[...] In lieu of this uncharted stop, we took the initiative to completely overhaul our infrastructure so as to continue our dream of providing a “Net Friendly” parking solution to the domaining industry. In hindsight, we’re now thankful for this dilemma, as we believe our efforts have produced a HUGE IMPROVEMENT towards fulfilling our goals, and those of our domaining members. Namely, our members can now insert THEIR OWN AD CODES AND KEEP ALL THEIR PROFITS!” More [...]

The “were not an MFA site” MFA sites are a little 2004 and Google will ban.

Publishers think that by cribbing some wikipedia text and adding it to a page emblazoned with the maximum of adsense links they somehow comply with the TOS. All untrue. Initially, Google were on the lookout for click fraud. Now they have that buttoned, they measure publishers like Yahoo on a TQ scoring mechanism. If your score falls foul to the mechanism you’re gone.

All about giving advertisers value for money. If a visitor clicks on an adsense link on your page by accident because you have it blended and so close to your “so called” content, yes, you will be awarded that click but then your TQ score will be negatively impacted upon. Do that too often and its goodbye.

I actually dont know why people even attempt to do these grey hat techniques anymore, for that boat sailed some while back.

Want money from Google? Do as they say! Build unique and compelling websites.

Google are not discriminative. With an AFD account you have multiple client IDs (read accounts) which are split between US/Worldwide and adult domains – you use them as you see fit! You have an accounts manager, you constantly discuss performance, template styles together with what you can (more like can’t) do.

ie a business relationship which they buy into.

With domainembarking, they were always on mission disaster – placing their own Google publisher account into the hands of any number of Chinese scammers (pretending to be from the US). Im surprised it took this long to get rebanned / they got it back to do all over again.

With whypark et al, they have no risk, its the publishers own account so risk is spread and considerably lowered.