GOOGLE SO EVIL, they STEAL from adsense clientsGOOGLE is a torpid search engine MISSING THE CORRECT FINDS by 80%.
GOOGLE ADSENSE (CLIP FOR CLICK) LIES, CHEATS & STEALS MONEY
FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT! 100%.
THAT they are GOOD AT!
GOOGLE CHROME DROPS HUNDREDS OF ADS ON YOUR SCREEN EVERY DAY, EVERY FEW MINUTES and NO WAY TO STAUNCH THE FLOW of SCREEN INVASIONS BLOCKING OUT YOUR WRITING WORDS AND SEEING STUFF. GOOGLE AD SENSE REACHES INTO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT AND DRAINS IT WITH THEIR " PAY PER CLICK" HELP YOU "BRAND" service. BANKRUPTING YOU!

SHAME ON YOU GOOGLE, YOU TREACHEROUS CORPORATION!
WE put OUR BUSINESS LIFE IN YOUR HANDS and you EXPLOIT US ? EMPTY OUR BANK ACCOUNT? INVADE OUR SCREEN WITH UNSTOPPABLE TSUNAMI OF ADS?

LET'S VOTE WITH OUR FEET, CLOSE THEM DOWN with a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
and get our STOLEN MONEY BACK.

GOOGLE is the BADDEST OF THE BAD SEARCH ENGINES OUT THERE! A DESPOT. TORPID, USELESS IN A SEARCH, CROOKED with its hand in your bank account! CHROME THEIR BROWSER is a TIME THIEF, HUNDREDS OF ADS MUST BE X'ed OUT BY HAND, there goes our DAY there goes our MIND. USE CHROME you are in perpetual RAGE!
https://searchengineland.com/google-search-quality-crisis-272174
BUT WHO KNEW they are also a TYRANNICAL, UN- TRUSTABLE BRIGAND -- GOOGLE WINS THE EVIL PIRATE PRIZE for bank theft. THEY CLOSED DOWN THE BUSINESSES OF TWO ENTREPRENEUR KIDS WHOM I KNOW PERSONALLY, with ADSENSE which empties your bank account click by phony click!

Sure, I have my teeth sharpened cuz they could only find 1% of the 7,000 LIFE 101 FREE WEBINAR articles that I wrote, THEMES LIKE "HOW NOT TO GET SNOOKERED" 
"GUERILLA CAPITALISM 101" "SURVIVE MODERN LIFE 101," "REALITY 101," ALL Of it FREE TRAININGS on how to prevent DISEASE, HOLISM,
GREAT and ORIGINAL IDEAS, like "BEAUTIES" HOW TO MARRY A BILLIONAIRE & SAVE THE WORLD WITH HIS $) a l00 file seminar that teaches beauties to
"Stay away from modeling and show biz and rock music and cowboy bar hotties. STAY PURE GALS. MARRY MONEY!"
EVERY so often I check the POSTED PIECE, BUT CURIOUSLY OUT OF 7,000 I PUT ONLINE, GOOGLE FINDS MAYBE TEN.  BING is the same, Exact number so they're in cahoots.
 NO REAL SEARCH is being done by BING OR GOOGLE. Or I'd see my web pages when I google my theme or name or a single phrase that is at bottom of all my articles."ANITA SANDS HERNANDEZ MOTHER OF 4"
Gwan, CHECK, my search term is this "anita sands hernandez" + "mother of 4" that pair of phrases is in at least 2,000 of the 7,000 articles which btw I offer folks 
to REPUBLISH to generate AD REVENUE. for THEM. I TAKE NONE of their AD CASH.. Anyway THE GOOGLE SEARCH SCREEN only shows you ten pages.
WHY IS GOOGLE SO BAD? A THIRD REASON: IT WILL NOT LET US SEARCH FOR AND SAVE THEME IMAGES for our articles. GOOGLE bowed to GETTY IMAGE in NOV 2018
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/
BUT MAIN REASON GOOGLE STINKS. THEY STEAL FROM ADVERTISING CLIENTS: SEE
https://www.businessinsider.com/19-year-old-lost-46000-in-google-adsense-rules-ban-2014-8

https://www.seo-e.com/content-marketing-management/adsense-user-loses-46000-to-google-punishment.htm

THIS WAS NOT A PUNISHMENT BY THE WAY (THO GOOGLE SEZ IT WAS). IT IS GOOGLE'S USUAL WAY TO GET INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL CLIENTS
WHO USE AD SENSE and STEAL! What put me on to this is THIS HORROR STORY which happened to 2 of my 4 kids who have (OR HAD! ) SOLID ESTABLISHED cottage industries,
portrait photography businesses. FOR DECADES MY BOY did HAWAII WEDDINGS & GLAM MODEL SURF SHOT PHOTOS and MY DAUGHTER WAS doing BABY PORTRAITS.

