What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
28 Comments
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Doesn't this seem kinda odd to some of you? How serious is the ad's algorithm? Is that big of a secret?
- evensong, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Maybe because Google would have to reveal parts of its Ads algorithm as part of the court proceedings?
- 3rdcoast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9adwords made how many billion? 150k seems like pocket change....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The vanishing comments for the rigged article case...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That *and* the guy's own code for the click fraud program might have been called in as evidence and thus be available to everyone via FOIA or something.
- SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's often much cheaper to hire a hitman than to pay ransom. ;)
- bunni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Google makes money on click fraud - it happily charges adwords advertisers for clicks and denys adsense publishers comission. Besides all that an undetectable click generator could easily make you $150k a month without raising eyebrows.
- TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4**Total hairbrained speculation warning**
Google didn't want some of the facts that would come up in the case on the public record that could be used in a lawsuit. If the guy got on the stand and talked about how easy it is to manipulate adsense and generate false clicks, or the defense attornies researched how easy it is and were preparing to enter their research into evidence. They got off WAAAY to easy from that class action lawsuit and I'm sure they would do anything to get a cae dropped that may be used in future lawsuits. - shakey77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How long before the original code or a copycat makes it way to the web? Place your bets...
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The computer programmer is probably making $150K/year as a Google employee working in their anti-clickfraud group...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well we all know $150,000 is nothing to google, so whatever their decision was it was worth protecting. The guy probably would have released the code so instead they most likely settled it out of court or that guy's head on a platter.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That was my guess, that or they did not want publicity regarding click fraud. There are times where endless news accounts regarding your dirty laundry is far worse than letting off an evil doer. They have his name, so he is disabled as at threat.
- indicas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Of course it is; it's one of the things that makes Google the advertising giant it is. It's their Coca Cola foruma.
- ricamac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't get it! Just making the threat, and demanding money should be enough to convict the guy. If I threaten to harm you if you don't give me money, I shouldn't even have to prove that you were even capable of harming me. The threat alone should be enough for conviction. Google shouldn't have to show that the threat was real, and therefore I don't see how the defense can start generating subpoenas to get algorithm info from Google, since it isn't relevant to the charge... And the 'harm' to Google is the $150k, not the click fraud.
What am I missing here? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's because it brings to question the validity of "all the other clicks". It's not because googles' algorithms are super duper top secret - this is the ad portion not the search engine - so it'd go something like this "select top 4 bits of crap from ads where some keywords match the spam page presenting the ads order by bid desc".
- dubled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It says they were making $30k a month with the program, wtf? why did'nt they just keep it a secret and continue to cash in. In 5 months they would have had the $150k
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Innocent before proven guilty....
- xyphoid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They could have paid that guy with money found between the couch cushions.
Google is probably better off backing down and wasting their time. - ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because they gave the guy a 150k signing bonus and now he works for the company finding protection against such exploits. Atleast that's what I would do if I were google.
- WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It might have cost Google a hell of a lot more than 150k if it's later found that:
1. There's a flaw in the Google Click alghorithm that allows abusers to easily cirvumvent it. This can lead to huge litigation by businesses affected by this fraud. If the fraud is trackable, that will mean ever more trouble for Google, as subpoenas would reveal their detailed logs of actual provable fraud.
2. It would reveal more details about Google's secret sauce, and thus open the system up for further abuse. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would imagine the guy will end up having an accident one way or another. He has already proven he is resourceful and probably feels the need to brag a bit.. :/ So they pay him off, let everyone forget it than push him down the stairs or radiation poisoning..
I know it's a conspiracy theory.. :P - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So... maybe Google is right all along, and the problem is too small to even bother with litigation. Especially if going forward with lawsuit means exposing anti-fraud methods.
But that's not as fun as conspiracy. - gd007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1google shd come forward with truth. why is all the secrecy?
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree, thats an interesting question.
Why risk going to the google office in person to demand what you could earn in 5 months anyway? There must have been some time limit on it, or he thought it would eventually be detected and fixed. - arrakis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm inclined to believe this, although maybe not nescessarily clickfraud.
- reeder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm just surprised the Business Week article about the web didn't suck. Their track record reporting Internet shenanigans are usually a year behind everyone else.
Maybe they hired someone under 40, finally. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, this is all pretty interesting. Google makes some pretty interesting decisions regarding their search technology. It's amazing how far they will go to protect their technology, but obviously it's working out for them pretty well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No degree, so no job.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is