Slashdot Log In
Newsweek On Click Fraud, Search Engine Response
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Jan 17, 2005 09:08 PM
from the clickie-clickie dept.
from the clickie-clickie dept.
prostoalex writes "Newsweek magazine says click fraud is the bane of the search advertising industry. Google and Yahoo! are apparently working on the standardized definition of a "good-faith" click in order to weed out the fraudulent ones. Meanwhile, merchants like Assaf Nehoray are taking their money elsewhere, getting abundant clicks, but no real revenue on Internet advertising campaigns. Newsweek also mentions Google suing a Texas company for placing the AdSense code and then clicking on it in order to run up the revenue. John Battelle says that his friends in the search industry tell him the click fraud is growing and that changes are not too far away."
Related Stories
[+]
Search Companies Team Up Against Click Fraud 84 comments
isabotage3 writes to tell us that the top three search companies, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, have teamed up to create an alliance to combat click fraud. The fact that these three bitter rivals can team up shows just how serious the industry has become about preserving the current online advertising boom that is currently underway. From the article: "Click fraud has attracted an increasing amount of attention amid class-action lawsuits and industry studies asserting advertisers have been collectively overcharged by more than $1 billion for bogus sales leads during the past four years. Google and Yahoo contend that those estimates are gross exaggerations generated by opportunistic lawyers and online advertising consultants hoping to cash in on the anxieties triggered by their calculations."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You're about six months behind (Score:5, Interesting)
Puff (Score:4, Interesting)
But I assure you that it hurts when your 100$ Adword budget goes in a puff of probably fraudulents clicks, with nothing you can do about it. The guys at SEO Chat forum [seochat.com] are not very happy about this, I assure you.
It's discouraging me of running small-scale Adwords campaigns, honestly.
Re:Puff (Score:5, Interesting)
To an advertiser, a useless click is a click that hits the adwords landing page and little (or nothing else) and does not mean a sale. If these bogus clicks could then be processed at a 3rd party auditing house, then fraud could be detected and each member could then complain to google about bogus clicks.
I am sure someone must have thought of this already - I just can't find it listed on google
Parent
Re:Puff (Score:4, Insightful)
But then who polices the advertisers? Is Google supposed to trust you to tell them when a visitor who reaches your landing page converts into a sale? What if you're not selling anything, at least not directly? I can see all kinds of problems at that end, too.
Really, you're paying Google for traffic. Qualified traffic, yes, but traffic just the same. How you convert that traffic into sales is not Google's worry.
EricListen, people: JavaScript is not Java [ericgiguere.com]
Parent
Darn! (Score:4, Funny)
Click fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly is this click fraud thing? I can't really see how it can be exactly defined. Maybe the owners of the website occasionally want to click on their own adverts because (*shock*) the product is actually relevant to their site, and thus to them. In fact, relevance is supposed to be the whole idea of Google's TextAds, isn't it?
Obviously someone genuinely wanting to click their own ads ten thousand times is rather unlikely, but where do you draw the line? Is this written in a contract anywhere? What about getting other people to click the ads for you?
This seems to be a very fuzzy legal matter. I'm as pro-Google as the next Slashdotter but I can't see how they have a water-tight case here. That said, I'm not an expert, so perhaps someone can correct me.
Re:Click fraud? (Score:2)
It's useful to weed out ads that are direct competitors, or ads you would deem inappropriate for your site. Google then has the provision to "lock out" those ads by going into your account and add th
Re:Click fraud? (Score:2)
"Begging" for clicks, directly or indirectly, is agaisnt the terms of agreement, too. "I have trouble paying my hosting bills, so I added ads to the left, please support us", that kind of thing.
Don't see the point? Ads can be very profitable. Some keywords go for $0.03, sure. Some go for $7.00, too.
1- Set up website targeting profit
Re:Click fraud? (Score:2)
Re:Click fraud? (Score:3, Informative)
You've adhered to google's policies AND discovered what the result of that click is. If you are a webmaster and you CANNOT figure this out you deserve to lose any money Google TextAds would have earned you. The policy is simple. Click on the ad yourself and forfeit the right to your earnings.
