Solved?[ Edited ]
March 2012 - last edited March 2012
Dear Board Adminisrator/Moderator
Could someone please explain why the Site-Relevancy post was marked as solved?
I am yet to be provided with any answers at all and have recently posted some additional information which is relevant and should be of interest to Google and other AdWord users.
Hi Andrew - Other people aside from Google can mark an a thread as answered - however if it is not truly answered or you have additional questions please feel free to ask away. A thread being marked as answered does not lock the thread so please feel free to let us know what additional info you need.
Kim Clink, AdWords Top Contributor | Community Profile | Twitter | Clink Digital Marketing
Did you find any helpful responses or answers to your query? If yes, please mark it as the 'Best Answer.'
I didn't know you could do that, Richard?
Then there are all the parked sites, all appearing to come from the same place somewhere in China. Parked sites may be good for offers that will appeal to a broad market, but something specialized such as what you are offering, not so much. I have no idea how Google determines these sites are of any value for the advertiser.
I wish you luck getting any kind of satisfaction from Google on this. They don't normally issue refunds for this.
Yes, Kim and Richard, they both explained correctly how marking and unmarking works. If someone marked your question as resolved, but you think it wasn't resolved yet, you can remove the resolution status by clicking the "Option" button.
Hi Andrew, at the risk of being flamed, the problem for you is that Google places responsibility for monitoring the placement, costs and distribution of ads on the user - and this is stated in the Ts & Cs.
2.1 Google shall use reasonable endeavours to place Customer's ads in accordance with the placement options made available and selected by Customer.
3.5 Customer is solely responsible for (i) the adoption of any marketing strategies and methods, and (ii) the creation, modification, maintenance, and management of budgets and accounts, whether or not such activities are performed: by or on behalf of Customer; or pursuant to any suggestions and/or recommendations made by Google.
My bold. (your personal country Ts & Cs may vary from this copy)
Any Adwords user is responsible personally for monitoring their ad display and expenditure and if your ads are being shown in inappropriate or unsuitable locations, there are tools for restricting this behaviour.
Is this right? No, probably not, in all honesty, no one reads Ts and Cs, but they're there. I can sympathise with your situation and understand completely your anger and frustration but at the end of the day you control your expenditure and costs and if you've allowed ads to be displayed on inapproapriate sites for four (or maybe five) weeks without action, it's easy to argue that it is your responsibility to monitor and control this inappropriate activity and stop it. Google has to allow all manner of advertisers to do what they want to achieve; their automated - even their human - processes can't handle the staggering number of Adwords accounts that exist. This is why it's your responsibility to monitor and control your account.
Is this fair? If I can't drive, get in a new car I've bought for £15,000 and drive it into a tree after 5 minutes, do I sue Ford? No. Everyone will say it's my fault for not learning how to drive, not learning the rules and regulations for driving. Ford are not to blame if I drive a new Ford Focus into a tree any more than Google are to blame for your ads being shown on inappropriate sites when you have the tools and data available to restrict this behaviour. You don't have to search the entire Internet to discover this, only the Google help files on Adwords.
I will happily admit that I don't like the way Google lure people into Adwords, make them think it's easy and that it'll all be perfect. I'll also happily admit that their placement rules and algorithms clearly aren't perfect. BUT there is a measure of personal responsibility here. You continued to pay for ads that were being shown in appropriate places with the data to show this for "4-5 weeks".
I've read and understood your arguments about Google placing your ads inappropriately and yes, I agree the sites you've seen seem... weird... but you allowed the ads to continue on these sites over time. You were the one who let the ads run without pausing the campaign immediately and asking for advice. You allowed the budget to be spent, clicks to occur, etc.
You've said you've been a software engineer for >20 years, so you and I are similar in experience (although for me it's closer to >30 years). Have you never had a user complain about a feature that's clearly described in your documentation? Have you never wanted to just scream down the phone that they should RTFM?
Is Adwords perfect? No, of course not. It's a long way from. Is it all your fault? In placement terms, no, but in monitoriing and actioning, then I'm sorry, yes it is.
I'm sorry if this comment causes offence, and I hope we can continue the discussion here, but I would like to see you realise that entering into a contract for paid services requires some responsibility from the signee.
I'm not sure from your reply that you don't actually work for Google's PR department. If you don't you may get an offer after your response (or cut and paste)!
"You've said you've been a software engineer for >20 years, so you and I are similar in experience (although for me it's closer to >30 years). Have you never had a user complain about a feature that's clearly described in your documentation? Have you never wanted to just scream down the phone that they should RTFM?"
Poor analogy. From my perspective (as a business proprietor and software engineer), Google (basically) is in the business of advertising through the provision of "Intelligent Search and Marketing Tools" and a large user base leading to huge potential market reach. If I claimed to have intelligent or smart search tools, yet my software could be scammed so easily (as I have demonstrated), I would be embarrassed and wanting to correct such a failure. I would not attempt to throw up every form of defense and just tell my customer that they should have been more careful or to RTFM or the Ts & Cs.
I am not doubting that Google are within their rights to place adds on many sites, and I accept that I have a responsibility to monitor and manage my campaigns, but I still have not seen a single justification from anyone on this blog as to why Google thought that list of over 200 sites shown above were legitimate. They (we) have been well and truly scammed through what I believe (as a software engineer) is a scam that should be easily detectable by Google (single IP, > 200 redirected sites, NO KEYWORDS in content). Yes, I should have picked it up, I know, I've been told, I acknowledge that.
Yes, I should have checked earlier and I accept full responsibility for having let the problem exist for so long, but I take NO responsibility for the problem existing in the first place. This is the first time I have used AdWords and yes, I have learnt the hard way but an internet savvy 8 year old could tell the sites that Google allowed my ad to (nearly 100%) run on were a scam.
I'm happy for this thread to be marked answered now. I admit I should have done some things differently and I will continue my AdWords campaign (without the display network and partner sites enabled).
From the feedback I have received I have concluded that Google do not believe they have failed in any way and are unlikely to make any changes. I will work with the current system but if I worked for Google I would want to address this issue.
So as a customer I have acknowledged my responsibility when using AdWords (yes I will RTFM) and now that I understand this much better (specifically thanks to the replies on this blog) my main question remains, should Google be able to pick up such an obviously fraudulent situation and not allow it to happen? I believe if they can then they would have a much better product (and happier customers) but thats just my two bobs worth....