SHOW:
|
|
- or go back to the newest paste.
| 1 | I am a former Google employee and I am writing this to leak information to the public of what I | |
| 2 | witnessed and took part in while being an employee. My position was to deal with AdSense accounts, | |
| 3 | more specifically the accounts of publishers (not advertisers). I was employed at Google for a period of | |
| 4 | several years in this capacity. | |
| 5 | ||
| 6 | Having signed many documents such as NDA's and non-competes, there are many repercussions for me, | |
| 7 | especially in the form of legal retribution from Google. I have carefully planned this leak to coincide with | |
| 8 | certain factors in Google such as waiting for the appropriate employee turn around so that my identity | |
| 9 | could not be discovered. | |
| 10 | ||
| 11 | To sum it up for everyone, I took part in what I (and many others) would consider theft of money from | |
| 12 | the publishers by Google, and from direct orders of management. There were many AdSense employees | |
| 13 | involved, and it spanned many years, and I hear it still is happening today except on a much wider scale. | |
| 14 | No one on the outside knows it, if they did, the FBI and possibly IRS would immediately launch an | |
| 15 | investigation, because what they are doing is so inherently illegal and they are flying completely under | |
| 16 | the radar. | |
| 17 | ||
| 18 | It began in 2009. Everything was perfectly fine prior to 2009, and in fact it couldn’t be more perfect from | |
| 19 | an AdSense employees perspective, but something changed. | |
| 20 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 22 | Google Bans and Ban Criteria | |
| 23 | ||
| 24 | Before December 2012: | |
| 25 | ||
| 26 | In the first quarter of 2009 there was a "sit-down" from the AdSense division higher ups to talk about | |
| 27 | new emerging issues and the role we (the employees in the AdSense division needed to play. It was a | |
| 28 | very long meeting, and it was very detailed and intense. What it boiled down to was that Google had | |
| 29 | suffered some very serious losses in the financial department several months earlier. They kept saying | |
| 30 | how we "needed to tighten the belts" and they didn’t want it to come from Google employees pockets. | |
| 31 | So they were going to (in their words) "carry out extreme quality control on AdSense publishers". When | |
| 32 | one of my fellow co-workers asked what they meant by that. Their response was that AdSense itself | |
| 33 | hands out too many checks each month to publishers, and that the checks were too large and that | |
| 34 | needed to end right away. Many of the employees were not pleased about this (like myself). But they | |
| 35 | were successful in scaring the rest into thinking it would be their jobs and their money that would be on | |
| 36 | the line if they didn’t participate. The meeting left many confused as to how this was going to happen. | |
| 37 | What did they mean by extreme quality control? A few other smaller meetings occur with certain key | |
| 38 | people in the AdSense division that furthered the idea and procedure they planned on implementing. | |
| 39 | There were lots of rumors and quiet talking amongst the employees, there was lots of speculations, | |
| 40 | some came true and some didn’t. But the word was that they were planning to cut off a large portion of | |
| 41 | publisher’s payments. | |
| 42 | ||
| 43 | After that point there was a running gag amongst fellow co-workers where we would walk by each other | |
| 44 | and whisper "Don't be evil, pft!" and roll our eyes. | |
| 45 | ||
| 46 | What happened afterwards became much worse. Their "quality control" came into full effect. Managers | |
| 47 | pushed for wide scale account bans, and the first big batch of bans happened in March of 2009. The | |
| 48 | main reason, the publishers made too much money. But something quite devious happened. We were | |
| 49 | told to begin banning accounts that were close to their payout period (which is why account bans never | |
| 50 | occur immediately after a payout). The purpose was to get that money owed to publishers back to | |
| 51 | Google AdSense, while having already served up the ads to the public. | |
| 52 | ||
| 53 | This way the advertiser’s couldn’t claim we did not do our part in delivering their ads and ask for money | |
| 54 | back. So in a sense, we had thousands upon thousands of publishers deliver ads we knew they were | |
| 55 | never going to get paid for. | |
| 56 | ||
| 57 | Google reaped both sides of the coin, got money from the advertisers, used the publishers, and didn’t | |