Re:Click fraud? (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud [wikipedia.org]
It's not that difficult to format a URL is it?
Parent
Uh duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who ever thought Google AdWords were any more effective than a pop up ad? The reason so many porn sites use pop ups is that often times they get paid on a "per view" or "per click" basis. Hmmm...if every user has to click the fake 'X' in the top corner, thus sending them to the advertiser, then the referring porn site makes money on a click through.
Same idea with AdWords. Why would anyone think click through ads are any better? Everyone remember the days when they had the little clients that would monitor when you were online and give you money for every hour you surfed? Ha, how long did it take you to set up a macro to run the mouse while you slept?
The only advertising that makes you money, is advertising that sells your product. Tricking people into following a link or viewing a page they didn't want to doesn't do anyone any good in the long run. Pay per click can only last so long.
Re:Uh duh... (Score:3, Interesting)
"The only advertising that makes you money, is advertising that sells your product. Tricking people into following a link or viewing a page they didn't want to doesn't do anyone any good in the long run."
And in this posters sig:
"Get a FREE MiniMac Here! [freeminimacs.com] "
Scams obviously work as good tricks
Re:Uh duh... (Score:2)
I am in no way hiding where this link leads...no tinyurl crap. Stright up, if you want to click it, then click it. If not, then don't it's as simple as that.
Re:Uh duh... (Score:2)
Re:Uh duh... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are perfectly reasonable ways to use Google ads, for instance. Describe your product honestly, market your product honestly on the target page the ad leads to, and provide a good and well supported product.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then you deserve to have your ad budget eat you for dinner, IMHO.
If you do follow those basic guidelines, then the ads will bring potential customers by your pages, and some percentage of them will actually purchase your product(s) and/or service(s).
There's no magic to this -- unless you're a fraud right out of the gate anyway.
That's not to say that you can't work the system in such a way as to make it legitimately benefit you. For instance:
Some of my competitors do such a poor job, I decided to put Google ads right on our sales pages so our customers could easily find our competitors. The results they get are so yucky that I consider them to be marketing for us, in a reverse sort of way. There's nothing on our pages that say "go look at how crappy our competitors are, click the ads and then come back" or anything like that... the ads just sit there, advertising software similar to ours... and our sales picked up about 20% over four weeks once we put the ads on. Apparently, our customers are savvy enough to know where they've been -- and how to come back -- when they wander off to look at these other folks. And the funny thing is that we get paid for all this. Now, if our competitors are silly enough to keep advertising a shoddy product, why, I'm simply delighed to host their ads. :)
Parent
Re:Uh duh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google Adwords work because they're non-intrusive (Score:2)
Zombies being used as proxies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the SEs know to watch for 100+ adwords clicks in 15 minutes from the same IP (though maybe this is harder due to decentralization of the data centers and another reason for them to get a dark fiber network - see the article from earlier today) but if the clicks appear to be coming from broadband users across the US, I could see worms playing a big part in this, relatively undetectably.
Re:Zombies being used as proxies? (Score:2)
I was just reading a link on webmasters world [webmasterworld.com] about this kind of fraud. The best guesses there seemed to agree the fraudulent click campaigns were launched through bot-nets.
This is old hat in the adult industry: (Score:3, Insightful)
For any affiliate program, as that community operates like the mos eisley cantina. In fact, it's expected, and has been dealt with over and over. Google should talk to the old guard on this one.
I'm sorry to admit that gfy [gofuckyourself.com] is the authoritative source on this problem; no joke!
Overture "click protection" (Score:4, Insightful)
For a complete write up see Overture Click Protection Paper [perlworks.com]
click-fraud? huh? (Score:2)
if i use a keyboard to simulate a mouse-click, is that considered click-fraud?
if so, this could really put open source projects like GNOME Accessibility in a dicey situation!
