You are still missing the point. The person getting up to take a leak during a commercial cannot make any money for HIMSELF by doing so.
With clickfraud, I can set up a website, have google throw some ads on there for me through the adsense program, and have my friends and botnet click on those ads and make ME cash.
Why can't you see the difference? Am I not typing slowly enough?
Unfortunately this is not true with pay-per-click, which is where google makes 99% of their income. At the end of a day in reality, you are paying for CLICKS. The question is are those clicks generated by humans, or by scripts, or by people trying to rip you off.
I often hear the same stupid analogy: "Click fraud is no different than getting up to go pee during a commercial break and not watching the commercials, or tivo'ing through them in fast forward."
WRONG. With clickfraud, you can make REAL, ACTUAL, CASH. I defy you to give an example of how someone can make REAL, ACTUAL, CASH by going to the bathroom during a commercial.
Face it- Google will never end the controversy until they have third party auditing. Right now, all they have is "trust us". Guess what- there's no other advertising industry on earth where "trust us" is good enough. They ALL have auditing by independent parties. Cuz guess what? Businesses will try and rip each other off if they know they won't be caught. Google has already proved they are perfectly willing to rip off advertisers since they ADMITTED they have been charging people for "doubleclicks" for YEARS, even though they knew all those clicks were invalid because they came from the same IP/cookie and happened within 1/4 second of each other.
---- At the end of the day, you're paying me for access to my readers' eyeballs. If your product is irrelevant, overpriced or otherwise not useful to my readers, or you lack the marketing skills to gain their interest with your ad, why should I be forced to let you off the hook on paying me? You still ran your ad on my site...
It takes a set of balls a mile wide for Google to throw out this report that basically says "If you had access to our secret click data, you'd know how completely wrong you are about clickfraud." "Oh, I'm sorry, you don't have access to our secret click data? Tough shit."
Look- Google could end the entire debate over clickfraud and the clickfraud detecting companies by doing one thing- for every click, tell the advertiser/publisher the IP and time of the click. That's it. That's all. They won't do it in a million years, though, not until government regulation starts to force some kind of auditing- like that which exists in every other advertising media on planet earth. (tv, radio, magazines, newspapers)
Remember how Google just recently admitted that they charged advertisers for two valid clicks whenever they "doubleclicked" on an ad? They kept doing that practice from 2003 until march of 2005. They raked in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit profits, none of which they are going to return. If Google had been giving out IP and time data back then, independent parties could have spotted what Google was up to immediately and you can be damn sure the practice would have stopped a lot sooner.
Oh BTW- I know Google likes to use the "user privacy" as a reason not to reveal IPs to advertisers. But that excuse falls completely short since both the publishing website AND the advertiser both already should be seeing that IP in their own server logs. The only reason Google refuses to attach IPs to clicks is because it would allow people to see things like the doubleclick scam, or see that their clicks are coming from a country who can't even read the language of their advertisement, etc etc.
Google, stop issuing these stupid public relation stunt "studies" saying how all the clickfraud detection companies are barking up the wrong tree when it is YOUR FAULT for not releasing data that could let people do an accurate job of keeping you in line.
I know it's fun not being accountable to anyone, but Google my friend, you only get to pull that stunt as long as you're a monopoly. Eventually, with increased competition from yahoo and microsoft, you'll actually have to start treating your business partners with some modicum of respect.
Read a story yesterday that said Google employees sold more insider stock than the total sold by the next 199 largest companies in silicon valley, COMBINED.
Google selling also pushed up California's income tax receipts by 12 percent in 2005.
Things are getting a little out of hand, dont you think?
Google insiders are now selling twice as much pet year as Microsoft employees, even though Google has less than 1/10th the profit as MSFT.
People say Google can't be overvalued because it's making so much profit, unlike all the dot.coms back in the day.
But people forget that there were plenty of tech companies that WERE making craploads of profits back then, like Sun and Cisco and various telecom manufacturers. Just because they had profits didnt mean they weren't overvalued stocks. Cisco and Sun fell 90% anyway, because they were in a speculative bubble.
Who would have imagined that Don Lapre's late night infomercials telling you the secret to instant wealth was actually true? (placing tiny classified ads in hundreds of newspapers and taking a small profit on each one) Google and Overture apparently took that informercial in mind while developing their business plans. Except isntead of newspapers, they use websites.
because it's pretty strange that even though nobody would THINK of running a major site with paid advertising without having a third-party traffic auditor, Google apparently thinks it is perfectly ok that all of its traffic logs and records are kept 100% secret.
