Anything that starts to quantify the percentage of clicks that we are not charged for is a big step in the right direction I think. That's what they are really telling us here - not "low quality" but "not charged on, because they believe it is of low quality". Google's silence on reporting on this has simply fuelled the PPC fraid debate and I think this metric is an excellent move. Deciding which uncharged clicks are fraud and which are for other reasons is not so relevant to me as being only charged for real visitors.
I think you may be looking at that from a publisher perspective. This is in the Adcenter interface, not any kind of ad partner interface. Microsoft's traffic is almost all its own at the moment.
In addition - I don't see how you can easily graph or chart low quality by reason. With spam filters on emails, there is usually a series of factors that get measured that finally trigger an email as "spam", but graphing or tabling all the reasons? - what purpose would that serve? If a click is 1) a "double clicker" and 2) on a proxy IP number and 3) using an unidentifiable browser, which "box" would you put the click into? or would you start over reporting your unchargeable clicks?
I think it's a big step and time to see if the others follow suit. Microsoft makes big claims about their traffic quality compared to the others and they seem to be wanting to put clear daylight between themsleves and the others on this issue.
(I still want volume though!)
[edited by: Receptional at 10:36 am (utc) on July 9, 2007]