It hurts publishers too (Score:4, Informative)
1) You can loose, a lot, of revenue because of advertisers switching off.
2) You can void all your earnings if Google detects fradulant clicks (say a compeditor clicks the hell out of your ads).
It does suck for publishers and advertisers, but as it is one of Google's (and others) major revenue sources then I would have thought they would take even more measures to make sure this kind of fraud didn't happen. Because at the end of the day they do rely on both publishers and advertisters. And if it turns to crap Google (etc) will no longer be the middle man.
Re:It hurts publishers too (Score:2, Interesting)
Suggestion:
I am an Adsense publisher for a local community based website.
I would like visitors to see advertising on my site with is relevent to my intended target audience. This could be done by allowing the publisher to add additional keyworks to the Adsence search. (eg. locality name
Re:It hurts publishers too (Score:2)
Given that the majority of Google's revenues come from advertising, I think it's safe to say that they're devoting resources (and brainpower) to fixing this problem. The nice thing about AdSense is that it lets small website owners like myself get rewarded for putting up free content with no real hassle on anyone's part. It complements the open source model in my mind.
Most AdSense sites don't earn a lot of money, but it can easily pay your hosting costs if you get enough traffic. Sometimes you hit a lucky
Re:It hurts publishers too (Score:2)
What about folks who play by the rules? (Score:3, Interesting)
So while YES, there is a lot of fraud in this area, be careful about saying everyone running Google Adsense is "bad"
Re:What about folks who play by the rules? (Score:2)
Business Model (Score:2)
1. Place AdSense code
2. Click
3. ???
4. Profit!
5. Goto step 2.
Hilarity ensues! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hilarity ensues! (Score:2)
Why must clicks generate immidaite sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it could be said that web advertising is more like direct mail. A firm pays an ad agency to create copy, the post office to send stuff out, and hopes for enough responses to the campaign to generate the profit. If the campaign fails, maybe the ad agency receives some flack. But the post office is not going to refund money because several hundred of the recipients happened to work for a competitor, or because a third of the envelopes were discarded unopened.
So where did this concept of one click one sale, or one click one payment. What happened to the concept of sponsoring good content in the hopes of generating a connection to potential customers. By all accounts TV and print ads are increasingly worthless. Can web ads be any worse? Could the problem be that the ad agencies or advertisers are not taking time to understand the medium? Are all web advertisers so fly by night that they need a sale today because tomorrow they will have run off to tahiti with the receipts?
Re:Why must clicks generate immidaite sales? (Score:2)
When you see an "Eat at Joe's" sign next to a train station that you walk through every day, you're more likely to eat there. Likewise, there needs to be a category of web advertisement that builds a brand based on a logo or catchy graphic.
Hell... drug companies advertise and sell drugs without even te
pay-per-click model generally obsolete (Score:2)
It only really has value to a few select portals that have market share. Everybody else gets screwed. The pay-per-click model also compensates for advertisers' lack of innovation or foresight. If their ad message sucks, they don't pay, yet they consume prime real estate that could be better served by a more thoughtful advertiser unwilling to merely randomy throw money around in impractical bid amounts. So with this model, web sites lose revenue because of an adv
Re:pay-per-click model generally obsolete (Score:2)
Who clicks ads on purpose? (Score:2)
I guess I am just being naive and ignoring impulse shopping, but I can't imagine someone seeing an ad and actually purchasing a product without putting any real thought into it.
I am so thankful for things like Adblock, it helps bring back some sanity to the web.
WRONG, WRONG WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Click fraud is the bane of the USELESS CLICK-THRU ADVERTISING industry. Use targetted banners, of both online and offline products. Get smarter, dammit.
If I see a coke ad on a hot sunny day, i'm more eager to buy it than to click a stupid "punch the monkey" ad.
How about this. In say, long scientific article, who the heck will pay attention to a banner on the top of the page, rather than in the middle?
Common sense, boys. You wanted instant revenue. There's no such thing.
