| 4:55 pm on Apr 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I use stuffed-tracker and love it. It uses a lot of resources, but it tells you everything. I think if you set up the script just right, it will even tell you if a surfer is wearing boxers or briefs.
| 7:28 pm on Apr 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
IMO, you should get a click fraud tracking solution from someone who offers full SEM solutions, as the click-fraud only vendors won't be standalone businesses 1.5-2 years from now. Stay ahead of the curve.
One man's opinion.
| 10:19 pm on Apr 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Having used "Who's clicking Who" for a few days I'm comming to the conclusion that I need more information. For example I'd rather have someone who clicks my ad 8 times and then buys something than someone who just clicks it. I would like to know if people who click it two or three times (or more) are more or less likely to buy than someone who clicks it once. This would help me to decide at what stage I give them a warning. |
This is market and site dependent. IMO, you should just implement a policy on your own site that meets your ROI.
| 10:36 pm on Apr 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Doing your own click fraud is pretty much pointless. The only reason do this is to try to get money back from google. Guess what? This "ain't" going to happen. Google may have been forthcoming in the past, but in my direct experiences you would be fighting an uphill battle with an Google AW CSR that is pretty much clueless.
Here are excerpts on responses I got:
"... if you don't trust us, then don't use us ..."
- very nice, I guess that is the byproduct of being the BMOC
"... per our policy you may not always get the referring URL passed to you ..."
- this is happening more often than not when being promoted via Google's search network partners. I have the best backend tracking solution you can expect to utilize and we are simple not getting a thing. So, there is no audit trail on where the click came from and Google is unwilling to tell me. Why? because they know their search partners are crooks, but still want to make money off of them.
" ... Google only charges you for valid clicks ...."
- define valid - oh guess what? Google doesn't tell you what valid means.
Anyway, my longwinded point is - what is your objective in doing your own click fraud detection - because you may not control the outcome.
| 10:40 pm on Apr 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Very well said. At the end of the day you have all the proof you need, but Google holds all the cards. It's completely unfair, but they make the rules. Only way to change anything is more class action lawsuits.
| 10:42 pm on Apr 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Because I am around people who are not search engine educated, I have seen people who do click, go back, click again, etc. They do not realize it is being paid for each time. However, these are the people who are trying to find us. But if they received the warning message the click fraud tools generate, I am afraid it would scare them off or give them a bad experience with us, so I would never use it.
| 8:04 am on Apr 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm wondering if my best approach is to run with what I've started to use for a few weeks so that my competitors become aware that I'm watching them and then pull the plug and accept that I have to pay 10-20% over the ods for my clicks.
I have spotted a few unusual patterns on keywords that I would not have expected to be targetted. In each case there is a new entrant into the PPC market one slot below me. It doesn't take a brain the size of a planet to work out who's doing the multiple clicking. Strangely in each case they have not continued past the first warning message.
I work in a highly regulated and supposedly ethical market in the UK and wonder if competitors will be quickly frightened off because of fears of being reported to the regulator.
Thanks for the replies.