<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>DoubleMalt</author><text>This not necessarily the case. Most advertisers will have fixed budgets to spend on AdSense.&lt;p&gt;Under this assumption banning a publisher would not diminish the revenue stream but just diverting the ads to other not yet banned publishers.&lt;p&gt;That doesn&amp;#x27;t mean the scheme as described is true, but it&amp;#x27;s not as obviously stupid as your first paragraph makes it seem.</text><parent_chain><item><author>birken</author><text>Let&amp;#x27;s think about this logically.  Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000&amp;#x2F;month, Google is making $2,352&amp;#x2F;month from that account.  So by banning the account, they are making $5,000 one-time, and losing $2,352&amp;#x2F;month forever.  No company is stupid enough to do that.&lt;p&gt;However, considering a site making $5,000 or $10,000&amp;#x2F;month is generating quite a few clicks, I think it makes perfect sense for any account reaching these thresholds to be manually reviewed to ensure they are valid sites.  The quality of Google&amp;#x27;s clicks is one of its main selling points, and by cutting out spammy sites at the source it both improves the quality of its own program and at the same time removes a lot of the financial incentive to run a scummy site.&lt;p&gt;So my guess is these policies (or similar policies that involve manual reviews of sites) make perfect sense, are not illegal in any way, and this whole posting is as bogus as it looks.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;support.google.com&amp;#x2F;adsense&amp;#x2F;answer&amp;#x2F;180195?hl=en&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google AdSense leak?</title><url>http://pastebin.com/qh6Tta3h</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>owlmanatt</author><text>&amp;gt; Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000&amp;#x2F;month, Google is making $2,352&amp;#x2F;month from that account.&lt;p&gt;The publisher (ie your website showing ads) isn&amp;#x27;t the one paying them that money; they aren&amp;#x27;t losing any recurring revenue by banning them.&lt;p&gt;Since they&amp;#x27;re Google AdSense, it&amp;#x27;s very likely that they have plenty of new signups to show those ads on.</text><parent_chain><item><author>birken</author><text>Let&amp;#x27;s think about this logically.  Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000&amp;#x2F;month, Google is making $2,352&amp;#x2F;month from that account.  So by banning the account, they are making $5,000 one-time, and losing $2,352&amp;#x2F;month forever.  No company is stupid enough to do that.&lt;p&gt;However, considering a site making $5,000 or $10,000&amp;#x2F;month is generating quite a few clicks, I think it makes perfect sense for any account reaching these thresholds to be manually reviewed to ensure they are valid sites.  The quality of Google&amp;#x27;s clicks is one of its main selling points, and by cutting out spammy sites at the source it both improves the quality of its own program and at the same time removes a lot of the financial incentive to run a scummy site.&lt;p&gt;So my guess is these policies (or similar policies that involve manual reviews of sites) make perfect sense, are not illegal in any way, and this whole posting is as bogus as it looks.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;support.google.com&amp;#x2F;adsense&amp;#x2F;answer&amp;#x2F;180195?hl=en&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google AdSense leak?</title><url>http://pastebin.com/qh6Tta3h</url></story>