Slashdot Mirror
Google Sues Click Inflators
Rollie Hawk writes "As is the case with any pay-per-click (PPC) advertising service, Google AdSense is vulnerable to click inflation, where the per-click values of ads go down thanks to excessive clicking. What is different this time is that it is not greedy webmasters clicking ads on their own site but rather the advertisers themselves. In a lawsuit filed last year, Google alleges that Auctions Expert used hired hands and automation to generate high numbers of ad clicks that resulted in $50,000 in revenues. This was done with two goals in mind: forcing wasted advertising expenses on competitors and inflating their own click values, lowering advertising costs. Industry insiders claim that Google AdSense and other PPC advertising providers are undermanned and therefore don't catch many of the estimated 20% fraudulent clicks. It certainly seems that some heuristic software could help reign-in some of these activities, yet Google seems to do a large amount of this work by hand. Often criticized for its policies of non-disclosure for many of its online services, Google claims the secrecy is justified in the case of not giving advertisers details on fraudulent clicking. They say the last thing they want to do is provide a 'road map' to would-be frauders."
They say the last thing they want to do is provide a "road map" to would-be hackers.
-Rick
From the article:
<sarcasm>
Security through obscurity...always a sound threat-management strategy.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, what exactly does Google hope to accomplish by trying to keep a lid on this? News flash, Google: the 'road map' is already out there, and being used to the tune of approximately 20% of all clicks on ads (stat from TFA). The secret is out...no one can gain by covering up the problem...no one, that is, but the people perpetrating the click fraud.
Google better do an about-face on this issue, and fast, before it winds up biting them on the ass even more than it has already.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Google got to the top of the game by providing an excellent service efficiently. But like anything else, people have no problems ruining it to make a little more money.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Google sets up a way of doing advertising business with them. You sign a contract that most likely links your rate with your clicks, provided they aren't fraudulent. Now somebody got caught and they're gonna get sued. What's the problem? Its not like its a right to have an advertisement on their site. Google can tell you to shove it if they want. Reading the summary makes me think the issue is that Google isn't disclosing how they caught this advertiser because its done by hand. Again, why should Google disclose more than necessary to prove to the court in their case? I'm not seeing the issue.
The slashdot blurb gives the impression that Auctions Expert was clicking on other ads to drive up competitors advertising costs. But while that is mentioned in the article by another guy, what Auctions Experts was doing was standard "put google ads on our page, and keep clicking the links so we get paid"
From the article:
Auctions Expert allegedly recruited as many as 50 people to click on online advertising, generating about $50,000 in ad revenue. The self-clicking was "worthless to advertisers, but generated significant and unjust revenue for defendants," the Google lawsuit said. Auctions Expert, Google claims, appeared to be created solely to profit from manipulating the Internet ad process
I have blog like everyone else
Its the "pay-per-click" method which is broken,
because its too simplistic. The advertisers and
search engines need to come up with better
technology to make sure that payment only follows
purchases.
Clicking your mouse on a search engine results
page, as many times as you want, should be
considered a First Amendment protected form of
Freedom of Expression. Clicking your mouse on your
stock broker's BUY button, for instance, is
obviously quite different, because you and the
broker have a contract where your clicks are
treated as orders.
But there is no contract between the users of a
search engine and the search engine's advertisers.
If companies want to transfer money between
themselves based on those clicks, they had better
think long and hard about the conditions where
that actually makes sense.
I wonder why Google has decided, against their own interests, to go after fraudsters like this.
I think it's a long term strategy from Google. If they would embrace the revenue generated by the scammers, the real and legitimate advertisers would get less out of their ads, and in the end stop using Google for marketing.
1) Position yourself as the altrusitic, common man's company. Appear driven by community and the common good.
2) Shop yourselves to VC's and get that IPO in motion.
3) Now that you have the souls onboard, show your true motives. Profit!
Pay per click is a model that invites dishonesty. CPM (Cost per thousand) impressions is a much clearer model, however less profitable.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
That I don't purchase something means little.
I can not EVER remember purchasing ANYTHING the first time I have visited a site. It almost always requires a 2nd or 3rd visit. The internet allow me to search for better prices or better products. That does not mean that I have never purchased something from a website that I found through an ad online....to the contrary. I have purchased much this way.
It would not be fair to google for an advertiser to not be paid for getting me to a website via a google ad from work that led to me purchasing that item when I got home. I suspect that the majority of legitamite click throughs do not result in a purchase with the initial visit. Google (or any other ad provider) has done it's job properly though and should be rewarded.
You mean Google doesn't exist solely to satisfy Internet users?! Shurely shome mishtake!
Come on, people. Just because something's on the Internet doesn't mean that defrauding cash from a company is magically illegal. Simply because you're physically removed from Google's computers doesn't mean you can't be busted for scamming them out of $$$.
>> I wonder why Google has decided, against their own interests, to go after fraudsters like this
They are doing it precisely because it is in their best interests to do so. Advertiser's have many places to spend their budget. A lack of confidence in the adwords program would drive those dollars elsewhere.
http://request-header.info
Well, the amount of mails received would be less than clicks, so to make it worth while, the price paid per mail would have to be substantially higher than price per click. That means crooked customers could mass mail, and make scam revenues way faster than with clicking, since they would have to repeat the act fewer times.
I don't see why people are bashing Google over this. They are trying to protect their company for illegal activities.
I can also understand why this is a human process instead of an automated one. People always find ways around programs meant to detect unethical behavior. Just look at how often junk mail filter technology has to be changed. With people looking over the data, they can see things that you wouldn't think of writing software to look for.
As for not disclosing their process, DUH! Sure people are getting past their checks, but they don't want to encourage people to try by telling them how they check for cheaters.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Also, many people research products on the web site and then pick up the phone to place the order. The web site supported the sale, but that fact can't be tracked to any individual web session.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
And he never thought to just turn off his screensaver?
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
This doesn't really matter. For ad networks using CPA (cost-per-acquisition) rather than CPC the tracking is done using cookies which will record a sign up or purchase even on repeat visits.
Although CPA based advertising is a lot less prone to fraud there are issues of which the biggest is in deploying pixels to do tracking on all sign up/purchase pages there are also more fixable issues with double counting (crediting to more than one ad network). CPA may be vulnerable to publisher fraud of course though this is usually less of an issue as you have a contractual relationship with them.
CPC click fraud was a problem long before google starting selling space on a CPC basis. I believe commission junction used to have a whole fraud detection team (they may still do).
Use overture, since the only fraud you'll get with overture is your competitors clicking your ads. AdWords has both website owners and your competitors defrauding it. I run both adword and overture, and my conversion ratio off overture is more than double that of adwords. I keep adwords around because even with the terrible conversion rate, there lowered ppc price evens it out in the end.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Maybe Google should track and zero expired domain page ranking. The page rank is meaningless for an expired domain. Just a bunch of parasites taking advantage of an error.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.