Comments on: And the latest on the AdSense leak:

By: Michiel Van Kets

Michiel Van Kets — Fri, 02 May 2014 07:19:31 +0000

I have no clue, as I didn't even read the first statement, but it would surprise me if google is NOT cheating, after all their success comes from scraping other sites content, which is not only illegal, but criminal …

By: Richard Hearne

Richard Hearne — Fri, 02 May 2014 03:36:53 +0000

OK I'll be frank - no matter how extraordinary it all seems, I have to say that I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true. Sadly that's just my opinion. I don't think that Google is systemically "bad". Far from it in fact, but I've always harboured misgivings about the revenue side of the company.

There are very few large public corporations that haven't at one time or another cut corners, and I seriously doubt Google is anyway different. They got caught with their pants down on the Pharma ads, and I don't see this being all that different.

For the record though I also don't believe many of the details in these releases, but I am willing to wager there will be at least some truth buried in here.

By: Sasch Mayer

Sasch Mayer — Fri, 02 May 2014 03:14:53 +0000

I know Jim, I know. I also agree that the second piece is stylistically different from the first.

By: Jim Munro

Jim Munro — Fri, 02 May 2014 03:12:59 +0000

Only friends care enough to tell the truth, Sasch.

By: Sasch Mayer

Sasch Mayer — Fri, 02 May 2014 03:10:56 +0000

Thing is... Canceled earnings flow back to advertisers, not Google. The leaker is also adamant that people need to ask Google if there are VIP AdSense accounts. Yes there are. If Google didn't pay special attention to high-credibility, high-earning accounts I would be surprised. Further, if there is a time to flag/investigate click fraud, it's before you send large checks. And... The guy says he's an ex Googler, does he at any point hint at the sort of position he held?

So far I'm seeing nothing that lends credibility. Hell, even Jim is calling bullshit on it, and he's been known to criticize Google once or twice.

By: Jim Munro

Jim Munro — Fri, 02 May 2014 03:10:48 +0000

You are my friend and I don't think this is worth arguing over but I think a bit of a stretch is required to let him off the hook.

Also, it seems to me that the second tranche has been written by a completely different person.

Neither am I buying the need for secrecy either, at some point he has to show himself if his plan is to work so he should put everything to support his claims publicly on OneDrive now where we can all examine them.

By: Richard Hearne

Richard Hearne — Fri, 02 May 2014 02:59:23 +0000

Here's my take on that statement. He never said they were told to look into every account, so it could equally be that a pool of accounts was determined for this action.

I'm still on the fence right now on this, as it's starting to look like a very elaborate action on the part of the "leaker".

As unbelievable as it all sounds, I have to say part of me wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it turns out to have at least some element of truth to it.

By: Jim Munro

Jim Munro — Fri, 02 May 2014 02:49:50 +0000

I pointed it out on the thread at the time but I will get it. Here it is:"For example, this just did not happen in 2009 ("We were told to go and look into the publishers accounts, and if any publisher had accumulated earnings exceeding $5000 and was near a payout or in the process of a payout, we were to ban the account right away and reverse the earnings back.") and the 2012 scenarios look like nonsense too."

By: Richard Hearne

Richard Hearne — Fri, 02 May 2014 02:48:09 +0000

Which lie Jim?

By: Jim Munro

Jim Munro — Fri, 02 May 2014 02:45:16 +0000

Me neither. The point-blank lie in the first release was alone enough to know that every other statement was bullshit.

By: Sasch Mayer

Sasch Mayer — Fri, 02 May 2014 01:26:18 +0000

Not buying this one any more than the last. We've all seen the raw power of leaks to the press. If documented proof exists its sensational release would not jeopardize a case against Google. If anything it would swing the pendulum in favor of the plaintiffs.

As it stands it's still an extremely thin likely story.

Note to Americans and other nonBrits: In Britain a likely story is basically a far fetched tale with little or no credibility.