They were SUCCESSFUL, MADE A LIVING but they were TOO trusting & let GOOGLE HANDLE their ad and wottya KNOW? their bank accounts got drained without their KNOWING IT ---
by GOOGLE! EACH CLICK was a few dimes but the GOOGLE BANKER claimed ten thousand clicks. TEN MILLION. THEIR HEALTHY BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DRAINED OVER NIGHT.
BOTH quit photography studio businesses that they'd had for YEARS before GOOGLE DESTROYED THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS! He became MR MOM to the kids, let the wife earn a living in
accounting. She became a GIRL FRIDAY to local families. MY CHILDREN'S LIVES were RUINED BY CROOKED GOOGLE! WE NEED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT HERE!
A QUOTE FROM "STEALING CLICKS" an article from FORBES MAG
The devil is in the data--and in this case, in the clicks. Google and third-party auditors disagree on whether click fraud--the practice of inflating pay-per-click
 ad fees with automatic clicking software--is at bay or on the rise. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt has dismissed click fraud as "immaterial."
 Even paying $90 million last March to settle a class-action lawsuit by online advertisers over claims of fraudulent clicks hasn't flustered Google.
Not all outsiders are reassured. A report in July from Click Forensics, an Austin, Texas-based click-fraud auditing firm, contended that click fraud 
is growing, particularly on content networks like Google Adsense and Yahoo! Publisher Network. The report, drawn from more than 4,000 sites'
advertising data, asserted that the rate of fraudulent clicks was 15.8% in the second quarter of 2007, up 1% from three months earlier. Within
online content networks, Click Forensics estimated that more than 25% of all clicks were fraudulent, up from about 22% in the previous quarter.
Whose numbers are more believable? In this online debate, (BELOW), Google's Shuman Ghosemajumder and Click Forensics Chief Executive Tom Cuthbert 
spar over their different methods of counting clicks, how open Google is about sharing data, and who has a broader perspective on what happens
when somebody--or some bot--clicks on an ad. Just before they charge the beejeezus out of some trusting entrepreneur with a cottage business.
Forbes: ADOMETRY formerly "Click Forensics" reports that click fraud is increasing--you disagree. Why?
Ghosemajumder: The big problem with third-party auditors is that they continue to count "fictitious clicks," clicks that Google doesn't count 
clicks at all, in click fraud estimates. Here's one major example: Users click on a Google ad on Google.com or an Adsense site. When they land on
 the advertiser's site, they click on products, hitting the "back" button to go back to the landing page. Many browsers reload the landing page each time.
 We don't count those as clicks, but third-party auditors actually register each click on the "back" button as another click on an ad, which grossly
overestimates the number of ad clicks.
The other important point is that auditors like Click Forensics estimate the amount of click fraud that's being attempted, not how much is going 
undetected and is charged to advertisers. That means they're counting the clicks that we throw away as invalid, not just the ones advertisers pay for.
But click-fraud auditors argue that there's a discrepancy: They say you throw away no more than 10% of clicks, while they estimate click fraud rates
 at as much as 25%.
That's just one particular set of numbers. The auditing firm, Fair Isaac, for example, estimated in May that on Google's content network, 10 to 15% 
of clicks are fraudulent. On ads placed next to search results, they said that there was a negligible rate of click fraud, less than 1%. That implies an
overall click-fraud rate of around five to 7%. The number of clicks that we proactively throw out is less than 10%. So then the question is really:
 How much are advertisers getting for free thanks to our detection methods?
Most auditors have realized this is very difficult to do from the point of view of a third party and have changed their business model to focus 
on other kinds of analytics. Click Forensics is one company that has continued to publish numbers, but I don't hear much about them anymore.
 You need a lot of data to do any sort of statistical analysis, and auditors don't have nearly as much as we do.
What data do you see that third-party auditors don't?
The primary data set that third parties don't have access to is the impression data--not just when the ads are clicked, but how often they're viewed. 
A very simplistic fraudster might just click on ads, over and over. But of course, we've learned to recognize spikes in the click-through rate, the
number of times the ad is clicked on for every time it appears. Any sophisticated fraudster has to keep their click-through rates at a reasonable
 percentage by creating the right number of false impressions.
From a third-party perspective, you can't even see the click-through rate. Since we know exactly how many times an ad appears, we have much
 more data than the third-party auditors for any given advertiser.
Have you seen an increase in click fraud in recent months?
It's difficult to say. We filter out fewer than 10% of clicks as invalid, but you can't draw a very precise line between malicious activity and 
invalid clicks that might have been made with malicious intent. Anyone spending time looking at the percentage changes in something where
you can't draw a precise line doesn't understand the issue.
One metric we do have is the number of cases in which we refund advertisers for click fraud, and that has remained stable at less than .02%,
 quarter after quarter.
Some have accused Google of turning a blind eye to click fraud or underestimating the problem because of the revenue it generates. Is Google 
really motivated to stop click fraud?
That?s one of the biggest misunderstandings about this. We have a very direct financial incentive to detect bad publishers--the ones engaged in 
click fraud--and remove them from the system.
Google is also a publisher itself. When we display ads on Google.com, we get 100% of the revenue for those ads. When you have bad publishers
 introduced into the system, the effect is to reduce advertisers' return on investment, because they cost money and don't generate sales.
When you reduce [return on investment (ROI)], the rational thing for advertisers to do is to pay less for clicks. That doesn't just mean that
the clicks that go through our good publishers' sites make less money. It also means the clicks on Google.com make less money for us.
That incentive for us to stop click fraud is actually part of a broader incentive: We're trying to create the greatest ROI possible for advertisers
. That's what makes us the most competitive in terms of attracting advertisers and competitors. We wouldn't invest a lot of money improving
ROI in one respect, and then let it degrade in another.
Has Google's approach to click fraud changed since its $90 million settlement with advertisers last year?
We weren't required by the settlement terms to change anything. But we did have a third-party analyst, Alexander Tuzhilin, 
