This should go a long way towards allaying advertiser fears that too much click fraud goes undetected.
Very interesting. I just ran a report for a small new account that I manage and the invalid click rate was 2.45%
These are the clicks that Google has noted as invalid and has not charged advertisers for.
Yep, been running some client reports. Running between 3-7% for a couple of my larger accounts.
But does this tool, that only goes back to 01-01-06, give us any clues as to how much "prior" estimated fraud there was, as in filling out the claim forms?
|Great White Shark|
How do you get this info?
the data is available via the 'reports' tab; more info here:
Mine was 2.34%. Good stuff Google!
Wow, great move Google! Next step is that you provide us with the real numbers cause none of us believes click fraud is 2,5%;-)
It appears that the date range is only for 2006.
Also, the information is only available at the 'campaign summary' and 'account summary' report.
Lastly, one can not run a report that includes 'distribution type' to see the difference between search and content for invalid clicks.
However, the level of transparency should help to begin to reconcile your analytic data against your AdWords data.
Overall, very good move. Thanks Google.
Great feature for my Adwords, I'd love to have the same for my Adsense account now please...
this is great :) 2.6% for me :)
This really isn't the "fraud" rate, just the clicks that have been automatically filtered. This includes some fraudulent clicks, but also includes such things as double clicks that we aren't being charged for.
Nice feature, but of course it shows only the invalid clicks that have been detected.
Too bad this doesn't work on a keyword level. It'd be nice to see which keywords are the ones generating the invalid clicks.
Nice that I can run this in the MCC for each client account in one report; but yea, it would also be great to do Search vs. Content. I hope that's coming eventually.
Some of the numbers are kind of eyecatching. I have two clients in industries where the clicks tend to be quite expensive, and the competition tends to be extremely slimy, so I always suspected a much higher rate of invalid clicks for those two - but it looks like (at least as far as Google detects) one of my OTHER accounts - huge 'name brand' company selling sports equipment - has a much higher invalid click rate. Definitely interesting information.
One of my more cynical partners just pointed out to me that perhaps the above has to do with it not being in Google's interest to probe too deeply into invalid clicks involving phrases with large CPC ($5-$15/click) - but that's too cynical even for ME.
[edited by: netmeg at 3:08 pm (utc) on July 26, 2006]
It's a good start but it would be nice to know quite a bit more. Such as what counts as a double click, is it seconds or minutes or preferably days between clicks. If someone clicks on an ad then clicks back to google then over to a new site then back to google to click your ad and go back to your site is that going to count as a "double click". What might be an invalid click to Google and an invalid click to you could be pretty different things. Google should also include the IP address of clickers to your site in a report.
Id like to know how acurate these numbers are. Do you really think Google would give us honest numbers on this? Looking over a few campaigns the numbers are pretty low, a lot lower then I was expecting. Something tells me that Google is going to keep those numbers low so that they dont scare away advertisers.
"Estimates from third-parties (usually from consultants who have a financial incentive to make the problem seem very large)"
Err...and google doesn't have a financial interest in making the problem seem small? :)
What a joke.
Who cares how many invalid clicks you were not charged for? What advertisers want is better click fraud protection, not a Press release from google.
I don't think Google has a strong motivation to keep the "detected invalid clicks" artificially low. The bigger the number is, the more they can say, "Look how much money we saved you. Can Yahoo do this well?"
I don't see them getting too specific, though. Detailed invalid click information could be used by click fraud practitioners to determine what is being detected and what isn't.
I have one campaign with a invalid click rate over 15%.
My campaign average is almost 5% but I have some campaigns that hit 10-12%. It looks like the content network is the culprit. No big surprise there.
So, maybe I missed where we definitively established this, but what is the criteria for calling a click 'invalid' or 'fraudulent'?
Average of 9.4% for me for the month. One day hit 47%
when i want to add it to the report colums then I dont have the invalid clicks option to activate or add. Am i missing something?
oops i found it, just under 5% invalid click rate
|If I'm Joe Websurfer and I accidently click an add is that invalid? |
If I'm Judy Internet and I love to explore every single ad I see are those invalid clicks?
The point is where do they draw the line?
Yeah, in Tuzhilin's report he did discuss the, hmmm, difficulty in gauging the "intent" of a click. Hey, Judy's bored, she doesn't intend to become a conversion, she just clicks on everything she sees.
|"Undetected" invalid clicks are part of the equation when looking at the return on investment, whether that number of invalide clicks is implicit or explicitly stated. |
Who's arguing with that?
Funny timing for this "feature", of course its all nonsense, its just what google claims to be "invalid". You could run your own bots and clickers to check the veracity of their system pretty easily though. ;)
This is all heading to 3rd party verification, google doesn't adequately protect the customer in regards to click fraud.
LOL: If Google wants us to undermine sources and opinions that have a "financial interest" in the state of click fraud, we have to definatley be suspect of them and their reporting tools. Their revenue is entirely derived from 'clicks.' Therefore, going by Google's own logic, they have a huge financial incentive to tell us there is no problem.
It is a good thing I trust Google to detect clicks. As of yet, my conversions are good and revenue comes in so I do not need to worry too much.
|This is all heading to 3rd party verification, google doesn't adequately protect the customer in regards to click fraud. |
What's adequate may be in the eye of the beholder, but one unbiased, court-approved "3rd party" has already concluded that Google's "efforts to combat click fraud are reasonable."
It's hard to see how third-party verification would change the minds of advertisers or critics who have preconceived notions about a PPC vendor's approach to click fraud.
Also, even the worst-case scenarios from vendors that market click-fraud detection services put total click fraud in the range of 14 and 20 percent for the PPC industry as a whole. As Trillanjedi said in another thread, "85.4% genuine traffic. Impressive statistic really, I can certainly work within that." And, of course, what matters in the final analysis is the advertiser's ROI, not the real or reported percentage of clicks that are invalid.
| This 173 message thread spans 6 pages: 173 (  2 3 4 5 6 ) > > |