homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.74.186
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google files a lawsuit Attempting To Define Click Fraud
blairsp




msg:1336111
 8:52 pm on Nov 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Its reported on one of the other forums that G have initiated court proceedings against a publisher for artifically increasing their click throughs - no url of course (this rule can work against a forum some times!). Anyone know anything? Even a name of a publication

 

blairsp




msg:1336112
 8:56 am on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thought this would have provoked more of a response. Does anyone know where this story is? Can't find it anywhere

submitx




msg:1336113
 9:51 am on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

G have initiated court proceedings against a publisher for artifically increasing their click throughs

If anyone knows ANYTHING about this, please sticky me a link and/or details. Thank you so much!

Jenstar




msg:1336114
 10:04 am on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Is this the case you are thinking of?
[webmasterworld.com...]

novice




msg:1336115
 12:07 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

The case involves a small company.

I am surprised that Google would go after someone so small in court, as opposed to just cancelling their account.

edit/> removed name of company/>

blairsp




msg:1336116
 4:18 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Is this the case you are thinking of?
[webmasterworld.com...]

No. Apparently it was much more recent and it involved a company who had been(allegedly) artificially inflating click throughs for personal gain. It wasn't the "extortion" (so called) type.

blairsp




msg:1336117
 4:21 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Ah, I have just found it. It is on an industry news magazine called xbiz (do a google search) Although the url should be pretty obvious. Its story number 6183 (use your imagination!)

novice




msg:1336118
 4:31 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

blairsp,

I read some articles a couple of days ago, from sources that I deemed to be reliable, about this case one even has a case number. However since it has not been brought up by any of the major news sources I am not sure how legitimate this is.

That is why I edited my last post to remove the name of the company involved. The person involved may be a WW member and I would hate to spread rumors about their site.

edit</ Looks like it is now showing up on search engines. I made this post before I seen your latest post/>

muszek




msg:1336119
 5:34 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Good news.
Lawsuits means that some cheaters would stop doing that, which in turn means more credibility to adsense, better ROI of advertisers --> bigger budgets, better money for us all.

ogletree




msg:1336120
 8:23 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

It seems like a bad idea to me. Google is admiting that they are having a hard time stopping this kind of thing. It says to me that there system to automaticly catch that kind of thing is not working that well. How many sites are falling through the cracks. Just like the real world the cops only catch the stupid people. For every person they go after there are a bunch more people that know how to not get caught. I think this strengthens the argument of advertisers that think they are being cheated by the adsense system. They then turn off advertising on adsense and legit adsense people make less money. G needs to spend more money on catching these auto clickers.

beren




msg:1336121
 8:25 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am surprised that Google would go after someone so small in court, as opposed to just cancelling their account.

That's part of what's so frustating. Google usually just cancels the account, and these criminals can just open a new account and continue business as usual. The criminals count on their smallness to avoid being taken seriously when they are found out.

I'm glad Google is doing something in this case. It's still only a civil suit, though. The next step is to get law enforcement involved in criminal prosecution of people committing fraud, even for very small thefts of money.

europeforvisitors




msg:1336122
 9:20 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

It seems like a bad idea to me. Google is admiting that they are having a hard time stopping this kind of thing. It says to me that there system to automaticly catch that kind of thing is not working that well.

How does catching a crook suggest that they're unable to catch crooks?

I think this strengthens the argument of advertisers that think they are being cheated by the adsense system. They then turn off advertising on adsense and legit adsense people make less money.

Google's AdSense revenues reached $384.3 million in the quarter that ended September 30, a 120 percent increase over the same quarter last year. So it would appear that quite a few advertisers are sticking around. :-)

onfire




msg:1336123
 9:50 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

How does catching a crook suggest that they're unable to catch crooks?

Because just like in the real world catching one crook is ok and a token effort, but its not good enough as there's another 1000 or more getting away with it.

They need to be more public about it and get the message across that if you get caught you will be in the court this will help deter the clickers much better than it appears now.

As it stands now its the publishers that end up getting the chop instead of the real clickers.

The program has been going for the last 17 months + and this is the first news of Google doing anything through the courts to show they mean business and that they are willing to do all things possible they can to protect the Adsense and Adwords programs.

I want to hear and see more in the news of google's efforts to stop the fraud, which in turn should boost confidence in the Adwords camp and for us Adsense publishers too.

ogletree




msg:1336124
 10:05 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Lots of people turn off their ads to adsense because of how worthless the traffic is. The fact that adsense has grown that much says that lots more have not turned it off I agree. Those people probaly don't know enough about adsene to know any better. Making the fact that fraud happens public by sueing may wake them up to turning it off hurting adsense publishers. I'm just saying that making this public could hurt things for adsense publishers. If G convinces people that there is a lot of click fraud then they may just have a knee jerk reaction and turn it off. I think they should just quitely deal with it. The less people understand how adwords works the better. If everybody understood how it works and analized their data adsense would become worthless. I think that adsense should use the same rules as adwords and disable accounts that have very low ctr's and/or give them a smaller cut by charging less to the advertiser.

wonderboy




msg:1336125
 2:26 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why ban sites with low CTRs?