come in and spend time with the click-quality team. He wrote a report that concluded our approach was reasonable. We've felt we've
done a very effective job of protecting advertisers, even though we have fraudsters constantly trying new angles of attack.
Are you investigating and taking legal action against particularly egregious cases of click fraud?
We are trying to do that more, and we're looking at a few cases at the moment. But I'm afraid I can't talk about them. (CLASS ACTION CHUM!)
What are the giveaways that make click-fraud detectable?
There aren't any silver bullets. There are some very simple things, like watching the click-through rate. It's easy to catch someone who clicks a million 
times in a minute. But we also have anomaly detection that allows us to spot more sophisticated kinds of click fraud.
We monitor signals like Internet protocol addresses and the kinds of browsers people use--for traffic to look real, it has to have the right proportion 
of visitors using the Firefox browser, Internet Explorer, et. cetera. But the real power of our detection systems lies in the fact that we analyze
hundreds of different factors, the majority of which are secret.
Does that mean that Google faces a transparency dilemma? You can't reveal these metrics because they'd help people get away with click fraud.
 But if you reveal too little, advertisers will have a hard time believing that you're really capable of stopping the problem.
We can't talk about these things in detail, but we talk about them at a high level. We try to promote as much understanding of these issues 
as we can in forums, blogs and academic articles. And we're the only search engine to have had a third-party come in and publish a report.
What advertisers can see and what they're constantly giving us feedback about are the actual results from their ad campaigns. 
The metric we really compete on is our advertisers' return on investment.
Some critics have also accused Google of unfairly banning innocent publishers accused of click fraud. Does that happen?
We do take it very seriously. We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to click fraud from publishers.
But when it comes to accounts that have been wrongly terminated or sabotaged, we're always monitoring that too, and it generally comes 
to a very low number. We never hear back from the vast majority of publishers terminated. When publishers say they weren't engaged in
 click fraud, we have an appeals process.
But more generally, it's a good sign that we're being criticized by both advertisers and publishers for opposite reasons. That means we must be doing something right.
Tom Cuthbert
Click Forensics
Forbes: You say that click fraud is increasing, while Google's Shuman Ghosemajumder says that click fraud is under control. Are you accusing Google of hiding the extent of the problem?
Cuthbert: You'll notice in your Q&A with Shuman that he doesn't actually answer the question of whether click fraud is getting worse. That's because he knows from Google's own data
that the problem of click fraud is getting worse and will continue to get worse.
Are your estimates inflated by "fictitious clicks"--clicks that Google doesn't count?
In our analysis, we use Google Click ID, a tool that matches our data back to Google's. A Google Click ID simply provides a tag, a random number that Google adds to each individual 
click that comes in through Adsense or Adwords. An advertiser can enable a setting so that third parties can also see and use that number to tie back those individual clicks to Google's
data. That way, advertisers who submit invalid clicks are able to identify exactly which clicks were invalid.
All of our data is also based on Google Click ID, and Shuman knows that. He may be correct about other auditors in this space, but what he's said and the way he said it is misleading.
How do you handle "click-backs," situations in which a user reloads an advertisement's landing page? Do you and other auditors count the page's reloading as another click on the ad?
Absolutely not. Using Google Click ID prevents us from counting click-backs, and even when we have analyzed the number of click-backs compared to the overall problem of click fraud
, it's a very small percentage. Regardless, using Click IDs and other methodologies means there are no fictitious clicks in our data.
If I sound somewhat aggravated, it's because I am. Shuman knows very well that we use Google Click ID. But he has a tendency to talk about fictitious clicks and then bring up our name
 to try to link us with that, even though he knows it's not true. We're a bit frustrated with that.
Are click-fraud auditors hamstrung in their efforts to assess click fraud accurately because they lack data that Google has, particularly click-through rates (the number of times an ad
 is clicked for each time it appears)?
Actually, we have access to several kinds of data that Google doesn't have. Most importantly, we see what happens on an advertiser's site when a click leaves Google's page and goes 
to the landing page. We see how deep the clicker goes in the site and whether the click converts into a sale. Having that ad-side data is really critical in exposing click fraud.
For example, we often see a user that lands on an advertiser's site and then browses 10 pages deep. That appears at first to be a human visit. But in fact each of those page visits
 might last exactly 2.1 seconds, meaning it must be click software imitating human behavior. That's a very common trait in bot traffic that Google simply can't see.
Why doesn't Google analyze this kind of site-side data?
Advertisers on the Click Quality Council don't want to give Google conversion data because Google's pricing system is a black box. Defining the price per click 
for certain keywords used to be an auction-based system. Now it's based on many factors that are built into Google's algorithm, which is constantly changing.
Because of that approach, advertisers worry that keyword prices could be inflated if Google knew the exact value of the click, including the rate of conversion
 for the advertiser. And that means Google ends up with very little site-side data.
The second kind of data that Google doesn't have is cross-search-engine. Because our clients are using multiple search providers, not just Google, we're able to see data 
from many different search providers in different markets and different countries. Google sees data from Google. We see ads on Google, Yahoo!, MSN, LookSmart, etc.
On a larger scale, this community approach is similar to how companies deal with spam and malware: They're finding commonalities across the market and apply that logic 
to protecting individual victims. So seeing what's occurring across multiple search platforms gives us a big advantage.
Is Google really motivated to end click fraud? THEY BOWED TO GETTY IMAGES which is bowing to a corporation that resented writers
getting cute images off google. They called that CLICK FRAUD only only a million of us American unpaid writers were doing it to make our free scribbles
more visually appealing to readers. SEE ' http://www.masterjules.net/copyrightorwrong.htm '

