| 11:08 am on Aug 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 11:24 am on Aug 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well good news obviously but as Google's recent click-fraud analysis done independently said, "G didn't have decent systems in place til late 2005" - despite it even being in their IPO docs, you have to ask how serious are they really.
Why can't I block any IP I want from seeing my ads?
Sure, it's a techie thing but it would be a serious second step towards credibility - after the recent inclusion of some basic stats in the G reports.
MSN & Y!, I don't care about as they don't have remotely the same marketshare in the multiple industries we look at.
Guys - Get credibility in this area with us ad pros and the conspiracy theories will evaporate.
| 2:32 pm on Aug 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
...and the true value of contextual advertising will level in, finally the market will have a chance to regulate itself...
| 6:35 pm on Aug 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good, they should start by searching their own indexes for "get paid to click on ads" and start investigating those sites and even banning them from their indexes.
| 4:22 am on Aug 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Positive move. Happy to see the big three approaching this issue in a pragmatic, forward thinking manner (better late than never).
| 4:38 am on Aug 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"In some cases, the true intent of a click can be identified only after examining deep psychological processes, subtle nuances of human behavior and other considerations in the mind of the clicking person," |
I look forward to the brain implant we can download and install to eliminate click fraud.
As a publisher, I know what is coming. The big stick - and publishers will get it, no matter what. Why? Because that looks good in the media.
I am also concerned that if the advertiser is lousy, and people leave as soon as they see the landing page, that advertiser will cry "click fraud"! Spank the publisher, refund all advertiser fees, and everyone who counts is happy!
| 6:26 am on Aug 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I am also concerned that if the advertiser is lousy, and people leave as soon as they see the landing page, that advertiser will cry "click fraud"! Spank the publisher, refund all advertiser fees, and everyone who counts is happy! |
AdSense CPC ads are run across the network. So, if Joe Advertiser is incompetent, his ads won't perform badly on just one site--they'll perform badly on many sites (or at least on multiple sites).
Also, Google knows that some sites or pages don't perform well even when ads are good, just because the audience isn't in a buying frame of mind. That's why "smart pricing" was introduced in April of 2004. The promised smart-pricing discounts were, in effect, partial refunds to advertisers, and they were based on the principle that clicks from sites and types of content convert worse than others do even when there's no click fraud.
| 2:02 am on Aug 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is fantastic news! Glad to see the engines are getting together to fight click fraud
| 10:36 pm on Aug 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Why can't I block any IP I want from seeing my ads? |
A more plausible alternative is that the G/M/Y account would have a place for us to load suspect IPs. To process each account later in a batch process and exclude clicks from blocked IP addresses would be nice but would add a time slice that could add up to some cumulative figure that the bean counters would object to.
But so far one assumes that all advertisers are totally honest. What if I am not, and block the IPs of my best customers? They see my ads and click to buy, but I have asked for their IPs to be blocked and I hope I won't be billed for those clicks. :)
Yes, the IAB initiative is a good start but some of the best data suppliers are not PPCSEs, e.g. eBay and Amazon, so they need to be included in a robust solution.
| 8:52 pm on Aug 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hopefuly it will lead into a real click fraud improvements