A respectable site that doesn't put their ads right next to the content will always have a lower CTR than a poor site that places ads so that they are difficult to distinguish from the content... Your logic seems flawed?
W.

stuntdubl




msg:1336126
 5:02 pm on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

This subject seems to be running quite rampant lately with the questionable value of contextual advertising (strong on potential, weak on delivery).

I didn't post the url, but the story is available doing a search on the title of this thread. Very interesting topic, that I'm sure a lot of folks would rather not see discussed. Seems like G would not want A LOT of transparency in this type of case.

Sanenet




msg:1336127
 8:02 pm on Nov 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not the first actual case methinks - but the first "big one" to trip up.

Anybody remember the Bradley case? :)

Interesting tho':
The advertiser pays Google for the user’s click and Google, in turn, pays the majority of the money it receives back to the website author,”

That simple line should set the cat among the pigeons!

[xbiz.com...] and others (that seems to be the originator for the story lead I tracked back).

Jenstar




msg:1336128
 12:53 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Here is a more in depth piece on this lawsuit

David Kramer, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who represents Google, said the suit should be a warning shot to other rogue operators.

"It sends a message to people participating in Google's advertising network that just because it's online, it doesn't make it OK to commit fraud," Kramer said.

[news.com.com...]

markus007




msg:1336129
 1:37 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

i love how they quote experts in the article that have no clue what they are talking about....

loanuniverse




msg:1336130
 2:17 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

The case seems to be real

[sccaseinfo.org...]

I wonder if someone could get a copy of the filed documents and post them in the net.....

If they were cheating, I am in Google's side on this.

novice




msg:1336131
 3:03 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I wonder if someone could get a copy of the filed documents and post them in the net....."

Maybe the smoking gun will get air of it and publish the files.

Jenstar




msg:1336132
 3:06 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

I found that case at Santa Clara yesterday, but wasn't sure how to get a copy of the entire filing.

loanuniverse




msg:1336133
 3:33 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think the fee is $1.00 per page Jenstar.

freeflight2




msg:1336134
 4:43 am on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

It seems like a bad idea to me
who knows what already happened... perhaps they already threatened google and G is required to act. Everybody in the industry knows that click fraud is common, this one sends the right message.
wonderboy




msg:1336135
 7:04 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

You know the guy that tried to sell G the auto-clicking software, if he had not tried to blackmail them would he have been ok in a legal sense, and might G have even considered buying the SW?
Just wondering.
W.

loanuniverse




msg:1336136
 7:56 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Just got off the phone with the office of the clerk for that county. The copy can be obtained, but it is best to do it in person. The other way to do it is by mail, but it might take a while and they can't even tell you the number of pages in the complaint.

/yes I am bored.

hyperkik




msg:1336137
 10:22 pm on Nov 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Lots of people turn off their ads to adsense because of how worthless the traffic is. ... The less people understand how adwords works the better. If everybody understood how it works and analized [sic] their data adsense would become worthless. I think that adsense should use the same rules as adwords and disable accounts that have very low ctr's and/or give them a smaller cut by charging less to the advertiser.

Weren't you the guy bragging about pulling in four figures a day with sites you described as "pure spam"? So you send advertisers worthless traffic, and use your own conduct to justify the notion that AdSense traffic is worthless? What an amazing circle.

Certainly Google should take very strong action against fraud. But if ogilvie is right, they should also take a much harder line against the "pure spam" sites he champions. Or at least "give them a smaller cut by charging less to the advertiser."

ogletree




msg:1336138
 3:46 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

My pages are worthless but the ads on them are not. I have a high conversion rate. That tells me that my sites are showing some value. I try to make sure that my ads match what people are typing in. I go after obscure kw's where the results they get most of the time don't even have adwords ads or decent SERPS. As far as I'm concerned I'm doing G a favor. I am not frauding anyone. I and other SE populators don't like the idiots that go after traffic that has nothing to do with what they are selling. If someone comes to my site from an SE they typed in a term relavant to my ads.

loanuniverse




msg:1336139
 4:02 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have a high conversion rate

You mean a high clickthrough rate, right?

hyperkik




msg:1336140
 4:56 am on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

ogletree, you were the one claiming that AdSense traffic is garbage, and that any sensible AdWords advertiser would pull the plug on AdSense. I simply assumed that you were describing the AdSense clicks you know best - those you generate.

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved