This is a serious claim. Anyone have any info to back it up or refute it?
Also, why downvote?
I posted because I was hoping someone would have info to back it up refute it. It is a very serious claim and I’m not seeing it being picked up anywhere yet, I was simply linked to it by a friend.
I downvoted this because there’s nothing here to lead me to believe that I should care. At all. Serious claims should have serious evidence. They shouldn’t simply be passed around the interwebs until proven false. As it is, this link is worth less to me than a techcrunch article written about it would be. I don’t think it belongs here.
Your counter evidence is a person saying the Google ad team denied it?
I’d be interested in what is the wrong terminology used, that would be a good give away. But as it stands this link to Hacker News provides little.
I’m currently a Googler. I work on Doubleclick, specifically on monitoring for malicious creatives. I do not have a direct relationship with AdSense, but based on what I see, I can say that this reads like bad fan fiction. In the interest of not breaking NDAs, I’m going to be vague. One example of incorrect terminology is ‘EagleEye’. The EagleEye codename is used for a project that does not monitor AdSense traffic.
Another red flag for me is the mentions of AdSense losing money. The SEC filing has revenue numbers for AdSense – I’d suggest taking a look at it.
Yeah, I’m probably not going to convince anyone that has made up their mind already. But I’m not especially in the mood to fight a holy war today.
Matt Cutts posts some more specific bad terminology here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7669162
Is using “untrue” instead of “false” normal practice? Sounds like Newspeak to me.
Seems like more than a couple have from the other side:
Some additional coverage on the time frame of bannings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7672910
I’m not sure what, if any, level of funny business is going on at AdSense, but this article smells like it was made up to me. There’s a lot of specific policies, emails, codewords, etc that supposedly existed. I find it hard to believe that if such a policy existed and was supported by official on-the-record statements, written documents, etc that none of those records ever made it out of Google. Somebody would have leaked something solid at some point. Like the poster - so he supposedly worked at Google and was a part of these activities, but never kept any records, or went to a lawyer or reporter with any hard evidence?
I’m pretty sure that whatever managers at Google are in charge of this stuff, they’re at least competent enough that if the were doing something like this, they’d do it in such a way that there was as little hard evidence to be found as possible.
Someone at re/code did have a valid point: If someone is making 10.000$ of HIS own money (so Google still takes its share) banning him would mean losing any future revenue for Google as well. I assume though Google still has enough publisher accounts to drain every single adword account.. but this wouldn’t scale much, would it?