 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/
Every time a fraudulent click occurs and is billed, Google profits and advertisers lose. So they do profit in the short term.
But Google clearly has an interest in building trust with advertisers long term, and that trust is diminishing as click fraud continues to grow. 
If Shuman really believes that it's in Google's interest to end click fraud, he should embrace a third-party system and make use of our data, rather than try to discredit us.
Google says that it has hundreds of metrics it can use to identify click fraud but that it can't reveal them for fear of tipping fraudsters off on how to skirt their safeguards.
 Does that create a transparency problem for Google in its relationship with advertisers?
There's no doubt that Google has a transparency problem. They've been extremely guarded about what they're willing to talk about. The only way to resolve that is to involve a 
third party in the discussion that has the interest of the community at heart. Like a CLASS ACTION LAWYER with a million smaller lawyers all running the LAWSUIT!
In traditional media, companies exist to make sure that advertisers get what they pay for. Nielsen does this in television, Arbitron in radio, circulation auditors in print. As the
 online ad market matures, the same kind of companies will develop. No matter how much Google tries to diminish the role of click fraud in advertisers' campaigns, it's here to stay,
and a third-party system is necessary to build trust and help grow the industry.
Editor's note: Shuman Ghosemajumder responded to Cuthbert's comments by noting that while Click Forensics' use of Google Click ID is encouraging, the auditor's numbers 
were likely skewed by inaccuracies in how it counts fictitious clicks on Microsoft's and Yahoo!'s network. He repeated his assertion that Click Forensics has access to only a tiny
 fraction--about 1%--of the data that Google uses to analyze click fraud, and again underscored that Google has no incentive to allow fraudulent clicks.
Finally, Ghosemajumder defended Google's cooperation with auditors, saying the company has "excellent relations" with third-party companies and "supports them with more tools 
than any almost any other advertising network."
I'm a technology, privacy, and information security reporter and most recently the author of the book This Machine Kills Secrets, a chronicle of the history 
and future of information leaks, from the Pentagon Papers to WikiLeaks and beyond. I've covered the hacker beat---" he goes on. Whomever he is.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/f2sh29vW-ik
https://www.clickz.com/how-bad-are-search-engines/75508/
https://gizmodo.com/5-reasons-not-to-use-google-for-search-1785396969
https://webmarketingschool.com/rip-google-search-engine-1998-2018/


