A Money Making Experiment - Feedback and Active Involvement Welcome

Flyonthewall

c.ford wrote: »

Don't mean to sound a smart Alec, but I've had 2 accounts.

Individual and business? I assume you've not been banned or anything and started another as that is not allowed.

c.ford

I just want to clear up how the revenue share system is set up.

On the front end it just looks like some ads are being shown, but in truth every person who registers with our site that wants to make money asking questions will first need to register with Google Adsense and get a publisher ID. That ID is then fed into our system (in the user's dashboard) and added to a database of publisher IDs belonging to all the members on the site. The ads for these IDs are displayed 75% of the time, while my personal publisher ID is displayed 25% of the time.

So it is a genuine working model, and could be a very lucrative (for both myself and my members) system.

It could also fall on its behind, but I've invested too much now to back off lol

Thanks again all for your input. It's very much appreciated.

c.ford

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Individual and business? I assume you've not been banned or anything and started another as that is not allowed.

Two individual accounts. It actually depends on the circumstances. Google banned me because of "suspicious activity". Apparently at some point, the process is irreversible. They showed leniency towards me when I set up my second account because they were forced to admit it was highly possible (and likely) that the suspicious activity in question was from an outside competitor trying to sabotage my account, and they couldn't prove it either way.

Also, getting unbanned is HIGHLY possible if you know who to talk to.

Flyonthewall

c.ford wrote: »

I just want to clear up how the revenue share system is set up.

On the front end it just looks like some ads are being shown, but in truth every person who registers with our site that wants to make money asking questions will first need to register with Google Adsense and get a publisher ID. That ID is then fed into our system (in the user's dashboard) and added to a database of publisher IDs belonging to all the members on the site. These IDs are displayed 75% of the time, while my personal publisher ID is displayed 25% of the time.

So it is a genuine working model, and could be a very lucrative (for both myself and my members) system.

It could also fall on its behind, but I've invested too much now to back off lol

Thanks again all for your input. It's very much appreciated.

That won't always work as you getting 25% and members 75% of money made as you originally made it sound. Members get 100% of the amount 75% of the time. Not to say that's bad this way, but it's just not how I thought.

So you would take my google ID and place it randomly on the site on someone elses question? Or would it only be on your own questions?

Flyonthewall

c.ford wrote: »

Two individual accounts. It actually depends on the circumstances. Google banned me because of "suspicious activity". Apparently at some point, the process is irreversible. They showed leniency towards me when I set up my second account because they were forced to admit it was highly possible (and likely) that the suspicious activity in question was from an outside competitor trying to sabotage my account, and they couldn't prove it either way.

Also, getting unbanned is HIGHLY possible if you know who to talk to.

I see. I'd say that's a rare case. I've not heard of anyone else getting their account back or being allowed a second when they've lost it due to something like that.

c.ford

Flyonthewall wrote: »

That won't always work as you getting 25% and members 75% of money made as you originally made it sound. Members get 100% of the amount 75% of the time. Not to say that's bad this way, but it's just not how I thought.

So you would take my google ID and place it randomly on the site on someone elses question? Or would it only be on your own questions?

Members get 100% of the amount 75% of the time. <-This is exactly how it is supposed to be and exactly how I wanted it to come across, apologies for any confusion there. This is something I will incorporate into the FAQ/Rules pages, thanks!

Ads are always in the same places and will display on ALL content 75% of the time. If your ID is present fir a click, you will take the whole ad commission for that click. This is why we want a performance based model, rather than a non-incentivized "hope-for-thebest" approach. Ads are placed at the top before content, on the right directly parallel with content, and directly after content before the footer. And all ad positions will be constantly split tested and adjusted for peak performance.

Another great piece of input to take away with me there, thanks a lot Flyonthewall!

c.ford

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I see. I'd say that's a rare case. I've not heard of anyone else getting their account back or being allowed a second when they've lost it due to something like that.

I guess the key word here was persistence and truthfulness. I was able to show them server logs plus all the records they asked for.

Flyonthewall

c.ford wrote: »

Members get 100% of the amount 75% of the time. <-This is exactly how it is supposed to be and exactly how I wanted it to come across, apologies for any confusion there. This is something I will incorporate into the FAQ/Rules pages, thanks!

Ads are always in the same places and will display on ALL content 75% of the time. If your ID is present fir a click, you will take the whole ad commission for that click. This is why we want a performance based model, rather than a non-incentivized "hope-for-thebest" approach. Ads are placed at the top before content, on the right directly parallel with content, and directly after content before the footer. And all ad positions will be constantly split tested and adjusted for peak performance.

Another great piece of input to take away with me there, thanks a lot Flyonthewall!

No problem.

So if it's on all content that means it's on other peoples questions too, correct? What if they do abuse the system? Systems in place or not, as you said, it wouldn't be your problem. The risk then would be the members and it's not one they can control.

Not to mention that you could - not to say you will - place a members ID elsewhere. I mean if you can put it on one site there's surely nothing to stop it being put on another (one google may not like). Seems quite a risk for the member.

c.ford wrote: »

I guess the key word here was persistence and truthfulness. I was able to show them server logs plus all the records they asked for.

From what I've read Google have one main rule; put a foot wrong and you're gone for good. No exceptions. Their forum alone suggests they're not into breaking that rule. I'd say you were lucky because many have lost their account despite doing nothing wrong/making a small mistake and trying to appeal hasn't worked.

c.ford

Flyonthewall wrote: »

No problem.

So if it's on all content that means it's on other peoples questions too, correct? What if they do abuse the system? Systems in place or not, as you said, it wouldn't be your problem. The risk then would be the members and it's not one they can control.

Not to mention that you could - not to say you will - place a members ID elsewhere. I mean if you can put it on one site there's surely nothing to stop it being put on another (one google may not like). Seems quite a risk for the member.



From what I've read Google have one main rule; put a foot wrong and you're gone for good. No exceptions. Their forum alone suggests they're not into breaking that rule. I'd say you were lucky because many have lost their account despite doing nothing wrong/making a small mistake and trying to appeal hasn't worked.

If they are willing to risk their account then that's their problem. As brutal as that sounds, the site takes preference over other people's insistence on lunacy.

Google isn't the two-headed monster everyone seems to think it is. Although I may be a little biased as I actually received good treatment from them

Flyonthewall

c.ford wrote: »

If they are willing to risk their account then that's their problem. As brutal as that sounds, the site takes preference over other people's insistence on lunacy.

Google isn't the two-headed monster everyone seems to think it is. Although I may be a little biased as I actually received good treatment from them

Yeah but that's the point isn't it. Who will want to risk their account? There's no way I would ever sign up to a site where the site will then use my google ID on random pages when others could so easily abuse it. I use my google account on other sites and may want to use it for others in the future, I'm not risking that for a few pence (or for that matter, even for a fairly large amount).

You can say you have stuff in place to try and stop people and you can write it clearly on your site that the ID will be on random pages, not your own so trying to play the system won't work. But you can guarantee that at least one person will never read that, they won't care and they will try and abuse it.

Plus we're only going by your word that there's something in place - not to say you would lie but most people won't ever see this topic, they'll have no idea who you are and only be going by the site.

Considering how rare it is to get a google account back and how many options you have for google it wouldn't make sense for most people to risk it.