Slashdot Mirror
Google's Click-Fraud Crackdown
An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports that Google is making some effort to 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: buys a product, fills out a survey, whatever. It's a hard model to make work — 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 fraud doesn't matter."
CPA is a good model for Google and a very good model for advertisers. Advertisers, in effect, can pay for only the advertising which results in a sale.
Small publishers, however, will likely suffer. The vast majority of click-throughs on text ads result in no sale. Yet publishers still get paid for it. The only way this would balance out would be for the payment to publishers per action to go up. That would be fair. But I think the small bloggers who like to use adsense will lose revenue from this model.
Developers: We can use your help.
> Why does Google care so much? They get more money when people abuse it. Just charge less per click
> if they're that concerned about it.
Because most people *don't* cheat, which means that Google would be making less money from everyone because of a tiny amount of fraud.
I like to think, though, that I've helped cause this problem by right clicking/open in new tab on ads I have no interest in. I also fill in questionaires with random answers if I have to complete them to proceed into an otherwise "free" website, though, so I'm not sure how long this proposed solution is going to do any good...
But if people abuse it, the adversiters will find less value on Google ads.
They are trying to protect the value of their product.
factor 966971: 966971
Fraud results in distrust by advertisers. Many advertisers ignore adsense because of the high level of fraud. They don't want to pay for something that brings no sales. With enough fraud this whole business model disappears.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm an AdWords advertiser and click-fraud means zero to me -- in fact, I don't care either way. All AdWords-advertised sites make a better profit from AdWords than one can believe -- it works. If even 10% of the clicks are fraud (I _highly_ doubt it), I don't care -- the profit is still better than most advertising campaigns.
I also get a ton of impressions -- most of my ads have a click through rate of under 5%. Considering that 95% of the unclicked ads still form a brand impression, I'm even more satisfied (free advertising, basically).
AdWords advertisers who complain are just idiots. I've run TV, radio, magazine and newspaper ads for years and never had this kind of ROI.
I'm also an AdSense publisher, and I don't see what people bother with fraud. For the few bucks you make an hour trying to defraud the system, you can do a better job selling something online and using AdWords to drive business to you.
This could open up a big can of worms, precisely because it increases Google's stake in the actual buying process. The protests over ads for controversial stuff like religious or medical items, "adult" materials, political stuff, and so on simmer to a faint background hum when Google is just churning out automatic ads, but if Google can be shown to be taking part in the actual sales and transactions of this stuff their critics are likely to pounce on that. "OMG Google is selling evil pr0n/Satanism books/weaponry/GTA San Andreas/Online Gambling/etc..."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
TFA talks a lot about fraud, but what do you call it if I finish reading the article, and I click the nice linkies at the bottom with no intention of buying anything? What if I don't need a "Trojan remover download", credit report restoration, a work-from-home scheme, or (my favorite) to "Make Money With Adsense" with help from some outfit called cash-sense dot com.
So if I do four shift-ctl-clicks (open in a new window, keeping current window active, I love Opera), am I a bored 'net surfer, or have I just committed Click Fraud? For the advertiser, is there really any difference?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Who cares whether it's actually a human? What you really care is that they purchased your product. If the payment is tied to that, it becomes irrelevent who clicked or how they clicked.
They spent money because of your ad. So you can afford to pay for the ad.
And if an AI was the one who spent the money, great. As long as their credit card works.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
This is headed in the wrong direction. The traditional role of the ad is to attract the eye, and get the consumer to consider and then remember the product when they want/need it in the future. Even if the ad isn't clicked on, the company advertising is getting itself noted and noticed, for free. That's the entire value of traditional print, radio, TV and billboard ads, just given away by web content providers. It's unreal, and is stifling the growth of online media. I suppose it's OK for enormous middlemen like Google, but it sucks for those making and maintaining websites. Advertisers have gotten too much of a free ride, and the models used to support this free ride... banner ads, popunders, flash ads, etc... have been largely self defeating.
Making the burden on the content creator heavier and more onerous before they get their dollar is not the way to go. The middlemen and the ad buyers are getting too much for too little in return. New models need to be developed. I'm in favor of the old fashioned sponsorship: flat fee so it's a predictable expense for the ad buyer, and predictable income for the content provider. I'm sure there are other ways to charge advertisers what their advertisements are worth, and increase their effectiveness at the same time.
This new Google approach doesn't deliver.
SoupIsGood Food
Are you kidding? My company has about 2MM in sales annually, and we spend almost $500,000 a year on Google Adwords. Over 90% of our sales come from Google. We're getting a conversion rate that is less then one percent and it's gotten worse over time. If it continues to drop we'll have no choice but reduce our adwords cost-per-click limit and take our advertising dollars elsewhere. No matter how you spell it, that means problems for the GOOG.
It's not that simple. Google is a middle-man, they're not creating the ads. Joes Pizza shop pays Google to display their ad when certain keywords are found on a web-page. They pay different rates for different words, and they pay by the number of times their ad is displayed.
Click-fraud hurts Joes Pizza because hey's paying Google to show his ad to potential customers, but during click-fraud, no-one is actually seeing it. He's paying for nothing. Google just takes a cut of what Joe paid, and passes the rest on to the websites that actually displayed the ads (or claimed they did).
Google only cares about this because if Joe thinks he's paying for nothing (i.e. no real people are actually seeing his ads, and all the "clicks" he's charged for are actually fraud), he might stop paying Google to farm out his ads. If that happens, Google loses their revenue stream.
Lots of clicks are good for Google, they get to charge Joes Pizza more. But they're only good if Joe thinks he's getting his message out to lots of people.
On two occassions, I've had my google account cancelled and funds withdrawn because Google accused me of click-fraud. Of course I had nothing to do with it and when I pleaded my case to Google I got no reply. I was willing to provide click logs and etc. But they just ignored me. I guess it's cheaper to just cancel accounts who are suspected of click-fraud then actually investigate. But if all it takes is a few malicious users with some scripting knowledge and open proxies to ruin my revenue why should I as a publisher use Google Adsense?
To record an ad impression? Let me get this straight. You're honestly suggesting that users submit their fingerprint to verify they've seen your ad and you expect people to submit to this? Are you high?
I mean, it's inconvenient, and invasive! Now if you can just find a way to make it really uncomfortable for the user while they're at it and you'll have achieved the prostate-exam trifecta that everybody shoots for when they want to pitch a new product idea.
Help us build a better map!
1. Pursuade existing Google advertisers to use GooglePay so transactions can be monitored and click-fraud prevented.
2. ???
3. Profit!
For the past few years we have had ads running on adsense... 2 weeks ago, we decided we would rather lose the sales that adsense was bringing in than continue to pay google for ads that weren't generating enough revenue.
For comparison, our conversion rates:
Google Search: 3.5%
Google adsense: 0.25%
I don't know what other companies are doing.. but I wouldn't be surprised companies are considering dropping adsense. There is just to much fraud.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
So the problem now becomes truthful advertisers? If they lie to Google ("no, that sale didn't come tru your ad"), what can Google do?
Since Google has no control over the advertisers... Google just must believe what they tell Google.
It matters because not every advertiser on AdWords is actually selling something. So, cost per action ads even if fully deployed won't solve the problem for everybody.