Slashdot Mirror


Google Releases Analysis of Click-Fraud Detection

fragmentate writes "This morning Google released information about their analysis of the exaggerated click-fraud numbers. Without pointing fingers, they mention that click-fraud analysis companies need to clean up their methods. From the post, 'A rigorous technical analysis by Google engineers has found fundamental flaws in the work of several click fraud consultants - flaws that help explain why widely quoted estimates of the size of the click fraud problem are exaggerated.' They even point out some obvious shortcomings of the methods used. The entire report [PDF] is available with their complete analysis."

5 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Follow the money... by Tau_Xi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they report that google has a very low amount of click fraud, then they see the job as a failure. This kind of thing happens all the time. A small problem gets blown way out of proportion in order to make it look like something is being accomplished.

  2. Purchase callbacks fix this, but... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It amazes me anyone would pay any attention to them in the first place.

    Google has a great solution for that. If the transaction is online, you can embed a small piece of HTML/Javascript code in your 'thank you for purchasing' page that allows Google to check the value of a cookie they placed on a customer's computer when they clicked an ad.

    The cookie links the click to the sale. And there is value to the advertiser as well: Google can then help you track which ad resulted in a sale, and which keywords it was linked to. (So you don't have to buy an expensive but poor-return keyword.)

    (I may be mis-describing: Check Google's docs to be sure.)

  3. The Quota Hypothesis by ezratrumpet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If quotas exist, whether set by man or machine, mechanisms will eventually appear to ensure that quotas are met.

    If Software X must discover Y amount of fradulent clicks, then there will eventually be a means that makes certain that Y amount of fradulent clicks are discovered.

    For Google, how much of the budget depends on discovering X number or Y percent of fraudulent clicks?

    For Microsoft, how many pirated copies of Windows must be discovered each day/week/month/whatever?

    The hypothesis may apply in other cases. How much of a town's civic budget depends on income from traffic violations? What happens if traffic violations fail to raise that revenue?

    Look for quotas. Sometimes the numbers are the answer.

  4. Neutral Analysis? by otisg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a neutral party do the analysis instead of Google, whose bulk of the revenue comes from those same clicks they analyzed? Having Google do the analysis and reporting is like having Microsoft do Vista benchmarking. That is, if Vista were actually ready.

    --
    Simpy
  5. Kudos to Google .... by RallyDriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... for taking these "analysts" to task with some facts, and publically. Many companies would have just deferred to presenting it all in a libel lawsuit.

    Is click fraud an issue? Certainly.

    However, these companies purporting to provide analysis and actually providing nonsense are just as guilty of defrauding the advertisers as the click fraudsters they purport to guard against.