| 58 | have to pay them a single penny. We were told to go and look into the publishers accounts, and if any | |
| 59 | publisher had accumulated earnings exceeding $5000 and was near a payout or in the process of a | |
| 60 | payout, we were to ban the account right away and reverse the earnings back. They kept saying it was | |
| 61 | needed for the company, and that most of these publishers were ripping Google off anyways, and that | |
| 62 | their gravy train needed to end. Many employees were not happy about this. A few resigned over it. | |
| 63 | I did not. I stayed because I had a family to support, and secondly I wanted to see how far they would | |
| 64 | go. | |
| 65 | ||
| 66 | From 2009 to 2012 there were many more big batches of bans. The biggest of all the banning sessions | |
| 67 | occurred in April of 2012. The AdSense division had enormous pressure from the company to make up | |
| 68 | for financial losses, and for Google's lack of reaching certain internal financial goals for the quarter prior. | |
| 69 | So the push was on. The employees felt really uneasy about the whole thing, but we were threatened | |
| 70 | with job losses if we didn’t enforce the company's wishes. Those who voiced concerned or issue were | |
| 71 | basically ridiculed with "not having the company's best interest in mind" and not being "team players". | |
| 72 | Morale in the division was at an all-time low. The mood of the whole place changed quite rapidly. It no | |
| 73 | longer was a fun place to work. | |
| 74 | ||
| 75 | The bans of April 2012 came fast and furious. Absolutely none of them were investigated, nor were they | |
| 76 | justified in any way. We were told to get rid of as many of the accounts with the largest | |
| 77 | checks/payouts/earnings waiting to happen. No reason, just do it, and don’t question it. It was heart | |
| 78 | wrenching seeing all that money people had earned all get stolen from them. And that’s what I saw it as, | |
| 79 | it was a robbery of the AdSense publishers. Many launched appeals, complaints, but it was futile | |
| 80 | because absolutely no one actually took the time to review the appeals or complaints. Most were simply | |
| 81 | erased without even being opened, the rest were deposited into the database, never to be touched | |
| 82 | again. | |
| 83 | ||
| 84 | Several publishers launched legal actions which were settled, but Google had come up with a new policy | |
| 85 | to deal with situations such as that because it was perceived as a serious problem to be avoided. | |
| 86 | So they came up with a new policy. | |
| 87 | ||
| 88 | After December 2012: The New Policy | |
| 89 | ||
| 90 | The new policy; "shelter the possible problem makers, and fuck the rest" (those words were actually | |
| 91 | said by a Google AdSense exec) when he spoke about the new procedure and policy for "Account | |
| 92 | Quality Control". | |
| 93 | ||
| 94 | The new policy was officially called AdSense Quality Control Color Codes (commonly called AQ3C by | |
| 95 | employees). What it basically was a categorization of publisher accounts. Those publisher’s that could | |
| 96 | do the most damage by having their account banned were placed in a VIP group that was to be left | |
| 97 | alone. The rest of the publishers would be placed into other groupings accordingly. | |
| 98 | The new AQ3C also implemented "quality control" quotas for the account auditors, so if you didn’t meet | |
| 99 | the "quality control" target (aka account bans) you would be called in for a performance review. | |
| 100 | There were four "groups" publishers could fall into if they reached certain milestones. | |
| 101 | ||
| 102 | They were: | |
| 103 | ||
| 104 | Red Group: Urgent Attention Required | |
| 105 | Any AdSense account that reaches the $10,000/month mark is immediately flagged (unless they are part | |
| 106 | of the Green Group). | |
| 107 | - In the beginning there were many in this category, and most were seen as problematic and were seen | |
| 108 | as abusing the system by Google. So every effort was taken to bring their numbers down. | |
| 109 | - They are placed in what employees termed "The Eagle Eye", where the "AdSense Eagle Eye Team" | |
| 110 | would actively and constantly audit their accounts and look for any absolute reason for a ban. Even if | |
| 111 | the reason was far-fetched, or unsubstantiated, and unprovable, the ban would occur. The "Eagle Eye | |
| 112 | Team" referred to a group of internal account auditors whose main role was to constantly monitor | |
| 113 | publisher’s accounts and sites. | |