Anita Sands HernandezOur POSTER is ANITA SANDS HERNANDEZ, Los Angeles Writer, Futurist, Researcher, Mother of 4 and Career Astrologer.  Catch up with her websites TRUTHS GOV WILL HIDE & NEVER TELL YOU, also The  FUTURE, WHAT'S COMIN' AT YA! FRUGAL LIFE STYLE TIPS,  HOW TO SURVIVE the COMING GREAT DEPRESSION, and Secrets of Nature, HOLISTIC, AFFORDABLE HEALING. Also ARTISANRY FOR EXPORT, EARN EUROS   and THE DIME A DAY LIFESTYLE:  http://www.masterjules.net/frugindex.htm   Anita is  astrology@ earthlink.net . Get a free natal horoscope "my money/future life" reading now + copy of your horoscope as a Gif file graphic! No smarter, more accurate destiny reading out there!

<===BACK TO MONEY SECRETS ONLY THE EXPERTS KNOW

<=== BACK TO SECRETS THE GOV DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

<=== SHOW ME THE FIX INDEX PAGE.

<=== SHOW ME THE HAPPY R)EVOLUTION PAGE

<==== BACK TO THE HOW TO DO WEBSITES

<=== BACK TO HOW NOT TO GET SNOOKERED, A WEBSITE

<=== BACK TO "GUERILLA CAPITALISM" -- THE SOLUTION!

<====BACK TO THE "VITAL SIGNS OF A DYING ECONOMY" the "FUTURE" WEBPAGE

<==== BACK TO THE WALL STREET MELTDOWN WEBSITE,  with "WHAT TO DO TO SURVIVE" TIPS

<=== BACK TO ENRON PLANET, the DOOMSDAY SCENARIO

<====BACK TO THE HOLISTIC GOURMET, BON MARCHE

<=== BACK TO THE GLEENERS PAGE

<====START YOUR OWN CHARITY, CHANGE THE WORLD ARCHIVE

<=== BACK TO THE FRUGAL INDEX PAGE

<===BACK TO THE FREE MONEY INDEX PAGE

<===BACK TO THE DUMPSTER DIVING 101 TRAINING COURSE

<===BACK TO THE METAPHYSICS of AWAKENING WEBPAGE

<===SHOW ME THE AFFORDABLE WEBHOSTS LIST AGAIN!

<=== BACK TO TRACKING THE ECONOMY, an INDEX PAGE

<=== Back to the WEB TIPS SO that I CAN DO AN ACTIVIST WEBSITE MYSELF!

<===SEND ME TO THE MISSION STATEMENT OF A GOOD ACTIVIST

<==== PORTAL TO 7,000 ARTICLES YOU CAN REPUBLISH FREE to ATTRACT AD REVENUE

meaning RE- publish this as you wish, all of it, monetize it.THE ACTUAL ARTICLES ARE YOURS. FREE. THEY ATTRAcT AD REVENUE.

<======== BACK TO GUERILLA CAPITALISM 101

<======== BACK TO THE ACTIVIST'S INDEX 

<=======   BACK TO HOW TO DO NEAT WEB STUFF ( BLOGGING FOR NEWBIE$)

 <======== BACK TO MERCHANDISING YOURSELF ON LINE