean, other than competitors? And who’d be considered as a competitor of mine?

September 29th, 2010 | 11:29 AM

Peter Davies:

Is this a reflection of one entity getting too big and powerful for its own boots? Whereby you have so much power you become both judge and jury

Mitch Reply:
September 30th, 2010 at 10:31 AM

I think so, Peter. I mean, they’ve already proven that they can eliminate anyone they want to, and now this. I wonder if Bing and Yahoo do the same sort of thing; might have to check that out.

September 30th, 2010 | 7:43 AM

Carolee:

Seeing how that post was your most visited post (didn’t I read that here?)or close to it, you would think they would want their ads there.

I think Google is PO’ed that you stopped using them before.

Mitch Reply:
September 30th, 2010 at 10:32 AM

That could be Carolee. And it’s by far my most visited post, overwhelming all others. Just pure hypocrisy if you ask me.

September 30th, 2010 | 8:33 AM

Carl:

Two of my blogger blogs got the same message few days ago, one got restored and the other one is still pending. I don’t know where this is coming from, it is Google or competition is trying to play dirty to me.

Mitch Reply:
October 1st, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Well, since Google owns Blogger, it seems they should be spending more time dealing with their own product than the rest of us.

September 30th, 2010 | 10:06 PM

Ajith Edassery:

Tell me about it – been through it many times and even got my AdSense a/c banned, AdWords ads rejected and put account under review indefinitely etc. Trying to sort out things now as AdWords is pretty much essential for my survival.

As for their ethics, you are bang on. While they promote listing of all rated content on search/blogs etc, why not their customers? It’s ridiculous. And the worst thing, their customer support is pathetic.

Mitch Reply:
October 1st, 2010 at 9:33 AM

That’s probably the worst part of all Ajith. They have absolutely no customer support, and don’t care. I’ve even heard that they’ll specifically go after someone if they think someone’s complaining too much about them and de-list them. How bad would that be for business in general? Still, it’s a free world, and if we all go around worrying about how a major entity is going to take their revenge against us this would be a terrible place to live, right?

October 1st, 2010 | 1:50 AM

Kissie:

Pretty cool, Mitch.

I often see/hear/read how to or where to find inspiration but this is the first time I’ve seen/heard/read someone actually demonstrate it with proof.

That’s a good take.

I just read about 4 of your last posts, you’re clogging my Yahoo Inbox … that’s where I keep my mail as a reminder to visit certain sites. I had to purge it today because you are a writing machine, I have to make time or I will have to pay for a premium Yahoo account. Thanks, Buddy. Cya around.

Mitch Reply:
October 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Kissie, all those posts must have thrown you off, since you commented on the wrong post. lol A premium account won’t help that. I appreciate the words on inspiration, though; you probably do the same thing yourself.

October 3rd, 2010 | 10:39 AM

Caleb:

There are certain google tags you can put around specific content in order to serve better targeted ads. And I wonder if you had used those tags would this have still happened

Perhaps this is how some get away with it although I must admit that particular post was not lewd.

Another thought that just popped into my head on how others are not getting flagged is possibly if they get extreme amounts of traffic and/or if they have big Adwords accounts on the side…like Arsenio used to say, it kinda makes you go hmmm

Mitch Reply:
October 7th, 2010 at 8:10 PM

I think the thing about high traffic is an interesting one, Caleb. Still, it’s a duplicitous policy; they obviously have ads that are way worse than anything I’d write about, but I get dinged. That’s like your parents doing drugs, then telling you not to do them because they said so.

October 7th, 2010 | 7:04 PM

Udegbunam Chukwudi:

Lol. At $9.29 in over 2 years, you ain’t losing anything @ all. It’s all good. You might as well stick to your affiliate programs, ad spots and offering your services to the world.

Mitch Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 8:52 PM

That’s true Chuks. It’s not the loss of having it on the blog as much as the reason given, which is bogus if you ask me.

October 16th, 2010 | 7:47 PM

If you like this post, why not donate to the cause? :-)

Leave a Reply; please see comment policy if this is your first visit. This blog doesn't accept keyword names, and the comment will be deleted if a real first name isn't put on first. Also, if your name has 3 words or more in it, the comment automatically goes to the spam filter; just so you know.

I'm Just Sharing