Back in 2022, a member named "eatyi" sparked a meaningful discussion on Webmatrices about struggling with AdSense's "Google-served ads on screens without publisher-content" rejection. The conversation, which included helpful insights from community members like me and trubo_dude, highlighted a common challenge: getting AdSense approval for websites that focus on tools and functionality rather than traditional content.

Three years later, this challenge persists. But the conversation has evolved, and the patterns have become clearer.

The Core Problem

Google's rejection message is deliberately vague. "Low value content" and "screens without publisher-content" tell you almost nothing about what to fix.

Here's what Google actually means: they want text. Substantial, original, keyword-rich text that their algorithms can parse for ad targeting. Your beautifully functional tool that solves a real problem? Doesn't count. Your interactive app that users love? Invisible to their content crawlers.

A developer recently shared their experience building a bill-splitting app. The app lets users scan receipts, extract items with AI, and split costs in real-time across a shared room. Genuinely useful. Expensive API calls to maintain. Perfect candidate for ad support.

Rejected. "Screens without publisher content."

The landing page had feature descriptions, a video demo, FAQs, contact forms, privacy policies. None of it mattered. The value was in the functionality, not the text. And Google's algorithms can't evaluate functionality.

The Technical Reality Most Developers Miss

Here's something that trips up React and JavaScript developers constantly: AdSense bots don't run JavaScript.

Your beautifully rendered single-page application? The bot sees an empty shell. All that content you're loading dynamically? Invisible. The detailed explanations that appear after hydration? Never parsed.

One developer built a file-sharing tool with clear explanations of how WebRTC works, privacy features, use cases. All present in the static HTML, verified with curl using the Googlebot user agent. Still rejected. The content was there. The bot could read it. Didn't matter.

AdSense explicitly doesn't count images, videos, tools, or games as content. They want paragraphs. Text. The kind of material that can be keyword-matched to advertiser campaigns.

A language teacher tool for creating exercises got the same treatment. The entire site was the exercise builder itself. Fully functional. Genuinely useful for educators. But a single-page tool architecture means there's nothing for Google to index as "content."

The developer's conclusion after multiple rejections: "They are not interested in tools."

The Recipe Site Phenomenon

This explains something that frustrates everyone who's ever searched for a recipe online.

You want to know how to make pasta. Instead, you get 2,000 words about someone's grandmother's kitchen in Tuscany, a meditation on the meaning of family meals, three paragraphs about ingredient sourcing, and finally (after aggressive scrolling) the actual recipe.

This isn't bad writing. It's AdSense optimization.

Google's content requirements created a perverse incentive: pad everything with text, regardless of whether it helps the user. The algorithm rewards verbosity. Users suffer. But the ads get served.

A tech blogger documented this exact dynamic when trying to monetize a calculator tool. The calculator worked perfectly. Users found it useful. Google rejected it for insufficient content. He added AI-generated filler text that contributed nothing to the user experience. Google approved it.

The system is working exactly as designed. The design is the problem.

Category Blacklists: Some Sites Can Never Be Approved

Beyond the content requirements, certain categories face automatic rejection regardless of how much text you add.

File-sharing tools fall into the same bucket as URL shorteners. A developer built a privacy-focused file transfer service (similar to WeTransfer but simpler). Homepage included detailed explanations of how the tool works, privacy advantages, technical documentation about WebRTC. Static HTML, not JavaScript-rendered. Verifiably crawlable.

Still rejected. The reason isn't content volume. It's category classification.

Ad networks view file-sharing sites as:

Lacking "editorial content" (tool-first architecture)
Potential copyright liability (any file can be transferred)
MFA-adjacent (Made for AdSense, ironically applied to actually useful tools)

The developer just wanted to cover server costs. Not build a business, not make millions. Just keep a useful free tool running. AdSense's categorical rejection made that impossible through advertising.

This extends to other tool categories: URL shorteners, QR code generators, converters, calculators. The more utility-focused the site, the less likely approval becomes.

The Guessing Game

What makes this especially frustrating: Google provides no specific feedback.

One developer described the cycle: submit application, wait, receive generic rejection, guess what to change, resubmit, wait again, receive identical generic rejection. "They want you to keep guessing, submitting and waiting only to be rejected with no reason again."

The rejection language never changes. "Screens without publisher content" covers everything from a genuinely empty page to a fully-functional tool with thousands of words of documentation. You can't optimize for feedback that doesn't exist.

Some developers report approval after adding FAQ sections. Others add identical FAQ sections and get rejected. Some single-page tools with minimal content get approved at 250 daily views. Multi-page sites with extensive content get rejected repeatedly.

There's no pattern that reliably predicts approval. The process optimizes for Google's internal metrics, not for publisher understanding.

The "Blog First" Workaround

A workaround has emerged in the tool-building community: get approved as a blog, then pivot to a tool.

The process works like this:

Build a content site with 20-30 articles
Apply for AdSense, get approved
Gradually transform the site into a tool
Keep the approved AdSense account running

Publishers who've done this report it works. The approval sticks even after the content ratio shifts dramatically toward functionality.

Is this within Google's terms of service? Probably not. The site that got approved is no longer the site running ads. But enforcement is inconsistent, and the workaround persists because the legitimate path (approving useful tools directly) doesn't exist.

The Numbers Behind Approval

What actually gets approved? Based on patterns across the publishing community:

Minimum viable content:

15-20 posts at 500+ words each (some report needing 25-30 in 2025)
Clear navigation structure
Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, About pages
Mobile-responsive design
Content that demonstrates "expertise" (Google's term)

What doesn't count:

Tool interfaces, regardless of complexity
User-generated content
Navigation pages
Interactive features without supporting text
"Under construction" placeholders

One blogger running a career advice site since 2016 shared their trajectory: approved initially with 15 posts of ~500 words. Now at 700 posts generating 137,000 monthly pageviews. November 2025 earnings: $387.

