« No need to feel sorry for Juan | Main | Paladino is right; Cuomo wrecked our economy »

October 22, 2010

Comments

I doubt a human is directly involved with each decision (while the economic cost of losing face with SWPLs is expensive, employing someone whose job it is to review adwords "ToS violations" is probably way more expensive). It wouldn't surprise me if Google has developed SWPL heresy classifiers that make the judgement call for them.

Use Bing.

"No company is just going to throw away $2000/year without a human making a judgment call."

I agree. Probably their informal policy is to provide some bland BS reason for rejecting you the same way that employers do for rejecting job applicants. This avoids arguments, bad publicity, and even discrimination lawsuits.

Do you get a cut of the Persian Rug Sales at least?

Bogus. Someone probably complained about your site being a "hate site" and now there is no avenue for appeal.

You link to iSteve which links to VDare- maybe thats enough.

I would be donating right now if it weren't for that post where you claimed to make $60 an hour.

[HS: I'm not asking anyone for donations, although I thank the people who gave them. I hope the donors were people making more than $200K per year. I wouldn't want someone making a five figure salary to donate to me.]

Google's explanation was bogus at first sight.

I'd bet all the money in my pockets that Google can ascertain the original source of something that has been recopied around the web. The original would have been the first to be indexed and the page with the most and strongest incoming links from other sites.

And you don't get an adsense slap for having one piece of dup content on your site. If your entire site was scraped then they would dump you, yeah. But, on visual inspection, it is not possible for a brain-functional person to conclude that this site is duplicate content scraped from other sources.

It is what it is. Sorry, HS. $1700 is a major minor blow.

carl

ps - In fairness to Google, they recently revealed the share on adsense. They pay out 68% of the take to publishers.

http://adsense.blogspot.com/2010/05/adsense-revenue-share.html

[HS: That's a pretty good revenue share. No wonder why they have a monopoly. Even if some new startup offered a 100% revenue share, it might not pay as well as 68% of AdSense.

So Google only loses $1000/year from dumping this blog. A small price to pay for the good feeling of sticking to a "racist."]

Half Sigma, have you considered Blogads?

AdSense banished me recently too, though I might have had it coming due to my habit of linking other game blogs (which count as "Adult" content):

http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/10/19/in-mala-fide-blacklisted-by-google-adsense/

I recently signed up with Blogads, who only allow in high-traffic blogs. If I can meet their minimum threshold, you certainly can, and their content guidelines appear to be much less stringent.

Half Sigma,

You should send them a very contrite response to their latest email to you asking exactly what policy of their's you violated. Tell them that you would like to be in compliance of their policies but that you need their help in knowing exactly which policy of theirs you violated so that you can correct the problem to their satisfaction.

Their response should be illuminating.

I'm surprised you only make 1700 a year. I figured it would have been significantly more.

Only $1750 a year?

I feel better about my decision not to start a blog despite feeling the temptation ever since I started reading Andrew Sullivan around 99 or 2000.

You have a lot of traffic and first mover advantages. Yet your (I'd conservatively guess) 300/hr year investment returns you about $6/hour before costs.

Maybe you can write a "why a career as a writer sucks" post next.

In fact, maybe you can start a series.

There are a lot of misconceptions about internet economics on the publishing side.

Political blogs don't make a lot of money. A political blog slanted to the politically incorrect makes (i can only assume) even less than a mainstream political blog. Politics is a low end (no need) market.

Readers don't make a blogger money unless the blogger is selling crap to his readers or the blog has so many readers that the blogger sells ads by page impressions. Otherwise, a readership has little correlation to revenue.

For a small-mid player the money (from adsense anyway) is in the search traffic rather than regular readers.

If one creates a site around a market with corresponding products and services he will make money because the ads will consistently display exactly what the searcher is looking for. The searcher is trying to fulfill a need rather than be informed/entertained.

For instance, there is a simple, uninspiring site about bankruptcy that ranks well in the search engines and gets steady traffic from searchers googling bankruptcy-related terms.

http://www.bankruptcyinformation.com

Visitors to that site are at least 25x more valuable that we are(visitors to an HBD blog) because each is a potential lead that an attorney or credit counseling service will pay to reach.

Very few people are able to make a living writing online unless they are able to produce massive amounts of unique content or they produce content in a valuable niche -- like bankruptcy or gadgets (think engadget, say).

Arianna Huffington makes money (i don't know if she is profitable but she has revenue) but only because she has so many people giving her content for free. And even then, with a top 100 site, she only makes $10M/yr (gross) because her market is a low end market. (And to give you an idea of the amount of content I am talking about HuffPo has 35,000,000 unique pages indexed in Google.)

A single person, unless he is a celebrity writer like a Bill Simmons, can't really get enough traffic to make good money by being interesting/entertaining/provocative. He has to sell stuff or write to a commercial market. Or, like a Christian Lander, score a book deal.

If some James Joyce of bloggers spent 500 hours creating an amazing series of blog posts and I came and read it and loved it, I might think, "I woulda paid $10 for that content; it was as good as any book I read this year."

But it was free and I didn't pay $10 for it. I came, I read, I laughed, I cried and then I left. No money traded hands.

And it actually cost the blogger money, if he is self-hosted, because I ate some of his bandwidth.

...The economics of blogging in this many words or less by carl.

Google's been cutting adsense to a lot of blogs that might have some anti-liberal slant lately. I think it's because of the election. Several former Google execs work for the Obama administration, and I think there's a pretty cozy relationship there.

I didn't used to think Google would do something like that, but after some thought I realized that it would be totally ridiculous to assume that Google doesn't have strong political interests and connections.

BTW, the internet is doing just fine in China without Google.

I remember a few months ago, it became pretty clear that google autosuggest had a politically correct bias. It seems to have been corrected to an extent, but still.

There seems to be a universal rule that concentrations of wealth attract Leftism. I suppose that wealthy people compete with eachother to demonstrate their moral superiority.

It might have been your stance on gayness, rather than HBD. The blog has been racy forever, but it's fairly recently (after that one professor got cut from the oil spill team) that you did a big post about homophobia. In the world of the educated, homophobia'll probably get you in trouble quicker than racism.

There was an article on Newsweek or Time about Arianna Huffington. I think she JUST started turning a profit on HuffPo.

The comments to this entry are closed.