"Trust us." is their only method of auditing. Would anybody ANYWHERE ELSE in the business world find this acceptable? How long can they keep it up, since they seem to be getting sued for click fraud every other week?
there you did it, you went ahead and implied that i am espousing RELIGION. you just couldn't resist, because let's face it- you are completely incapable of accepting that someone who finds ID interesting may not be AT ALL religious.
you people are amazingly dense. I can sit here and say "RELIGION IS BULLSHIT, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS OR ANY OF THOSE FAIRY TALES" yet within two microseconds of me questioning if life on earth spontaneously "happened" , you bring up religion.
wow. btw- 200 years ago people were pretty certain that maggots spontaneously "appeared" on meat.
Look, let's face it. Science devolves into cosmology at some point. We can examine various subatomic particles and study them and write papers about them, but we can't prove how the original fundamental particles came into existence.
Does that mean we can't study the particles we DO know about?
The evolutionists who shout "religion!!!" at any hint of design are just as short sighted. Their claim is basically that random mutation and evolution MUST BE the thing that accounts for the existence of all life in the universe. Because they always bring up the "slippery slope" argument and say "well, if space aliens designed life on earth, then what designed the space aliens?"
But I would ask- what difference does it make if the last 2 trillion generations of life were created by really smart engineers, and in the infinite distance we can never really know who or WHAT started the first spark of organization and life.
And for the record, I think the concept of a God as written in the bible is 100% bullshit. I want to repeat that again- I THINK ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION IS PURE BULLSHIT. If you accuse me of being a bible thumper without re-reading this paragraph, then please go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty nail and LEARN TO LISTEN.
To ignore the possible branches of study that analyze life as a possibly designed structure, is pure folly. There are only two possible viewpoints of existence- either it had elements of design OR it is purely random. People that discount either possibility out of dogma are retarded and short-sighted.
Due to financial shennanigans, Google is going to be able to show earnings this quarter up over 100% on a year-to-year basis, even though ALL of that difference is due to Google expensing employee options last year.
It's a pretty good trick- "increase" earnings 100% without actually any more money.
fuckedgoogle.com's take on this is what you might expect- it's a PR stunt designed to make stupid people think Google is being generous and shareholder-friendly:
Slashdot Mirror
You are still missing the point. The person getting up to take a leak during a commercial cannot make any money for HIMSELF by doing so.
With clickfraud, I can set up a website, have google throw some ads on there for me through the adsense program, and have my friends and botnet click on those ads and make ME cash.
Why can't you see the difference? Am I not typing slowly enough?
Unfortunately this is not true with pay-per-click, which is where google makes 99% of their income. At the end of a day in reality, you are paying for CLICKS. The question is are those clicks generated by humans, or by scripts, or by people trying to rip you off.
I often hear the same stupid analogy: "Click fraud is no different than getting up to go pee during a commercial break and not watching the commercials, or tivo'ing through them in fast forward."
WRONG. With clickfraud, you can make REAL, ACTUAL, CASH. I defy you to give an example of how someone can make REAL, ACTUAL, CASH by going to the bathroom during a commercial.
Face it- Google will never end the controversy until they have third party auditing. Right now, all they have is "trust us". Guess what- there's no other advertising industry on earth where "trust us" is good enough. They ALL have auditing by independent parties. Cuz guess what? Businesses will try and rip each other off if they know they won't be caught. Google has already proved they are perfectly willing to rip off advertisers since they ADMITTED they have been charging people for "doubleclicks" for YEARS, even though they knew all those clicks were invalid because they came from the same IP/cookie and happened within 1/4 second of each other.
----
At the end of the day, you're paying me for access to my readers' eyeballs. If your product is irrelevant, overpriced or otherwise not useful to my readers, or you lack the marketing skills to gain their interest with your ad, why should I be forced to let you off the hook on paying me? You still ran your ad on my site...
It takes a set of balls a mile wide for Google to throw out this report that basically says "If you had access to our secret click data, you'd know how completely wrong you are about clickfraud." "Oh, I'm sorry, you don't have access to our secret click data? Tough shit."
Look- Google could end the entire debate over clickfraud and the clickfraud detecting companies by doing one thing- for every click, tell the advertiser/publisher the IP and time of the click. That's it. That's all. They won't do it in a million years, though, not until government regulation starts to force some kind of auditing- like that which exists in every other advertising media on planet earth. (tv, radio, magazines, newspapers)
Remember how Google just recently admitted that they charged advertisers for two valid clicks whenever they "doubleclicked" on an ad? They kept doing that practice from 2003 until march of 2005. They raked in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit profits, none of which they are going to return. If Google had been giving out IP and time data back then, independent parties could have spotted what Google was up to immediately and you can be damn sure the practice would have stopped a lot sooner.
