I just thought that was interesting.

In any case, I am with the camp that says that masking ads to this extent is a cheap trick and is to be avoided. In ANY business, tricking your customers, or at least misleading them in some way is NEVER good practice. Honesty is the best policy if you want a long-term relationship… (you do).

markowe

People CLICK ON LINKS BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERSETED AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINE, you wussies

That is above their links to articles with the Read mooooore business, and the Google ads are under those.

It doesn’t matter what we think though, does it? ; )
Ultimately, it matters what G thinks before sending out those checks.

I know that if I were duped I’d be irritated.

Then again, if they’re having luck with it …

I was always of the impression that disguising ads like that was against Google’s TOS, though.

Hrm.

Maybe you need to re-read the AdSense T&C.

Using an image next to an AdSense unit is acceptable practice. Ask the AdSense team yourself, or look on any of the major webmaster forums where the technique has been discussed.

The only site that is really pushing it, IMHO, is the site using the “read moooore” trick – that *might* get a love note from the AdSense team.

There is no rule against mixing AdSense units in with your content; in fact if you read Google’s own xOfficial http://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/static.py?page=tips.html Optimization Tips, you will see that G recommends blending ads with your template, and inserting ad blocks into the main content area.

Whether the “tricky placement” offends the site’s visitors or not, that’s really a personal choice of the site owner.

Darren’s own Camera Phone Blog uses photos above the AdSense unit, and blending. Are you suggesting that his site is not AdSense compliant?

Discussions like this make me laugh. Where does the outrage come from? What’s the source of this moral authority anyhow- not even Google agrees with it.

But on the other hand, I’m wondering if there are people who have repeatedly fall for this though they’ve made the mistake once. :|

Cheers.

All this moralizing is fairly amusing. It is true that sites that have designed their navigation to look like AdSense units (and have mixed AdSense units with their navigation), in general, will send a lower quality visitor to the Advertisers’ sites.

But Google has a system in place to account for low quality clicks – it is called “Smart Pricing”. When someone clicks an ad unit expecting navigation and gets a new site, then immediately clicks their back button, Google’s system will severely discount that click.

Optimizing a site to maximize AdSense revenue involves a lot more than improving your CTR – Google’s interested in the visitor’s state of mind. If you can design a site that has visitors in “buy mode” your AdSense earnings will go through the roof.

As an experiment, I got two sites ranking in the same niche – one site’s template has a 30-40% avg CTR; the other site has a 4-5% CTR. The high CTR site’s average earnings are 8 cents per click, the 4-5% CTR site’s epc is closer to 70 cents per click.

If your site can create the proper state of mind in your visitors you will be rewarded.

They are at least partly responsible for it all, because they are far too lax and allow pretty much anybody to participate in their program.

The huge influx of poor quality sites is a direct result of this and I am particularly fed up of going to web sites and seeing ads plastered everywhere.

Saying that though, they have their TOS and it must be a nightmare trying to make sure that people comply.

It really annoys me, when I go to read a forum post or article and there is a huge Google ad at the beginning.

I would like to see them do that in magazines, because it would really annoy people.

As for Chitika, don’t the ads display images of the particular products being advertised?

That isn’t misleading the customer is it?

Though, I think people are going to believe that iPods are only available in the colour pink.

It also wouldn’t be very fair if Google employees were not allowed to participate would it?

Yes, it gives them an advantage, but that’s life.

I thought the web was supposed to be big enough for everyone?

I disagree with Michael’s last comment about Google though.

At the moment, Google is hugely responsible for our sites showing up on a Web consumers “radar”, so they need to find a way to filter out all the rubbish ASAP.

It is a thankless task, but somebody has got to do it.

I know it is not the only search engine around, but it is the most well-known.

Ethics…

As a point of reference. It is common knowledge that Google allows its employees to participate in the AdSense program. The same employees who have access to your AdSense data and mine. Think about that for just a moment. Do you see an inherent conflict of interest? Wouldn’t you like to have access to everyone’s AdSense data. Just think of the marketing advantage…

Slight of hand…

Fooling Web site visitors renders its own consequence in the form of activating a Web site visitors “sales” “I’ve been tricked” radar. Once a Web site shows up on a visitors radar the visitor responds by simply not returning.

Worst of both worlds…

Lack of content AND tricking Web site visitors spells an almost certain agonizing death for a site (error 404 – page not found).

Ultimately, it is not Google that sets the standards and dispenses penalties, it is the Web consumer that holds the power. If our sites show up on a Web consumers “radar” as a bogey (bogey – A cause of annoyance or harassment.), they’ll simply avoid us. End of story.