| 114 | - A reason has to be internally attached to the account ban. The problem was that notifying the | |
| 115 | publisher for the reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks. The exception: The exact | |
| 116 | reason must be provided if a legal representative contacts Google on behalf of the account holder. | |
| 117 | - But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most | |
| 118 | amount of money accrued/earned. | |
| 119 | ||
| 120 | ||
| 121 | Yellow Group: Serious Attention Required | |
| 122 | Any AdSense account that reaches the $5,000/month mark is flagged for review (unless they are part of | |
| 123 | the Green Group). | |
| 124 | - All of the publisher’s site(s)/account will be placed in queue for an audit. | |
| 125 | - Most of the time the queue is quite full so most are delayed their audit in a timely fashion. | |
| 126 | - The second highest amount of bans occur at this level. | |
| 127 | - A reason has to be internally attached to the account ban. Notifiying the publisher for the reason is not | |
| 128 | a requirement, even if the publisher asks. The exception: The exact reason must be provided if a legal | |
| 129 | representative contacts Google on behalf of the account holder. | |
| 130 | - But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most | |
| 131 | amount of money accrued/earned. | |
| 132 | ||
| 133 | ||
| 134 | Blue Group: Moderate Attention Required | |
| 135 | Any AdSense account that reaches the $1,000/month mark is flagged for possible review (unless they | |
| 136 | are part of the Green Group). | |
| 137 | - Only the main site and account will be place in queue for what is called a quick audit. | |
| 138 | - Most bans that occur happen at this level. Main reason is that a reason doesn’t have to be attached to | |
| 139 | the ban, so the employees use these bans to fill their monthly quotas. So many are simply a random pick | |
| 140 | and click. | |
| 141 | - A reason does not have to be internally attached to the account ban. Notifying the publisher for the | |
| 142 | reason is not a requirement, even if the publisher asks. | |
| 143 | - But again, if a ban is to occur, it must occur as close to a payout period as possible with the most | |
| 144 | amount of money accrued. | |
| 145 | ||
| 146 | ||
| 147 | Green Group: VIP Status (what employees refer to as the "untouchables") | |
| 148 | Any AdSense account associated with an incorporated entity or individual that can inflict serious | |
| 149 | damage onto Google by negative media information, rallying large amounts of anti-AdSense support, or | |
| 150 | cause mass loss of AdSense publisher support. | |
| 151 | - Google employees wanting to use AdSense on their websites were automatically placed in the Green | |
| 152 | group. So the database contained many Google insiders and their family members. If you work or | |
| 153 | worked for Google and were placed in the category, you stayed in it, even if you left Google. So it | |
| 154 | included many former employees. Employees simply had to submit a form with site specific details and | |
| 155 | their account info. | |
| 156 | - Sites in the Green Group were basically given "carte blanche" to do anything they wanted, even if they | |
| 157 | flagrantly went against the AdSense TOS and Policies. That is why you will encounter sites with AdSense, | |
| 158 | but yet have and do things completely against AdSense rules. | |
| 159 | - Extra care is taken not to interrupt or disrupt these accounts. | |
| 160 | - If an employee makes a mistake with a Green Level account they can lose their job. Since it seen as | |
| 161 | very grievous mistake. | |
| 162 | ||
| 163 | ||
| 164 | New Policy 2012 Part 2: | |
| 165 | ||
| 166 | Internal changes to the policy were constant. They wanted to make it more efficient and streamlined. | |
| 167 | They saw its current process as having too much human involvement and oversight. They wanted it | |
| 168 | more automated and less involved. | |
| 169 | ||
| 170 | So the other part of the new policy change was to incorporate other Google services into assisting the | |
| 171 | "quality control" program. What they came up with will anger many users when they find out. It | |
| 172 | involved skewing data in Google Analytics. They decided it was a good idea to alter the statistical data | |
| 173 | shown for websites. It first began with just altering data reports for Analytics account holders that also | |
| 174 | had an AdSense account, but they ran into too many issues and decided it would be simpler just to skew | |
