I dont believe I said they could. If you read what I said, I refered to instances when google were pretty sure that the user were responsible for the clicks then they shouldn't make a big hoo ha out of it.
Sure, there may well be all sorts of issues, which are seperate from this particular thread. The guy who started this thread was obviously not the most sophisticated in his approach and for whatever reason-label people want to stick on him, but he hardly deserves to be hung at dawn for it.
Right, yes sure, Ill knock one up just for your benefit.
Look, I know it isnt simple, I never said it was theproliferation of adwords analysis data companies [google.com] shows that, but I do believe that if the will existed, the adwords program could be made sufficiently robust to look at and analyse click throughs using a combination of cookies, sessids, Ips, user agents, timeframes far more proactively then it already appears to do, and certainly to do a little more work on behalf of the advertiser. If the companies offering these services can do it, then why can't/won't google?
In my experience they seldom volunteer refunds for click fraud, unless evidence of it is presented to them on a plate. How do I come to this conclusion? Well, 6 months or so back, I looked at a clients logfiles and identified what were clearly 'abusive' clicks simply by virtue of the IP, useragent and time of day. The guy was getting clciks left right and center from someone who was likely to be a competitior, aim being, exhaust his funds, click him out of the game. The guy was spending around 30k per month, not exactly small beer, yet the program let him down. Where was the proactivity?
I do hear the mindset that says, every now and then its good to see a public outing and evidence that naughty behaviour has its price, keep people on their toes and all that jazz, but that doesn't mean I have to agree its the only way, or that the way used currently is the only one worth using. I don't disagree that sanctions of sorts should be in place, I just disagree in the "we caught you, you MF so take that" approach. It creates ill will, suspicion , hysteria, mean style posts, and a whole host of other forms of non productive stuff, in most cases its a lose lose lose situation, the advertiser loses out on legitimate clicks that may have stemmed forth susequently, the publisher loses on revenue as does Google. Its sledgehammer and nut stuff.
Maybe there should be a ban on these types of threads. Point people to a sticky faq that covers all the bases.
Anyways, Im sure this debate has been had before, hence my request for a link or 2 to a similar type thread, thats all i asked for, Im outta this one ;) Time for a beer or 2 :)