30 Apr 11 1:43 pm
@Kakaboo... that's sounds good... in theory. But there are so many users of Adwords that Goog can't get to them all... you may be modelling your program after someone who just hasn't been "caught" yet. I had that discussion with Goog when I received my first letter last fall.
Read the agreement for Adwords well, but realize that Goog changes their policies all the time and then retroactively applies them. My experience is echoed by many.
Their intolerance for affiliate links comes from wanting to improve the quality of their results. And, honestly, who can blame them. There are a lot of totally crappy sites out there with junk content and a million links on them. I know that I've come across them trying to do a legitimate search for something only to be stuck behind a wall of garbage results.
When I asked Goog about my initial letter, they were a little vague but said that, in part, my site falls under the category of "data collection sites that imply delivery of free items, etc.. in order to collect private information". In other words, I gave away a free eBook in order to collect peoples email addresses. This does not have to be on your landing page either, but anywhere on your site, regardless of where the ad takes the user. Other people are banned for completely different reasons.
I managed to dig this information up regarding Adwords:
Landing pages advertised via AdWords must have relevant, original
content, and must be transparent about the nature of the business
being promoted. Further, advertisers are prohibited from promoting
certain types of sites, which include, but are not limited to:
* Data collection sites that imply delivery of free items, etc., in
order to collect private information
* Arbitrage sites without relevant and original content that are
designed for the purpose of showing ads
* Affiliate sites without relevant and original content that are
designed to drive traffic to another site with a different domain
* "Get-rich quick" sites that make unrealistic promises
* Sites that are deceptive
* Sites that distribute malware or spyware
* Extremely misleading/unverifiable or inaccurate claims
Note the one about affiliate site and remember that the definition of "relevant and original content" is completely arbitrary.
@Jerry... Use your 100 bucks and stick to the policy as best you can. What's the worst that can happen? ;) And you may be one of the lucky who hits everything right on and dodges the indiscriminate swath of Goog's "banned" pen. But I stick by my advice of not relying on one source of traffic.