What is Digg?31 Comments
- dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12This makes no sense.
If a $90 million settlement is equivilant to 0.5% of all click fraud, then it folows that the total amount of click fraud is about $18 billion! I don't think so..
That would be nearly all of Google's revenues since it began operation (Google made $6 billion in 2005, it's best year). So we would have to conclude that just about every click has been click fraud... which is entirely unlikely. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11So if someone proves that they lost $1,000 to ClickFraud, they will be refunded $5...in AdWords store credit. Classy, Google. Real classy.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How do you prove you lost $1000 in click fraud? You can't say "yea, these 10,000 people that didn't buy anything were fraudulent clickers." It's all based on people assuming "10% of clicks are frauds". It's near impossible to tell a fraudulent clicker from a real clicker. Your website may be just really *****, and when viewers first come to it, they immediately close the page.
- davetd02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ dawgma
You may have just hit on a recurring problem at DIGG -- the lack of understanding of the difference between an accusation and proof. People going to court accuse each other of all kinds of things, most of which turn out to be false. But the DIGG headline is always "Company X PROVED to do evil things!" even though the only basis for the statement is an allegation by somebody on the other side of a lawsuit. Of course somebody on the other side of a lawsuit is going to exaggerate their claim as much as legally possible. Take anything said by a litigant with a grain of salt. - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It is not that hard to tell, fraud usualy happens in bursts. say hundreds more clicks, but no more sales then usual. Plus if you use other networks you will find they convert much better on the same keywords. Google does not have very qualified clicks. The real problem is you have to "trust" google to use thier closed system to determine what you should be charged, it is not trasparent at all.
Also when Google finds fraud they only chargeback the adsense customer they do not go back and give that money to the adwords advertiser. Very one sided. - dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Okay, I think I've made sense of this now...
It is only "the most that aggrieved advertisers" who get back 0.5% of their losses. So the majority of advertisers will be getting back more than $5 to every $1000 lost to click fraud.
And remember.. just because an advertiser claims x amount of dollars has been lost to click fraud, it does not mean they've proven it. I'm sure it becomes just as difficult for advertisers to prove click-fraud as it is for Google to defend against it. (I'm not taking sides...)
So if someone claims $1000 in losses, but can only prove a small portion of that was in fact click fraud.. then they might complain that Google only pays out 0.5% of losses. - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Indeed. If you don't like the settlement then don't agree to it!
Also, if you don't like Adsense then don't sign up for it. - Pizpump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2On a totally unrelated subject, the AMD ad (look in the upper right hand corner) is one of the most impressive I've seen on the web.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Plaintiffs never get a fair deal in class action. Lawyer are the only ones getting rich off class actions. He's just bitching because he didn't get a big enough cut.
- ZenKai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uhhh... leave? This is from the guy who's trolling Digg threads like the rest of us? Seems that since this is a true democratic voting system, this is the sort of things we life-less people are interested in. Maybe I can offer you a few alternatives:
"Real" news: BBC? CNN?
News that seems to fit your mental state: The Onion? YTMND? - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Monetary settlements are generally a porportion of the actual damages. How high the porportion is generally implies the strength of the plantiff's case.
- ZenKai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I pull around 2 grand scattered across sites... but some of them are heavy traffic generators. Thing is, on my biggest sites (webmaster here) it's more practical and lucrative to target-sell the banners. Rockstar energy pays close to a thousand a month for a single tower (a can). Now I just need 50 more like them and I can be an ex-webmaster. ^_^
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Fraud clicks do not happen in bursts, and if someone is stupid enough to use bursts then they're retarded. A slow steady click, spanned out for weeks is how you go undetected. Have you heard of sites that offer "page hits" if you pay them? Those sites hire people to download programs onto their computer, and then those programs randomly travel from one page to another clicking on ads.
How are you suppose to detect click fraud from that? - zimm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1greedy lawyers think they didnt get enough money out of google...
how is this news? everyone thinks they deserve a slice of googles money these days. - Pizpump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Click fraud lawsuits need to involve big $$$ so companies (like Google) take the problem seriously and take steps to reduce it.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google does take steps to reduce it. I know of a few people who's google accounts (all of them, gmail included) were terminated because they were suspected of click fraud.
- digismack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1IANAL... but don't both sides have to agree to a settlement? If they feel they are getting screwed, why did they agree to the terms of the settlement?
- inboxnews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How much money have you made w/Google AdSense? Let's see, I made $93.47 last month. I'm really curious what others are making.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1rofl i would like to see the ads. if they are legitimately complaining that they aren't making sales, they probably have misleading ads. that would make sense, since someone thinking they are about to click through to one thing, clicks through to something else obviously won't buy whatever it is.
- m85476585, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hope they don't start shutting down more adsense accounts now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6> Google. Real classy.
Hey, that's just the way the class-action cookie crubles... - bigtabs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Haha.. Check out Steve Ballmer's presentation at that link. What a dork.
- runner91786, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Doesn't Google actually claim the click-fraud, as THEY track it? They just don't reimburse the advertisers like they should even though they don't pay the suspect of click fraud.
So this is how google gives us so much free *****. o_0 - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Digg is no example of a true democratic voting system. In a democracy I have a choice between at least two candidates. When the election is over, I can see how many votes each candidate received. With Digg, I only have one voting option: digg. There is no 'No Digg' option.
- SuperJesus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Google's gonna collapse on itself one day
- WaltFrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How about re-titling this story so that it's more digg-like? Something like, "OMFG!!! Totally self-interested lawyer sez 'Google may have out-smarted me!!! ' "
I'm certainly not expert in click fraud (and doubt that other posters with simplistic solutions are, either), but it seems like Google is working perfectly within social standards for conflict resolution. I suspect the previous settlement was reached because ALL parties thought it in their best interests to accept it and move on.
Google, OTOH, probably really does care about reducing fraud, and prosecuting those who perpetrate it. I heard the claim yesterday that eBay employs 800 (!) security types in order to keep the auctions clean and trouble-free -- their business goes down the toilet in a matter of weeks if people learn not to trust it. Likewise, Google has competitors and clients who are specially sensitive to the idea that they're being hosed.
So this article -- and worst of all, the posting without any sense of whether the settlement SHOULD have penalized Google, or WHO should decide what's fair (one non-participant ?!?) -- is a tempest in a teapot. Better to go back to the fanboy vacuousness that seems to attract more readers. - vexd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0no it should be like this, if the advertiser seems he got screwed over, dont advertise with google again, why would they continue to advertise with them even after they just sued Google for click fraud on top of that, any decent investor/advertiser should be aware of risks when it comes to advertising, too many hopes of 100% roi causes this kind of crap to happen.
While talking about this, i highly doubt 'there is a secret army of clickers' in India, how pathetic. - ratlhead, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I couldn't agree more...too many people on Digg make Google out to be the greatest company ever put together. It makes me sick.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1who gives a *****? just because it's Google it makes the digg frontpage?
digg retards are true sheep. if the story has to do with iPod, Apple or Google they masturbate all over the story.
get a ***** life, retards. and go look for some actual news. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1No suprise here... also, jews did wtc.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is