Hi D-man ... apologies, if I seemed harsh; not my intent. Your points are well-taken, and I'm off to get a blogger.com account and see what happens. Thanks, good luck and Happy New Year.

Originally Posted by drgeorgep

Hi D-man ... apologies, if I seemed harsh; not my intent. Your points are well-taken, and I'm off to get a blogger.com account and see what happens. Thanks, good luck and Happy New Year.

No problem, happy new year to you as well.

To be totally honest, dude, I probably would decline it without a specific response either if I were big G.

Take a look at the first page of your website. Where's the content? And by "content", I mean "where are the paragraphs of text that indicate that this isn't just a page full of random links that bears a certain resemblance to about 99% of MFA sites out there?"

Digging a bit deeper, where's your content? Google tends to cater more to sites that actually take an original stance on something or do something outside of the norm. Right now, you just have a collection of OPS (Other People's Stuff). Whether that's what you intended or not, that's how it comes across.

DMan has inadvertently touched on one of the biggest problems with the GAS program: there's a "workaround". Set up a blogger site, throw a few posts about your cat or dog on it, make sure they're your own thoughts, apply for GAS, boom, you're approved and can use it on any site across the board.

This has to change, and the sooner the better...all sites should be subject to GAS approval.

Hi Adam ... thanks for the insight. May be time for re-evaluation.

There are several categories of content on my site: some by me; some commissioned, specifically for site; some syndicated (sic). The distribution is likely 20%, 25% and 55%. Perhaps it doesn't appear, as such, on fast glance. Guess somebody at GAS takes a quick look and decides to pass. This, I think, is the most viable explanation, yet offered.

If all content by me, simply a vanity site; not more than the blog of an old man, reliving glory days that never happened. I hoped for more. Seemingly, I missed the boat.

Still, I wonder about the 12,000+ magazines, which come out, each month, full of OPS. I wonder, too, about the 8,000+ newspapers, almost 1,000 dailies, that are full of OPS, especially widely syndicated OPS. What about 100s of hours of TV news and fluff shows, on all cable tiers, that are full of OPS?

Salon.com and Slate.com get about 5 million uniques, each, a month, and 35 million page views. These sites are obviously better funded, organized and staffed, than I, but the model works. Maybe A. J. Liebling was right, speech is free only to those who have the money to start a newspaper.

Thanks, again, Adam. This is the right time of year and, maybe, simply the right time, to re-evaluate. I'm not sure I like the inevitable conclusion from such re-evaluation.

Happy New Year.

Most people don't, George. But when they face it, deal with it, and conquer it, they like the end result. So look one step past the inevitable conclusion and look at the inevitable result that comes from dealing with the inevitable conclusion.

Hi Adam ... the inevitable, for now, anyway, is I took your comment, added my response, which I expanded a bit and simplified, and e-mailed GAS. Time now gets to tell. Thanks. Happy New Year.

No problem...but if they get pissed off at you for my comment, I didn't say it.

Hi Adam ... didn't source comment, just quoted it. You're safe.

Anyhow, GAS quickly returned a response, indicating it couldn't respond to my e-mail, and I was to look up stuff about "bad clicks." What I read, didn't apply, at all. Guess, for reasons unknown, GAS has tagged grubstreet.ca as a source (?) of bad clicks. As grubstreet.ca has never had a GAS account, clicks can't be the issue.

Seems my e-mail to GAS paid off, but in a way that was unexpected.


I e-mailed this address,


https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py


Can you or anyone suggest another e-mail address to contact?

Thanks.

Happy New Year.

Not really. They basically told you what I did, but in a slightly different way...they're saying that a lot of clicks are going to come from the fact that you have so many links to click on (which you'd think would be the opposite, but it's not). Pretty well any department will tell you the same thing. You've exhausted everything I would have in the same situation.

Hi Adam ... interesting point about the click potential being too high. Goes to show, ya never know. I'm taking one more shot, though. I went through the APPs, yet again, wondering about possible interpretations of policies. No porn or out-of-content profanity is obvious, but no "gambling" wasn't.

Last summer, the US passed specific laws, reinforcing the prohibition on electronic transfer of funds for gaming purposes. Canada has a similar law. The new or revised laws are more pernicious than existing laws, and you may recall a few executives of gaming sites were arrested.

Well, I had posted 7 articles easily misunderstood as gambling related. My intent was to convey information about probability, tells (social psych) and such. If you didn't read closely, you'd swear these postings promoted on-line gambling and I doubt GAS reads anything closely.

I took down these postings, and re-applied to GAS.

If they don't allow me a license, I'll give it up, as far as GAS goes, and continue to struggle on. At this point, I think I'm more curious about "why" than getting a GAS account.

Thanks. Your da man. I know you dropped the pic of Carlito, but maybe consider using Flair, instead. Whooooooo!

I can't stand Flair, or I would. He really needs to put a **** shirt on.

And thanks.

Hi Adam ... lol, Flair should wear a shirt. Ha!

Hi ... last contribution to thread from me. Thanks for all the input, advice and support. Time to move forward.

GAS turned site down, again, and seems to have declined to respond to e-mail asking for some idea why. Implemented my Bidvetiser account, re-activated gaming content to facilitate Hollywood Poker affiliation and added a dating affiliation. Gotta pay the bills, GAS or not.

My site was approved and it was 3 days old. Also, your site is comprised mainly of links and 0 original content on the page. That's why you were denied.

Hi LmT ... the site, as of today, has 53% original content, if you include articles commissioned, specifically, for the site. Seek, find, learn there's more than meets the eye. Always a good lesson: don't judge a book by its cover.

Grubstreet.ca has very little original content and it expects the user to click links rather than read what the site is about first. grubstreet.ca/xyz has original content.

Hi LmT ... read my message, 53% original content.

BTW: many other websites also commission articles, allow writers to post their work, use syndicated content or ask visitors to click to another page to read: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are just a few that come to mind. Books, a sometimes interesting new discover for some, have a Table of Content, which requires you turn to certain pages to read a certain chapter -- this is akin to clicking on a web site. Books also have indexes, which allow to turn to specific pages to read about specific topics. Again, this seems analogous to clicking on a web page. Not such a novel idea, check Table of Contents or Index and turn, that is, click to page.

Also, you might want to read the mission statement, here, which clearly indicates one, of two, main purposes of the Grub Street is for writers to have a place to post their work.