New Search engine Snap.com Solves this problem (Score:2, Interesting)
They offer traditonal online advertising options such as charging for the number of times a listing is displayed, and a pay-per-click model (That Gross originally pioneered with Overture).
Snap's big contribution to online advertising is "Pay-Per-Action". They track a user's click-stream from their search engine, to the site, and track a user's movements there. So a bookseller can agree to pay 2% of
I think this is why CPM and Affiliate rules (Score:2)
Affiliate doesn't get as many clicks... but actually translates into cash.
Problem is, per click is cheap. They hand out a penny (or fraction) each time they get a click. Easy to track, monitor.
But not an effective business practice.
IMHO these companies weren't well
Beware of the "Content" network in Adwords (Score:3, Interesting)
broken business model (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned -- and I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way -- every single advertisement anyone tries to show me is unwanted. In fact, I may well decide never to buy any product or service from that company just on general principle. After all, I know that company spends money on advertising which they could spend on making a better product. So if you have ever spent a single penny trying to show me an advertisement, then you have wasted that money. Harsh? Maybe, but that's the way you turn out when you were raised watching the BBC.
I won't be guilt-tripped with talk of how advertisers pay for this and pay for that. I never asked them to pay for it! I am the sole custodian of my destiny. I am not going to buy anything from anybody who advertises, period. I personally see no need to waste my bandwidth downloading an advertisement when I am only going to ignore it -- hence the Squid proxy and moderate-to-heavy use of Firefox's image blocking feature. Not just on the Internet either; I leave the room while adverts are on the TV.
If I was feeling really malicious, I might actually write a quick perl script to put in a few hundred bogus clicks against a really egregious advertiser. But on the whole, I most probably wouldn't be bothered; it's too much effort for too little return.
Re:3rd world countries (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:3rd world countries (Score:3, Informative)
Or it could even be something like free internet access if you just click on banners for X amount of time per day. I think the reason that they don't simulate it with software is that actual people clicking
Re:3rd world countries (Score:5, Interesting)
An obvious thing to look for is lots of traffic coming from the same IP or subnet. That's why Slashdot has IP bans, makes you wait 2 minutes before posting another comment, etc. Google of course can look for similar patterns. Therefore malicious users need to make their traffic look like it's coming from all over the place instead of just one computer. The GNAA used to crapflood Slashdot by compiling lists of hundreds of open proxies and writing a script to have them post comments all at once (Slashdot no longer allows open proxies to post). We can assume Google filters out ad clicks from anonymous proxies. So now the malicious users need a way to recruit hundreds of computers, preferably from lots of different subnets, and without using open proxies. You can do this by paying people to click ads from their computers, and "hit the monkey" is probably the cheapest known way to do this. If you're making more money on clicks than what you're paying your army of clickers, you'll make a profit.
Now, I suppose you could also write an automated program to do the same thing, but that would be called a "virus" or a "worm," and these things tend to attract a lot of attention from various law enforcement agencies. Better to pay people a couple cents to hit the monkey than go to prison.
Parent
Re:Google ranking (Score:2)
Re:Google ranking (Score:2)
Re:Cycle. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Screwing up adverts is great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, like Google and television. And not much else. Now, since we are paying for cable in any event, I doubt the cable company would have trouble surviving without the ad revenue. And as far as Google is concerned, there were search engines before anyone ever thought about running an internet company based on ad revenue. They got their money elsewhere. Also, Google is the only successful internet business with an ad-based revenue model. Dotcom is long dead, remember?
Oh, and don't forget, it's the consumer who ends up paying for the ad campaign, which more than offsets the offsets to the costs of the consumer that you are talking about.
If you ask me, all advertising should be made illegal. Starting with spam, of course. I doubt the economy would ever even notice. Of course, the parasites in the advertising industry will have to go find real jobs!
OK, enough trolling, time to go read "Das Kapital".
Parent
Re:Screwing up adverts is great. (Score:3, Interesting)
The more advertisements I see, the more I come to realise the BBC really is worth the licence fee.