(3)
I reported Friday afternoon at the SEW Blog on an Independent Report: Google Click Fraud Detection Practices Are "Reasonable". Bottom-line, the report stats that "click fraud detection practices that shows Google makes reasonable efforts to detect click fraud." What is also interesting is that the folks in the forums don't seem to care, well, as of yet.
There are no forum threads outside of one that I found at DigitalPoint Forums and that one doesn't have much feedback from forum members.
This 47-page report by Dr. Alexander Tuzhilin, Professor of Information Systems at NYU, has tons of clues about AdWords, that can benefits SEMs. Anyway...
Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.
Comments:
Michael
07/24/2006 04:31 pm
CPC is so easy to use that many forget that it is also so easy to click. Intended Click (Interested) - This person likes your AD and wants to see your website/service/product. Intended Click (Fraud) - The person doing the click has something to gain by clicking. It could be Revenue Share or to drive the competition advertising costs up. Accidental Click - The person clicking intended to click on another link. Quick Click - The person clicking has a preconceived notion about what your website should look like, but leaves before looking at what you have to offer. Though the numbers in my custom tracking application often don't match the number in my Google AdWords acocunt I don't assume the higher numbers are all fraud. The CPA model may help identify some fraud, but your competiton will figure out how to generate a false "Action". CPC, CPA, CPM each model has its good points and bad points. I would like to see a timed CPC model. Only pay for clicks where the visitor stays on the site for more then 10 seconds. Makes it harder for fraud when exchanging time for money. Take Care, Michael
Michael Martinez
07/25/2006 10:27 pm
Matt Cutts has tried to drum up support for Dr. Tuzhilin's conclusions on his blog, but his report is just so full of holes I am amazed any court would be willing to look at it. He reveals so little understanding of the complexity of the issues involved that the report is nearly useless. He does make one valid point, though: Google needs to do some serious data mining so it can see what really goes on. I cannot quantify invalid click activity any better than anyone else. But I know that click manipulation was going on before Google was even a business entity. They are so far behind the curve on this technical issue, they seem to have no real idea of what they are up against.
zebra
12/05/2006 02:48 am
Googles does not have real protection against klick fraud at all. We are all in danger. My colage did an experiment to see if we could make money with google adsense the legal way. Most accounts have been banned for no good reason. The truth is anyone can click on your ads and put you out of business. software can only stop this if people revisit a website. but if they stay there thay can distroy your business. Now googles dosent need to pay publishes for false clicks but they charge advertisers for this. This glitch courses advertizers to loose cash. some get there cash back who can proov false clicks. but not all can. The inisent publishes of google adsense loose everything. The solusion is simple but googles isent looking at the root of the tree but the branshes. there for theres more danger and court cases anhead with more and more lives being ruined because of google adsense. be worned we tryed all the best protection. its not 100%safe. and googles as no real protection. A colage student of ours aqutally programed some real protection at the root and it prooved no one would get hurt. but googles as big as they are dont know what there bloody doing and there runing a mock show