var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

False positive? A scammy looking ad that's not scammy?
Is this kill 'em all and let Google sort 'em out (not that I have a problem with fewer ads on my intertubes)?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dunno, I can live with false positives. There are worse things in the world than a few ads mistakenly blocked.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
scoobydoo
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypnotik_jello: Until you on the receiving end of a block. Google is notorious for not being easy to contact when they screw up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amish Undercover
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypnotik_jello: Those who walk the line between legitimate and scam will probably occasionally get classified as scam. I can also live with these folks being \"false\" positives and with the (presumably) very small percent who will truly be false positives.

@scoobydoo: Google is notorious for not being easy to contact when they screw up.

I have not heard this before. Do you advertise or have business with Google?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@statgrad: I suspect that's referring to the \"this site may harm your computer\" search results. My impression has been that they're overall better in responding than scoobydoo's statement would suggest, but a lot of people get really confused about what's going on, and obviously also even a short time of getting Google-blacklisted can be hard on a company.

Here's Google's page about the warning: [www.google.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tbax929
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like this idea. It seems there are more scam sites than legitimate sites out there.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Spoiler alert -- The secret to stretch marks is GET PREGNANT. You get TONS of them.

Sorry, it struck me as funny. :D It's like when people ask, \"Do you want to give a dollar to cystic fibrosis?\" I'm like, \"Um ... no, I'll save my dollar for the people who are FIGHTING cystic fibrosis.\"

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
sammy_b
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): haha in college my sorority raised money to support victims of domestic violence. Every week during chapter we would have to remind everyone - \"Remember, we are supporting VICTIMS of domestic violence, we are not supporting domestic violence\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

I work in tech support. I like when people tell me they need spyware installed on their computer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Taed
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Every year, the nurse asks me if I'm there for my flu shot and I reply that I'd much rather have an anti-flue shot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
B
November 27, 2009 12:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What do you have against flues? Without them, the house will fill up with smoke, and most likely kill you of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thisistobehelpful
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Taed: And that's why she should use the word \"vaccine\" instead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Taed: I am glad there are other over-literal people out there. :D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Reminds me of the display at Kroger the spouse and I saw last month, proclaiming the products beneath the sign to be 'For Breast Cancer'.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: Tell 'em to move the sign to the cigarette case where it belongs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: Cookies in our cafe at the office: \"Breast Cancer Supporters.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: And on another note, one of the marketing buzzwords that drives me INSANE is \"New and improved.\" A product CANNOT be both of these things, it can only be one or the other.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Okay, we've gotten rid of all the advertisers who are out to screw people! Who's left?\"
...
...
*crickets*

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: That was my first thought. Those scammy ads are (were) so ubiquitous, one might think they practically owned the entirety of Google's ad space, kind of like 9 out of 10 popup ads were for those X10 web cameras before people started using popup blockers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: Those and the \"Punch the Monkey\" ads.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Will this put an end to all the \"A mother in (some town) lost 60 pounds\" and \"Acai berry -- exposed!\" ads? I sure hope so. Too many of those are still getting through the Safari Adblocker filters ...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dustbunny
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: It's always a *single* mom in the ads I see. I guess married moms can live with fat tummies & yellow teeth.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VeeKaChu
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dustbunny:I've always guessed that the \"single mom\"-meme implies that a product or service is so user-friendly that a \"single mom\"- who would obviously be extra-harried and distracted in her everyday affairs- can benefit from it, then us happily-married folk (or childless singles) would find it even more delightful and \"easy-peasy\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dustbunny: @VeeKaChu: Yep, I hadn't realized it was always a \"single\" mom in those ads, but now that I've seen a couple, it's the case. Wow. Talk about targeted advertising. Curiously, they seem to be targeting the ad itself but not sending to the right person (I may be single but I'm no mom ... wrong gender!).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
El_Red
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank you, Google. No more yellow teeth/stretchmarks' tummy on every second page I visit.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XianZomby
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about the acai berry ads and the \"one simple rule\" ads? Also the ones where there's the ripped guy and the fat guy \"before and after\" pics. Can we get rid of those?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This kind of thing is precisely why Google is largely adored by the cognizatti, in spite of their wealth and power, while Microsoft is largely feared by the same, because of their wealth and power.
Operating on their golden goose with no direct payoff to them (but much benefit to their customers and thus, indirect, less tangible ones?) is something few companies would risk, I'd think. Don't get me wrong - it's not curing cancer, but it's still commendable. Even laudatory.
It reveals much about their corporate culture, even as they've grown so large.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Totally agree. Let's hope they continue to be one of the few responsible big companies out there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi: Trust me. Google will abuse its power sooner than later.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Christovir
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: The number of companies I respect can be counted on one hand. Google is one of them, in part because of actions like this, but also because their near-monopoly is created not through force, but by consumer choice alone. They used to be the scrappy under-dog, and have come to dominate not be shady deals or government influence, but through sheer over-whelming competence.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Will scammy advertisers be allowed to 'descamify' the first layer or two of their ads but encourage (entice, trick, beg) customers to click again and then reach the scam?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
goodfellow_puck
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Not likely. Google ads are individually vetted by teams of actual humans who click on them like a consumer would, and then rate them on multiple things. Like whether they're porn. ;)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
evilpete
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