That's a $2.83 RPM (revenue per thousand pageviews). For context, the same traffic from US visitors instead of India would generate roughly $4,000. Geography matters enormously.

The Real Economics

Let's break down what AdSense actually pays in 2025:

Traffic from India (largest English-language market by volume):

RPM: $2-3
137,000 pageviews = ~$400/month
Requires years of content building

Traffic from United States:

RPM: $25-35 (with premium networks like Mediavine)
Same 137,000 pageviews = ~$4,000/month
Same content, 10x the revenue

This geographic disparity shapes everything. Bloggers targeting Indian audiences need massive scale to generate meaningful income. Those targeting US audiences can sustain themselves with far less traffic but face fiercer competition.

The career advice blogger's $387 month came from 120,000+ Indian pageviews and a handful of US visits. If those numbers were reversed, same content, same effort, the payout would be closer to $3,600.

Alternative Paths

For sites that can't or won't add filler content, alternatives exist:

Premium ad networks (traffic minimums apply):

Mediavine: ~50,000 sessions/month minimum, significantly higher RPMs
Raptive (formerly AdThrive): Similar thresholds, strong for US traffic
Ezoic: Lower barrier to entry, mixed reviews on implementation

Tool-friendly networks:

Adsterra: Accepts utility sites that AdSense rejects
Purple Ads: Similar positioning for tool-based publishers
Adskeeper: Requires 90,000+ monthly visitors, but category-flexible

Direct ad sales:

Requires sales effort and traffic proof
Higher margins but inconsistent revenue
Works best for niche audiences with clear demographics

The hybrid approach:

Keep tools as primary value proposition
Build content section alongside (tutorials, use cases, documentation)
Apply for AdSense on content pages only
Accept that tool pages won't serve ads

The traffic threshold reality: Publishers report needing 100+ organic daily views minimum for consideration. One tool site got approved with 250+ daily views, a single-page architecture, and just three pages: the tool with FAQ, Contact Us, and Privacy Policy. Another with similar structure and 5,000 monthly pageviews got rejected repeatedly.

The inconsistency suggests traffic quality matters more than documented requirements indicate. Organic search traffic from Google itself may weigh approval decisions, creating a circular dependency: you need Google traffic to get Google ads.

This last approach is what we recommended back in 2022: create a separate blog subdomain with 15-17 high-quality articles. It still works. It just feels like a tax on usefulness.

What's Changed Since 2022

The fundamentals haven't shifted, but the bar has risen:

Higher content requirements: Reports suggest 25-30 articles is now safer than the previous 15-20 minimum.

Stricter quality signals: AI-generated content triggers more scrutiny. Thin posts get flagged faster.

More alternatives: The premium ad network space has matured, giving high-traffic sites better options than AdSense.

Same core absurdity: Useful tools still get rejected. Bloated content still gets approved. The incentive structure remains broken.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Google AdSense optimizes for Google's needs, not publisher needs or user needs.

They need text content to target ads effectively. They need pages that load ads alongside parseable material. They need inventory that fits their auction model.

What they don't need: elegant tools, useful calculators, functional apps, or any value proposition that can't be reduced to keywords and paragraphs.

The result is a web where every simple task comes wrapped in unnecessary content. Where developers add meaningless text to satisfy algorithms. Where users scroll past walls of filler to reach the actual resource they came for.

This isn't a bug in the system. It's the system working as intended.

Practical Recommendations for 2025

If you're building a tool-first site and want ad revenue:

Understand the technical requirements first. If you're using React, Vue, or any client-side framework, your content must be server-rendered. AdSense bots don't execute JavaScript. Next.js with SSR works. Create React App without pre-rendering doesn't. Test with curl using Googlebot user agent to see what the bot actually sees.

Accept the content tax. Build a documentation/tutorial section with genuine depth. 25+ articles, 800+ words each, covering use cases, comparisons, and how-tos related to your tool.

Make the content actually useful. If you're going to write it anyway, write something worth reading. Tutorial content that helps users get more from your tool serves both AdSense requirements and user needs.

Check if your category is blacklisted. File sharing, URL shortening, and similar utility categories face categorical rejection. No amount of content fixes this. Look into alternative networks like Adsterra or Purple Ads instead.

Consider the geography question. If your audience is primarily non-US, AdSense revenues will be modest regardless of traffic. Factor this into your monetization strategy.

Know when to skip AdSense entirely. For apps with expensive API costs (like the receipt-scanning bill splitter), ads might never cover operational expenses. Subscription models or usage fees might be the only viable path.

Track what actually works. The blogger making $387/month also has digital products and a newly monetized YouTube channel. Diversification matters more than optimizing any single revenue stream.

The Bigger Picture

The AdSense content requirement is a small example of a larger pattern: platforms optimizing for their own metrics at the expense of the ecosystem.

Google wants indexable content. So the web fills with indexable content, whether users want it or not.

Amazon wants reviews. So products get flooded with incentivized reviews, whether they're honest or not.

Social platforms want engagement. So content optimizes for engagement, whether it's valuable or not.

The AdSense paradox (useful sites rejected, bloated sites approved) is just one manifestation of platform incentives misaligned with user needs.

Understanding this won't make the rejection emails less frustrating. But it might help you stop taking them personally. Google isn't evaluating whether your site is good. They're evaluating whether it fits their ad-serving model.

Those are very different questions.

Google Adsense