Slashdot Mirror
Google Battles Fraudulent Clicks
hthb writes "Google admits on CNN Money that fraudulent clicks are becoming a very large problem for them. 'A top Google official said that growing abuse of the company's lucrative sponsored ad-search model jeopardizes the popular Internet search engine's business. "I think something has to be done about this really, really quickly, because I think, potentially, it threatens our business model," Google Chief Financial Officer George Reyes said Wednesday.'" We had an earlier story about attempted extortion.
Google needs to not just police fraudulent clicks, but their own counting system. My dad tried their system to promote a fledgling e-commerce site for his wife's business. In two weeks, they reported about 400 clicks. Thing is, his web host reported only about 300 hits on his home page. This is not how many clicks from Google were in his referrer log. This was total traffic from all sources.
He complained and Google gave him this totally bogus, highly-technical explanation about referrer logs and that he may not be able to accurately track how many visitors were coming from them. Since he's a busy lawyer and the time it would take to fight Google for maybe $60-100 would take way more time than it was worth, he just quit using Google.
But you can't even attribute this to fraudulent clicks. Even if Google was his sole source of traffic (which it wasn't), nearly 25% of the clicks they were reporting and billing for weren't reaching his site. And this is based solely on comparing clicks to the number of successful server requests for his homepage.
I've used the same host he has and their downtime isn't even 0.25%, much less 25%.
Draw your own conclusions, but I think even if Google eradicated fraudulent clicks, their ad program would still be a huge scam.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Actually there is no problem: A company can easily determine how many click-throughs from Google eventually lead to sales, and thus assign a dollar value to their presence in Google. Now they divide this total value by the number of click-throughs reported by Google (even if said number is totally bogus) and that is exactly what they bid for in adwords.
The CFO is just not familiar enough with the basic economic behaviour.
Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising, in my view, always seemed to be more a fad anyways.
... an example can be seen here:
... many advertisers, in particular larger ones it seems, recognize the value of impression advertising and branding.
Impression based advertising, or even better yet a hybrid of flat-rate advertising priced based on an estimated, not guaranteed, number of impressions expected during a particular period of time, such over the course of a month.
Prime example of this type of pricing scheme is seen with traditional magazine advertising. I personally have been using a similar pricing setup for years for various on-line services I operate
Marihemp Network Ad Pricing Info:
http://www.marihemp.com/advertising/
Long time visitors to the Marihemp Network sites know clicking on ads is pointless *unless* they truly are interested in the product/service advertised, and advertisers know upfront what their costs are - don't have to worry about their ads ending prematurely nor unexpected ad cost overruns.
And from an operational standpoint, selling flatrate advertising, as explained above, is much easier to manage both now, as well as well into the future.
On a related item, even if a visitor is interested in a specific product/service, that doesn't mean the visitor is ready to buy right then and there
Ron Bennett
I think that Google AdSense (if that's what they're talking about) is worth protecting... it is a lucrative system. I think that Google is being fair with their payout to advertisers -- personally their statistics look consistent to me; 4000 page views at my site versus the 3000 page views acknowledged through Google (not everyone has javascript enabled). Also the revenue I've collected from Google has been superior to other ad systems.
I think Google is fair to its ad publishers.
Well Google has all these geniuses they keep hiring from MIT, I'm sure they can fix up a way to detect likely click abuses. It's not rocket science, after all.
Another point to consider is that the on-line adult industry, which collectively often finds innovative solutions to problems, has evolved from paying affiliates (sponsors) on a per click basis to other methods, such as pay per signup (pay per action) and revenue sharing.
... so far they've been able to hide the extent/absorb the cost of excess/duplicate clicks, but Google can't forever, especially in a post-IPO environment.
...
...
... or combination of IP, cookie, etc; the permutations are endless!
... what about folks, such as those with limited time, using an automated shopping script/website/applet to shop on-line vendors on their behalf.
... for example pay folks who opt-in like 1 cent one-time for each unique link they click in such emails.
... Google should be looking at alternatives, if they're not already, to PPC advertising.
In a nutshell, if the adult industry, as a whole, can't make pay per click work, why does Google think they can?
While the solution may seem simple to many folks, when one examines the issue in-depth, there's nothing simple about it
* What constitutes a "valid" click?
* What constitutes a duplicate click?
* How many clicks from a source is too many?
* How does one define a "source" of a click?
* Filter clicks based on IP, Computer, User ID, Cookie, etc?
* How does one deal with proxies, such as folks coming in on AOL?
* What is the threshold for filtering? Allow one click per IP per day?, or per hour?, etc
* Assuming a click is considered valid, is it truly valid? -getting into the issue of bots, etc.
* Are bots ok? Seems obvious they wouldn't be, but no so fast
* Is sending emails to friends (say double opt-in even) with pay per click (affiliate) links in them ok? -then further, is asking them to click on such links ok?; a growing underground web business is built around such an approach
I could go on and on
Ron Bennett
You're talking about the ads that display when you do a Google search. If you click your links, you screw yourself.
We're talking about Google's Ad affiliate program that you can put OTHER PEOPLE'S ADS on YOUR website, which you recieve a portion of the income.
If you click those links, Google pays you.
Say a scammer puts google ads on his website, then automates clicking on those ads, google then has to pay him for a portion of each click. This hurts google obviously.
Wrong. If Google thinks the clicks are genuine and pays out, that means Google gets paid by the advertiser. Google is never paying from its own pocket - the advertiser pays out and Google takes a nice cut of the price.
Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
For the curious, these two patent applications (note they're just applications at this stage) by Google cover most of the AdSense/AdWords technology:
Methods and apparatus for serving relevant advertisements
Serving advertisements based on content
EricWho is publishing a book about AdSense in the spring
I think you're confused about which program this is talking about. There are two programs:
n =%2Fadsense%2Fhome
1) Google Adwords: https://adwords.google.com/select/
appear on the search results on google and are only a way to advertise. Google gets all the money, there is no commision for this. While not explicitly stated this is NOT the major area of concern for click fraud (It does exist here, but not as big of a deal because there is less motive and google can weed it out).
2) Google AdSense: https://www.google.com/adsense/default?destinatio
AdSense allows any site operator to put ads served up by Google on their website. Google then pays you a fraction of the money earned per click on the ads on your web page. This is where fraudulent clicking is a problem, becuase now there's good incentive (I get paid for the clicks). This program makes no sense without commision
We sell bike tours and have in the past had relationships with web sites that used the model described above. It's not always a case of intentional dishonesty -- it can be really hard to recognize whether a customer came from that site or not. But the most important problem is that it's not Google's fault if someone comes to look at our web site and doesn't buy -- they're being paid to deliver people who click on your ad because it interests them.
At least Google cares about this issue. I've actually received refund checks from Google for fraud reimbursement. Overture just downplays the issue and keeps taking our money. I'd stop using Overture altogether if it were my decision.
PPC advertising is gross, at first glance -- but it's really interesting to compare the ways Google and Overture implement the idea. Google is very good at making it clear what's paid and what's natural, while Overture (and their many affiliate sites) lets the boundary blur. It's that intentional blurring of the boundary between natural and paid results that smells foul. I think it's very similar to the notion of a boundary between editorial and advertising in a journalism setting.
If you're involved with PPC marketing and worried about fraud, make sure you realize who's your friend. I hope Google doesn't get a disproportionate share of the wrath here just because they spoke up about the problem. If it were up to Overture, nothing would ever get done about it.
6. Audible Alarm (not shown)
-from a Cuisinart product owner's manual.