Oh BTW- I know Google likes to use the "user privacy" as a reason not to reveal IPs to advertisers. But that excuse falls completely short since both the publishing website AND the advertiser both already should be seeing that IP in their own server logs. The only reason Google refuses to attach IPs to clicks is because it would allow people to see things like the doubleclick scam, or see that their clicks are coming from a country who can't even read the language of their advertisement, etc etc.
Google, stop issuing these stupid public relation stunt "studies" saying how all the clickfraud detection companies are barking up the wrong tree when it is YOUR FAULT for not releasing data that could let people do an accurate job of keeping you in line.
I know it's fun not being accountable to anyone, but Google my friend, you only get to pull that stunt as long as you're a monopoly. Eventually, with increased competition from yahoo and microsoft, you'll actually have to start treating your business partners with some modicum of respect.
Read a story yesterday that said Google employees sold more insider stock than the total sold by the next 199 largest companies in silicon valley, COMBINED.
Google selling also pushed up California's income tax receipts by 12 percent in 2005.
Things are getting a little out of hand, dont you think?
Google insiders are now selling twice as much pet year as Microsoft employees, even though Google has less than 1/10th the profit as MSFT.
Who would have thunk it?
People say Google can't be overvalued because it's making so much profit, unlike all the dot.coms back in the day.
But people forget that there were plenty of tech companies that WERE making craploads of profits back then, like Sun and Cisco and various telecom manufacturers. Just because they had profits didnt mean they weren't overvalued stocks. Cisco and Sun fell 90% anyway, because they were in a speculative bubble.
Who would have imagined that Don Lapre's late night infomercials telling you the secret to instant wealth was actually true? (placing tiny classified ads in hundreds of newspapers and taking a small profit on each one) Google and Overture apparently took that informercial in mind while developing their business plans. Except isntead of newspapers, they use websites.
Who woulda thunk it?
The evil empire beckons.
EOT ! :-)
Oh how the mighty are falling.
At what point does Google become evil? Seems like they're getting close.
Google's earnings are over-estimated now, and Yahoo's are underestimated.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/ nuff said
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
FRIST FRIRST FRIRST
"Trust us." is their only method of auditing. Would anybody ANYWHERE ELSE in the business world find this acceptable? How long can they keep it up, since they seem to be getting sued for click fraud every other week?
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
there you did it, you went ahead and implied that i am espousing RELIGION. you just couldn't resist, because let's face it- you are completely incapable of accepting that someone who finds ID interesting may not be AT ALL religious. you people are amazingly dense. I can sit here and say "RELIGION IS BULLSHIT, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS OR ANY OF THOSE FAIRY TALES" yet within two microseconds of me questioning if life on earth spontaneously "happened" , you bring up religion. wow. btw- 200 years ago people were pretty certain that maggots spontaneously "appeared" on meat.
Does that mean we can't study the particles we DO know about?
The evolutionists who shout "religion!!!" at any hint of design are just as short sighted. Their claim is basically that random mutation and evolution MUST BE the thing that accounts for the existence of all life in the universe. Because they always bring up the "slippery slope" argument and say "well, if space aliens designed life on earth, then what designed the space aliens?"
But I would ask- what difference does it make if the last 2 trillion generations of life were created by really smart engineers, and in the infinite distance we can never really know who or WHAT started the first spark of organization and life.
And for the record, I think the concept of a God as written in the bible is 100% bullshit. I want to repeat that again- I THINK ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION IS PURE BULLSHIT. If you accuse me of being a bible thumper without re-reading this paragraph, then please go fuck yourself in the ass with a rusty nail and LEARN TO LISTEN.
To ignore the possible branches of study that analyze life as a possibly designed structure, is pure folly. There are only two possible viewpoints of existence- either it had elements of design OR it is purely random. People that discount either possibility out of dogma are retarded and short-sighted.
WTF? http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
Due to financial shennanigans, Google is going to be able to show earnings this quarter up over 100% on a year-to-year basis, even though ALL of that difference is due to Google expensing employee options last year.
It's a pretty good trick- "increase" earnings 100% without actually any more money.
It's funny how it takes ages for mainstream press to see things that are as obvious as the nose on someone's face.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A422 35-2005Mar16.html
fuckedgoogle.com's take on this is what you might expect- it's a PR stunt designed to make stupid people think Google is being generous and shareholder-friendly:
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
here's a hint- it isn't all sweetness and light.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/