This blending almost fooled me!

i would not want my ad there.
that's really fooling the visitor, i'm surprised that is allowed by google.

 

It says "ads by google" twice, how could it be fooling the visitor?

 

really nice, although I feel I been decieved

 

Nice blending but I'm not sure if it is in accordance with TOS.

 

I think it's done very well but I'm totally unsure if they violate the TOS.

The blending is very good and it clearly says "ads by google" in two place. They actually took the proactive role on making a graphic and pointing out on their own that the below is an advertisment.

my 2 cents

 

Keep in mind we're looking at it from the perspective of publishers, which is a much different perspective than that of a regular visitor. Try putting yourself in the shoes of a regular visitor, who doesn't know or much care about the intricacies of online advertising.

The person comes to that page, and sees a listing of available resources, all specifically and exactly "related" to what they are looking for at that moment in time (including the contextual ad). Every other link on that page opens into a new window, showing an off-site resource, which if the user clicks on it to view, they are interested in it. From the user's perspective, that AdSense link, so long as it is accurate and on the landing page does in fact give them what the ad promised, is just as good and satisfying as every other link on that page. The user will not "accidentally" click on the AdSense link any more than they would "accidentally" click on the first listing on the page were it not an ad. They read what the ad said, liked what it promised, and they clicked it. If the page they arrive on does not succeed with the above goal of satisfying the user's expectations as well as providing ROI for the advertiser, then in this case that is either the advertiser's fault for not making a truthful ad and/or a page capable of converting the interested prospect into a lead or sale, or possibly Google's fault for improperly targetting the ad if that were the (unlikely) case. This site seems different in a sense since it involves an image, but honestly consider whether tightly integrating a block of text ads into your content or side bar so that it looks exactly like a part of your site and other nearby links styled in the exact same font/color/etc is any different. And doing that is precisely what Google recommends in their integration guides.

The point I'm attempting to make is that it is not so important that the user perceives the ad as an ad, but that the ad is accurate and not misrepresented, and the person is not tricked into clicking it (i.e. by making it look like site navigation, concealing Ads by Google, using scripting to retarget where they meant to click, etc). If the ad truthfully informed the user of what to expect when they clicked it, and the resulting page was in fact what was promised in the ad, then the whole process worked as it should, and everyone should benefit - the user gets what they were looking for, the advertiser gets their sale or lead, and Google (and consequently we) get paid.

If there is a single thing I could "criticize" about this site's implementation it is only in the choice of the icon (Dreamweaver - since the ad may or may not be directly related to Dreamweaver... a more generic image would be better in my opinion... even perhaps the Dreamweaver logo, but not the name), and that Google at least tends to suggest that there be a border (box or line) between the image and ad. It's also been mentioned that this site's implementation has been brought up many times for more than a year, and I've even seen in other discussions where people sent this link to Google and asked it if was within the TOS.

Anyhow... just my 2 cents.... er well I guess that was more like 25 cents haha

Peace.

 

I tried the same thing and it is working amazing !!! CHeck it out: Scripts

 

Wow ... looks great for the blending in Tutorialise - What Content Management Script are they using?

 

Nice blending Lukaslo. I feel things like this will be the way forward.

 

yup it works really good for the first day about 50%

 

As far as I was aware, in the terms and conditions, you are only allowed to label ads as 'Advertising' or 'Sponsored Links'. Given this, labelling ads as 'Ads by Google' is breaking the terms and conditions, even though it is descriptive. However, perhaps the publisher got permission from Google for the wording.

 

Detonate, good point ! It is true that they don't use advertising or sponsored links.. But I think that you can fool google and if something wouldn't be ok with it they would already ban them. Google discovers this type of things amazingly fast.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the terms say something along the lines of "you can't label ads unless it's something like 'Sponsored links', etc", so I think putting "Ads by Google" is fine.

 

Here you go:

 

nice blending and use of images, but your site doesn't implement the method used by the original site (remember, no 'ads by google' labels)

so you cant say that THAT method is 'working amazing'

 

Hmm.. That's very inflexibile of Google. Not like them at all. xP I'm sure he could get away with his label though.

 

Haha .... Google is god ...

Does anyone know what Content Management script he is using?

 

Looks like google change policy or something... I got the same thing on my site and I got this email few hours ago about disabling my site:

 

Lukaslo,

Did you remove the adsense links from your site mentioned above? I didn't notice anything.

 

yes the site was disabled so no need to show ads anymore