| 175 | the report data across the board to remain consistent and implement features globally. | |
| 176 | So what this means is that the statistical data for a website using Google Analytics is not even close to | |
| 177 | being accurate. The numbers are incredibly deflated. The reasoning behind their decision is that if an | |
| 178 | individual links their AdSense account and their Analytics account, the Analytics account can be used to | |
| 179 | deflate the earnings automatically without any human intervention. They discovered that if an individual | |
| 180 | had an AdSense account then they were also likely to use Google Analytics. So Google used it to their | |
| 181 | advantage. | |
| 182 | ||
| 183 | This led to many publishers to actively display ads, without earning any money at all (even to this day). | |
| 184 | Even if their actual website traffic was high, and had high click-throughs the data would be automatically | |
| 185 | skewed in favor of Google, and at a total loss of publishers. This successfully made it almost impossible | |
| 186 | for anyone to earn amounts even remotely close what individuals with similar sites were earning prior | |
| 187 | to 2012, and most definitely nowhere near pre-2009 earnings. | |
| 188 | Other policy changes also included how to deal with appeals, which still to this day, the large majority | |
| 189 | are completely ignored, and why you will rarely get an actual answer as to why your account was | |
| 190 | banned and absolutely no way to resolve it. | |
| 191 | ||
| 192 | ||
| 193 | ---- | |
| 194 | ||
| 195 | ||
| 196 | The BIG Problem (which Google is aware of) | |
| 197 | There is an enormous problem that existed for a long time in Google's AdSense accounts. Many of the | |
| 198 | upper management are aware of this problem but do not want to acknowledge or attempt to come up | |
| 199 | with a solution to the problem. | |
| 200 | ||
| 201 | It is regarding false clicks on ads. Many accounts get banned for "invalid clicks" on ads. In the past this | |
| 202 | was caused by a publisher trying to self inflate click-throughs by clicking on the ads featured on their | |
| 203 | website. The servers automatically detect self-clicking with comparison to IP addresses and other such | |
| 204 | information, and the persons account would get banned for invalid clicking. | |
| 205 | ||
| 206 | But there was something forming under the surface. A competitor or malicious person would actively go | |
| 207 | to their competitor’s website(s) or pick a random website running AdSense and begin multiple-clicking | |
| 208 | and overclicking ads, which they would do over and over again. Of course this would trigger an invalid | |
| 209 | clicking related ban, mainly because it could not be proven if the publisher was actually behind the | |
| 210 | clicking. This was internally referred to as "Click-Bombing". Many innocent publishers would get caught | |
| 211 | up in bans for invalid clicks which they were not involved in and were never told about. | |
| 212 | ||
| 213 | This issue has been in the awareness of Google for a very long time but nothing was done to rectify the | |
| 214 | issue and probably never will be. Thus if someone wants to ruin a Google AdSense publishers account, | |
| 215 | all you would have to do is go to their website, and start click-bombing their Google Ads over and over | |
| 216 | again, it will lead the servers to detect invalid clicks and poof, they get banned. The publisher would be | |
| 217 | completely innocent and unaware of the occurrence but be blamed for it anyways. | |
| 218 | ||
| 219 | ---- | |
| 220 | ||
| 221 | Their BIG Fear | |
| 222 | The biggest fear that Google has about these AdSense procedures and policies is that it will be publicly | |
| 223 | discovered by their former publishers who were banned, and that those publishers unite together and | |
| 224 | launch an class-action lawsuit. | |
| 225 | ||
| 226 | They also fear those whose primary monthly earnings are from AdSense, because in many countries if a | |
| 227 | person claims the monthly amount to their tax agency and they state the monthly amount and that they | |
| 228 | are earning money from Google on a monthly basis, in certain nations technically Google can be seen as | |
| 229 | an employer. Thus, an employer who withholds payment of earnings, can be heavily fined by | |
| 230 | government bodies dealing with labor and employment. And if these government bodies dealing with | |
| 231 | labor and employment decide to go after Google, then it would get very ugly, very quickly ..... that is on | |
| 232 | top of a class-action lawsuit. |