If you buy an apple for $1 and after a while you notice the quality of the apples are poor then you will be less likely to spend the money in the future ... right? Well with Adwords who is it that sets the price? You do! So you put a lower bid cause well ... its not worth paying what you did before! So the price goes down! Hence this makes more work for fraudsters to make as much damage to the seller. This makes more fraud and easier to detect for Google as bot nets and clickers will have to generate more traffic to come to the same goal. By approaching the situation like this it makes a balance rather than the sue-counter-sue practice that we have all come to know. Just 2c
Clickfraud is stoppable - Google just doesn't care to stop it, that's all. SEO companies and promoters might want to stop it so they can show their clients that they're sending them good traffic. ALIENetworks LLC has a technology that Google reviewed 2 years ago that contains fraud by analyzing traffic patterns and ROI, and providing reports to end users regarding traffic by promoter; G passed because the technology was partially owned (at that time - not now) by a Florida-based SEO company. The solution is called TrueStream. It's currently mothballed (ALIENetworks is now developing data aggregation technologies for pharmaceutical companies), but there's still some information about it here: <a class="user" href="http://alienetworks.com/staging/Truestream/">http://alienetworks.com/staging/Truestream/</a>
Quite...Why do Google care if people or machines are click frauding, they are not paying and it just makes the people who are getting payed more, stay with Google. Which for Google, is good, right?
Google CEO believes that there is an invisible buddy that will fix any economic and business problems without us having to do anything? I guess the Ayn Rand cult isn't for losers afterall.
Well, they are finally releasing a new type of service with Pay Per Buy (CPA is the actually acronym--Cost Per Action).I'd say TV ads are more like banner ads. Paying per impression (I assume you mean page view?) wouldn't be any different because it would just require a bot to constantly query similar pages to get the same ads, or in some cases, just refresh the same pages.
This is circular logic of the worst sort, based on an undeserved confidence in Google's ability to spot fraud, and its faith in their model. You don't need to be an advertising guru to feel utterly cheated when your budget for the day dissapears in a few hours. And it is typically this, the human element of the Google experience, that they often spectacularly fail to grasp.If you have any doubts about this just note how often the Froogle interface, for example, has changed, how clunky their Sitemaps system is etc etc. Google are riding a wave, but they've made the false assumption that it is a wave of their own making. It's not. They are currently well known that's all. If their CEO is willing to admit publicly that click fraud is fine, not because it can be combatted, but because it is irrelevant to Google, then they can hardly claim to have the vice-like grip on public perception they'll need to survive long-term. In short, this is pure arrogance.
coded1Jul 9, 2006
If you buy an apple for $1 and after a while you notice the quality of the apples are poor then you will be less likely to spend the money in the future ... right? Well with Adwords who is it that sets the price? You do! So you put a lower bid cause well ... its not worth paying what you did before! So the price goes down! Hence this makes more work for fraudsters to make as much damage to the seller. This makes more fraud and easier to detect for Google as bot nets and clickers will have to generate more traffic to come to the same goal. By approaching the situation like this it makes a balance rather than the sue-counter-sue practice that we have all come to know. Just 2c
topclickJul 9, 2006
Sounds like the same thing I read here:<a class="user" href="http://www.marketingsource.com/articles/view/2183">http://www.marketingsource.com/articles/view/2183</a>
scatterblakJul 9, 2006
Clickfraud is stoppable - Google just doesn't care to stop it, that's all. SEO companies and promoters might want to stop it so they can show their clients that they're sending them good traffic. ALIENetworks LLC has a technology that Google reviewed 2 years ago that contains fraud by analyzing traffic patterns and ROI, and providing reports to end users regarding traffic by promoter; G passed because the technology was partially owned (at that time - not now) by a Florida-based SEO company. The solution is called TrueStream. It's currently mothballed (ALIENetworks is now developing data aggregation technologies for pharmaceutical companies), but there's still some information about it here: <a class="user" href="http://alienetworks.com/staging/Truestream/">http://alienetworks.com/staging/Truestream/</a>
Closed AccountJul 9, 2006
Quite...Why do Google care if people or machines are click frauding, they are not paying and it just makes the people who are getting payed more, stay with Google. Which for Google, is good, right?
Closed AccountJul 9, 2006
Google CEO believes that there is an invisible buddy that will fix any economic and business problems without us having to do anything? I guess the Ayn Rand cult isn't for losers afterall.
pickypgJul 10, 2006
Well, they are finally releasing a new type of service with Pay Per Buy (CPA is the actually acronym--Cost Per Action).I'd say TV ads are more like banner ads. Paying per impression (I assume you mean page view?) wouldn't be any different because it would just require a bot to constantly query similar pages to get the same ads, or in some cases, just refresh the same pages.
zoltantheboldJul 10, 2006
This is circular logic of the worst sort, based on an undeserved confidence in Google's ability to spot fraud, and its faith in their model. You don't need to be an advertising guru to feel utterly cheated when your budget for the day dissapears in a few hours. And it is typically this, the human element of the Google experience, that they often spectacularly fail to grasp.If you have any doubts about this just note how often the Froogle interface, for example, has changed, how clunky their Sitemaps system is etc etc. Google are riding a wave, but they've made the false assumption that it is a wave of their own making. It's not. They are currently well known that's all. If their CEO is willing to admit publicly that click fraud is fine, not because it can be combatted, but because it is irrelevant to Google, then they can hardly claim to have the vice-like grip on public perception they'll need to survive long-term. In short, this is pure arrogance.
mdraperJul 10, 2006
Or.. just stop paying per click at all and get a ClickGrid... www.clickgrid.com
terminalpariahJul 14, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Let_click_fraud_happen_Uh,_no.">http://digg.com/tech_news/Let_click_fraud_happen_Uh,_no.</a>