Updated Needed Regarding PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT Error

[Pete Lavetsky (AdWords API Guru)]

Hi all,

We're looking for an update regarding Google's effort to not falsely identify ad text as containing phone numbers and marking the ad disapproved because of the PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT topic

This has previously been brought up by myself on this forum : https://groups.google.com/g/adwords-api/c/XTiXR6IXZlU/m/rQZAQTgBAQAJ

Our clients are increasingly growing frustrated because ads that clearly have nothing close to resembling a phone number are being disapproved by Google's automated systems

For example, this expanded text ad is disapproved because Google says it contains a phone number:

    type: EXPANDED_TEXT_AD
    expanded_text_ad {
      headline_part1: "Preowned Silverado 2500HD"
      headline_part2: "Priced As Low As $60,167"
      headline_part3: "XXX Ford"
      description: "We\'ve Got It On The Lot Today At XXX Ford."
      description2: "Call Our Team Today & Schedule A Test Drive!"
      path1: "Used"
      path2: ""
    }

Clearly there is no phone number there.

In the previous forum thread we went forward with the guidance to make sure we're adding ignorable policy topics to ads *on creation*  in an effort to head this off.

I'm not sure if that ever worked that well as this is an ongoing problem.

Here is a request, request-id E1xHa8pD5WxhHpB_Ecuk2w, where we add a policy_validation_parameter with ignorable_policy_topics containing PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT in an effort to alert Google to the fact that there are no phone numbers in the Ad.

Before mutation attempt, the ad had a status of:

policy_topic_entries : [type: PROHIBITEDtopic: "PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT"] review_status : REVIEWED approval_status : DISAPPROVED

Here is the attempt to get Google to re-review the Ad and realize there's no phone number:

Request
-------
MethodName: google.ads.googleads.v10.services.AdService/MutateAds
Endpoint: googleads.googleapis.com:443
Headers: {developer-token=REDACTED, login-customer-id=ABC, x-goog-api-client=gl-java/11.0.13 gccl/17.0.1 gapic/17.0.1 gax/2.6.1 grpc/1.41.0}
Body: customer_id: "XYZ"
operations {
  update {
    type: EXPANDED_TEXT_AD
    expanded_text_ad {
      headline_part1: "Preowned Silverado 2500HD"
      headline_part2: "Priced As Low As $60,167"
      headline_part3: "XXX Ford"
      description: "We\'ve Got It On The Lot Today At XXX Ford."
      description2: "Call Our Team Today & Schedule A Test Drive!"
      path1: "Used"
      path2: ""
    }
    resource_name: removed
    id: removed
    final_urls: removed
  }
  update_mask {
    paths: "resource_name"
    paths: "id"
    paths: "final_urls"
    paths: "type"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.headline_part1"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.headline_part2"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.headline_part3"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.description"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.description2"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.path1"
    paths: "expanded_text_ad.path2"
  }
  policy_validation_parameter {
    ignorable_policy_topics: "CAPITALIZATION"
    ignorable_policy_topics: "PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT"
  }
}


Response
--------
Headers: Metadata(content-disposition=attachment,content-type=application/grpc,request-id=E1xHa8pD5WxhHpB_Ecuk2w,date=Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:59:52 GMT,alt-svc=h3=":443"; ma=2592000,h3-29=":443"; ma=2592000,h3-Q050=":443"; ma=2592000,h3-Q046=":443"; ma=2592000,h3-Q043=":443"; ma=2592000,quic=":443"; ma=2592000; v="46,43")
Body: results {
  resource_name: removed
}

Failure message: null
Status: Status{code=OK, description=null, cause=null}.


The mutate succeeds and the ad is temporarily given a different status:

review_status : REVIEW_IN_PROGRESS approval_status : UNKNOWN
After a few minutes the ad is back to a dissaproved status

policy_topic_entries : [type: PROHIBITEDtopic: "PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT"] review_status : REVIEWED approval_status : DISAPPROVED

So a couple things here ... the ad very clearly does not have a phone number in it, and never has had a phone number in it. What is Google doing to correct this false trigger? This is precluding Ads from running which in turn results in less spend at Google which means less Google revenue.

Is there something else we should be doing with regards to policy_validation_parameter or ignorable_policy_topics or exemption requests to get these Ads to pass the no-phone-number test?

Our clients are getting increasingly agitated regarding this topic as it seems very easy to be able to detect if there actually is a phone number in the Ad and they're wondering why Google can't figure this out.

Thanks

Pete

[Google Ads API Forum Advisor]

Hi Pete,

​​​​​​Thank you for raising this concern to Google Ads API Team.

To answer your question about falsely identifying phone numbers policy error, I would suggest reaching out to the Product team via this link and let me explain why. Please note that the Google Ads API is only mimicking the behavior and validation of the UI. With this, the correction of the validation for phone numbers should be fixed on the product team's end. So that on the Google Ads API, the correct validation will also be applied.

For this concern below, could you please provide us with the complete logs (request and response with request-id)  that generated on your end. This will help our team to investigate further.

"Is there something else we should be doing with regards to policy_validation_parameter or ignorable_policy_topics or exemption requests to get these Ads to pass the no-phone-number test?"

You can provide it via Reply privately to the author option. If this option is not available, then send it instead on this email address googleadsapi-support@google.com alias instead.

Best regards,

Jinky Google Ads API Team

ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2WyAQq:ref

[Google Ads API Forum Advisor]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your reply. 

I understand that there is no phone number included in your mutate Ad request, and still flagging with policy PHONE_NUMBER_IN_AD_TEXT error. In my view, I suspect probably the ad description part where numbers are included is causing policy errors. However, as you mentioned, this time you encountered it again despite putting in a policy exception. With that, kindly confirm to the Product team via this link, for further guidance if said description value or other request details that are causing policy error to be encountered, since they are the one who has knowledge for policy error. 

Also, I had to delete your last post as posting complete logs is discouraged on the forum. Kindly use the reply to author privately option or direct alias googleadsa...@google.com while sending complete logs.

Regards,

Yasar Google Ads API Team

ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2WyAQq:ref

[Pete Lavetsky (AdWords API Guru)]

Yasar,

I already did ask this question via that link : https://support.google.com/google-ads/thread/151964091?hl=en&msgid=152022694

I was told it is primarily a peer-to-peer community : https://support.google.com/google-ads/thread/151964091?hl=en&msgid=152022694

I was also told that my best course of action is to get my clients to create Ad text so that "$60,167" does not look like a phone number:

"otherwise, the best likely course is to use values that are less likely

to be mistaken for, or do not look like, phone-numbers, in any way,

with respect to google's machine-learning-systems."

Google has a broken product and no one at Google is willing to put in the work to fix it.

[Google Ads API Forum Advisor]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your patience on this. Please allow me to share this with our team to see if we can resolve this issue. 

Thanks,
Matt
Google Ads API Team

Matt Google Ads API Team

ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2WyAQq:ref

[Google Ads API Forum Advisor]

Hello Pete,

Could you do me a huge favor? Could you in the forum choose 'Reply to author' and send me the request ID of one of the requests where you are seeing this? I don't want to accidentally track down a similar ad when taking a look at this.

Thanks,

Nadine Wang Google Ads API Team

ref:_00D1U1174p._5004Q2WyAQq:ref

[be...@hootinteractive.com]

Hi,

Is there any update on this? I have the same issue.

Thanks,

Berto