BeeDeeDubbleU
msg:1362560 | 10:17 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Wouldn't they have to show their hand by declaring how they knew this was happening to back up any law suit?
|
robotsdobetter
msg:1362561 | 11:47 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| Stricchiola harshly criticizes Google, saying the firm typically will not divulge much information to advertisers about the nature or scope of click fraud on their Web sites. Google defends the practice, saying it does not want to provide a road map for those with bad intentions. |
|
That's one reason that I don't trust Google sometimes. Nice find!
|
ownerrim
msg:1362562 | 12:57 am on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0) |
"Google is notorious for just flat out ignoring advertisers," Stricchiola said. "Google says, 'Thank you for your inquiry. We see no problem.' Sometimes Google does not even look at the data, and they give the most ridiculous explanations. Yahoo tends to be more proactive. That is because they have the people, more so than Google," which Stricchiola says views click fraud "as a purely technological issue." These quotes sound dead-on.
|
blairsp
msg:1362563 | 6:43 am on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I wonder how this will pan out. Surely the onus is on G to prove that they were doing it. Therefore they will ahve to divulge how they know. Or is that not the way that proof works in the US?
|
martinibuster
msg:1362564 | 6:59 am on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0) |
This was discussed about a week ago, maybe in the AdWords forum?. Jenstar pointed out to me that this lawsuit was filed in November 2004 and was a news item then, as well as discussed here. Cnet November 2004 [news.com.com]
|
HughMungus
msg:1362565 | 7:19 am on Apr 20, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| That is because they have the people, more so than Google |
|
And way more experience dealing with advertisers, publishers, and partners, something that Google is (hopefully) learning. You can't automate everything.
|
|