now if only facebook would follow

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What took them so long? I'll tell you. As long as they were making money off scam ads they didn't give a damn. Only when they realized that their image was actually starting to suffer and future profits would suffer did they stop the ads. Believe me, they would have kept on running these ads if (a certain number) of people didn't complain. It is like a graph. As long as we are making X dollars or more per complaint we will run the ad. When we fall below that, the ads come off.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
goodfellow_puck
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid: Maybe you mis-read. Google has been banning individual scam ads for years, actually. Just not the source. They pay a LOT of people to rate and vet the ads for bad things like scams and malware.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hi
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook and Google were both created to 'scam' people. I'm using the term 'scam' loosely here as to some it means you get scammed out of money, to others it means you somehow get ripped off somehow. In this case the scam is data-mining. You're not told your info is being sold (note: they probably have this in small print somewhere in the eula) or more importantly who it's being sold to.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
AstroPig7
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: Is everything a conspiracy or made of shady dealings to you?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jpdanzig
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good for Google! The New York Times' classical music radio station WQXR had sunk to running spots for direct response scammers in recent months, and it showed how desperate the Gray Lady had become for revenue. Fortunately the station has been sold to public radio, and the scammer ads are gone. Now classical liseners just have to contend with sponsor announcements that rattle on like ads...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
RvLeshrac
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jpdanzig:


Public Broadcasting wouldn't *NEED* corporate sponsors if individual donors picked up the slack...

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay...you do remember that google works with the gov't right?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nstonep: Only the Chinese government.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
IfThenElvis
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great. Now if we can only get Cash4Gold, erectile dysfunction placebos, and bogus weight loss ads off TV.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
goodfellow_puck
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Awesome! I can't imagine why they wouldn't have done this yrs ago, instead of just banning individual ads. Seems like more money wasted having people vet the same scammy ads over and over again.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The problem with permanent advertiser bans is that it can lead to false-positives\"


Bull Shit. Name one reputable company that accepts ads for outside companies. Can't, can ya?


Example:


Somewhere on the Sears site you might find a mention of K-Mart, but you won't find an ad for WallyWorld.


WallyWorld might mention Sam's, but never Target.


Catch a pattern?


NOBODY goes out of their way to advertise for their direct competitors or other brands.


So why should a blog or scummy website loaded with ad content be allowed to exist?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rask
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They'll do this until they notice how much of a hurt it puts on their bottom line. Then they'll be back to whack-a-mole.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
madog
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just saw one of those \"Local Moms\" ads today for my first time today. It was while my wife was browsing one of her awful websites.

Either Google needs to stop these advertisers from targeting mothers with scammy ads, or the Consumerist needs to stop reading my thoughts through my computer screen.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
sammy_b
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a digital advertiser, it seems fishy to me that Google would ever try to ban individual ads - it is so easy to swap creative out on the backend ad servers that you could easily run legitimate creative for a day and then swap it out with scammy ad units.

Google is especially aware of this because they own the Doubleclick adserver.

Glad they are changing this policy though.

Also - the internet is mostly free because it is mostly ad supported.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh thank God. I hate those tooth ads. They are SO GROSS.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
self-check
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Taed: You say you get anti-flue shots. What do you have against pipes, tubes, or channels for conveying hot air, gas, steam, or smoke, as from a furnace or fireplace to a chimney?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Truthie
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hold up a minute... you're telling me I WON'T lose 20 lbs, get insanely ripped, and have whiter teeth if I obey this one rule?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These ads should be a canary in the coalmine. If large national websites like MSNBC.com and ESPN.com can only sell their home page real estate to these scam blogs (yellow teeth, work at home, acai berry, steroids) and can't sell them to Coke, Nike, Wal-Mart, etc. then the whole model seems to be completely broken from the viewpoint of the readers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another reason I love me my Opera browser. If it doesn't already get blocked by it, I can generally use the block content function have it done.

One problem are those 'sponsored ads' on sites. They seem to be a little trickier to get rid of. But at least they're not popping up in my face.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
trying59
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The real problem is that google doesn't really stop the problems. Cash equals greed . How hard is it to remove a fake ad or a malware website from the top 50? It's harder to just get a hold of google to tell them about those two things then to understand the problems and not click through.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ElectronPlumber
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I do not think Google has been a mainstay of these advertisers for a long time. Go look at MySpace, Facebook, Foxnews, ABCNews, etc. They all have teeth whitening and get rich junk all over them.

A drop in the bucket. These things are going to take serious legislation to demolish.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
VA_White
November 27, 2009 1:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One of the reasons I never click on google ads is because I never know if they are legitimate or scams. I hate wasting my time clicking through on a bogus ad so I just do not click. If google can get to the point where I have a fighting chance of clicking through to a real business, then I think this is a good move on their part. I will wait and see.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
downturnliving
November 27, 2009 3:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait...that's not a real mom?!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
raief
November 29, 2009 4:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thank you for the post. I am usually up on what is being done, but some how my vacation took me away for six days.
That is what vacations are for.
But so much happens while we are away, that we wonder why take vacations at all.

Reply
");