Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="+2YKNL7s4/XaI31hrvJMCIt1"


| Google's Click-Fraud Crackdown                                     |
|   from the fighting-back dept.                                     |
|   posted by Zonk on Thursday July 13, @16:05 (Google)              |
| |

An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports that Google is making some
effort to [0]put a crack in the practice of click-fraud. Because of the
pernicious abuse of the company's advertising business, it simply can't
be sure that anyone is actually looking at the ads. Bruce Schneier talks
about the problems of ensuring that people are really people, and
Google's solution." From the article: "Google is testing a new
advertising model to deal with click fraud: cost-per-action ads.
Advertisers don't pay unless the customer performs a certain action:=20
a product, fills out a survey, whatever. It's a hard model to make work=20
Google would become more of a partner in the final sale instead of an
indifferent displayer of advertising ___ but it's the right security
response to click fraud: Change the rules of the game so that click=20
doesn't matter."

Discuss this story at:


Content-Type: application/pgp-keys

Version: N/A



Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: N/A



Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Op 15 Jul 2006 06:40:09 -0000 schreef MyTwoCents:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I've been doing a lot of pay-per-lead campaigns via website partners.
Because the cost per lead is higher, you want to be able to return the
false response. I don't see Google sending e-mails to advertisers like
"please return you false response before then and then so we can process it
and pay the website partners". So advertisers must be very careful and
calculate the waste in their bid. And also: response fraud is just as easy
as click fraud.

It's about the same with the ppc method Google uses currently. They report
the cost per response if you place a tracking code on your site. But since
your waste is also counted as valid response, you have to keep track of the
actual cost per response yourself. In my case Google reports about EUR 14
per lead while the actual cost is around EUR 19.

Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean like this ?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Op 15 Jul 2006 14:56:40 -0700 schreef canadafred:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The reason a response is not valid doesn't mean it's fraudulous
automatically. I choose to have a short response form in order to generate
many responses. A false response can also mean somebody doesn't answer the
phone, doesn't seem to be creditable for the goods bought, cancels
appointments etcetera. I report the non-response to the website partners I
deal directly with every month because we agreed only to pay for the valid
respons (like EUR 20 per valid response). Google doesn't do that but I'm
satisfied with EUR 19 anyway. And I don't want to do the validation in the
site logic because I rather have 73% validity out of 1000 responses than
100% validity out of 150.

What the fraud is in the view-to-click ratio, I don't know. I don't care
either because it's the same principle as the short forms: the easier it is
for website partners to take up my campaign, the more clicks I get. I
rather have 1.000.000 clicks with 90% validity than 100.000 clicks that are
all valid. As long as the average cost per click leads to a raw lead price
of EUR 14, hence EUR 19 net lead price. Having said that, I would welcome
an anti click fraud method, as soon as it doesn't cut down the volume of
valid clicks.

Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Jan Paul van de Berg wrote:


Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you can carelessly afford to pay for that many click-throughs,
however fraudulent their derivative, then I'd suggest to you that you
could make better long term use of those Internet marketing resources
bulging in your budget by deploying a sound search engine optimization
strategy across your web site promotion campaigns.


Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Op 16 Jul 2006 11:38:09 -0700 schreef canadafred:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why do you think I'm lurking in this n.g.? ;-)

But seriously, you're absolutely right. I haven't had the budget yet to
invest in people to explore that field however. If I switch my resources to
building a seo driven business, my turnover from Adwords stops. Plan is to
hire some university interns as of September and get the seo thing setup as
a parallel strategy to Adwords and banner campaigns with website partners.

Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:37:26 +0200, Jan Paul van de Berg

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You can't afford anywhere classy.



Re: Google Click-Fraud Crackdown

Op Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:11:47 GMT schreef Big Bill:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't know that expression (being not native English). Could you pls

Site Timeline