Thanks for any input...
Or just build that 10% into your ROI model. I haven't had much success in pushing for refunds from Google. Those that have been succesful have taken more time than it's worth. There is always going to be a certain amount of click fraud in the PPC industry, and building that factor into your model is the best solution I can think of.
And if you want publicity for your web site, this might be an opportunity to get some since it's a rather unusual thing.
check out something called who's clicking who. I've heard it helps deter fraud. Never tried it though
KG
IP Address....
Small claims? I dont think it can be considered fraud....
OT...just looked at some click stats and noticed Overture.com clicking on my Overture ad's! Can't wait to see if they include these in my daily click charges.......
How about trying to sue in small claims court? It would send a message. It's fraud.
I'm not a lawyer - but this is my understanding of 'click fraud'.
PPC engines recogonize that 1 click in x time frame from the same person isn't counted as a click because it's a duplicate click, and advertisers don't want to pay for duplicate clicks. Not because it's illegal - but because it's what's expected in this industry.
If you goto Google, who is listing off results and ads, you can click away to your hearts content. This is a search engine where you are expected to click on a link.
It's Google's job to detect duplicate clicks and not charge the advertiser. It's also their right to block the person clicking on all those ads from their search engine, it is their property.
However, it's still not illegal for someone togo to Google.com and click on ads the entire day.
yes! I would say if you think you can justify the monthly price then it is worth it! yet if you spend mere pennies and dollars, it isn't obviously.
KG
How do you know it's your competitor?
IP Address....
If you know your competitor's IP address and they are ignorant enough to keep using the same one then give them a landing page that says in big block letters, "You are guilty of click fraud. Your IP has been logged and all activity is being reported to the appropriate authorities."
It's cheap and it might just be effective. Click fraud against competitors works because the competitor thinks they are anonymous -- remove that impression. :)
<edit>more ignorant than stupid</edit>
Anyone know about AOL IP's? Are they individual as in one machine or is one IP for a block of users?
show them your whosclickingwho (or other third party) report and if its blatant they should help you out.
with all of their technology, you think they wouldn't allow the same person to click on your ad from the same computer time and time again.....
you think they wouldn't allow the same person to click on your ad from the same computer time and time again
Google's response to me when I confronted them about this was that people shop around and it's probable that they visit many sites many times before making a purchase.
It was obviously a canned response because I don't sell anything on my sites.
[webmasterworld.com...]
I sent info to Google of the dodgy clicks (times, dates and the ip address), and they were happy to oblige in refunding the fraudulent clicks. Their algorithm blantantly doesn't do its job, but at least Google are fairly helpful, in my experience.
The click tracking software also cookies visitors and assign a unique ID to each one..I wonder if it assigns the IP a unique ID or the actual machine....
Does anyone know if the user still clicks on the ad but because his IP address is banned from your website, it results in an error. Does anyone know if G will still charge you?
If 1% of your clicks were from one AOL address, then, I wouldn't necessarily think much of it, even if that was thousands upon thousands of clicks a day. The reason is that AOL has millions of users. I don't know how many of them are filtered through each IP address, but the point is that that IP address probably represents tens of thousands of customers.
Google's response to me when I confronted them about this was that people shop around and it's probable that they visit many sites many times before making a purchase.
It makes no sense - you shouldn't pay for the same person twice for the same keyword in a short period of time. Maybe a few days apart, maybe different search terms, but not the same person doing the same clicks day after day after day.
they also make a lot of money off of dumb searchers who don't bookmark sites and just do a search and click adwords every time.
Google's response to me when I confronted them about this
(No offense to AZEvil, I don't know the specifics of how his inquiry was framed and I don't mean to imply this applied in his case at all. Just making a general point...)
There are advertisers out there who don't understand log files or the technical aspects of anything, it seems fair to me for Google to ask the advertiser to at least provide some kind of "proof" like log file snippets before they decide their normal click fraud detection has failed.
It's a shame but ignorant advertisers who are looking for a quick discount probably account for over 50% of the "click fraud" emails that Google or any PPC company receives. Again, I don't think this has anything to do with AZEvil, but it may explain why Google would give anyone a canned response initially.
Does anyone know if the user still clicks on the ad but because his IP address is banned from your website, it results in an error. Does anyone know if G will still charge you?
Google wouldn't have any way of knowing what the user sees or receives once they've been sent to the destination URL, so I'd say that yes G will still charge you.
(It's the whole "If your site goes down, you need to pause your Adwords campaigns.")
How about trying to sue in small claims court? It would send a message. It's fraud.
You might need ear protection to survive the laughter in court. The facts being:
Zack accepts an invitation freely offered by Abe and Nat. And he's accused of fraud!?
I think his lawyers may be preparing some papers right now.
...but I see various AOL Ip's clicking several times a day..every day....
Most likely an AOL Caching Server, they like to hit the same URL 3-4 Times in a row.
Easy to find out, just do a DNS lookup on the IP and check for "cache" in the hostname.
It's click fraud. If Google defines it as such, then I don't see why a court shouldn't see it that way. Fraud is fraud and apparently you are cool with fraud, but not many other people here are.
I can see a lawyer using the argument that it is a willfully malicious act. The other person is willfully and knowingly damaging your business. BUT if you inform them they are "willfully and knowingly" damaging your business, and you will sue if they do not cease and desist. You might go a lot further if you were ever able to get to a judge.
I did a search for click fraud on google.com, and found nothing that makes such a definition. If they do define it that way, then they are not making their definition easy to find for potential clickers of ads like Zack.
Not to say that a definition isn't there, but I couldn't find it.
And anyway, Zack has not entered into any legal agreement with anyone. No reason he should take due diligence before clicking. Zack has seen a link on a webpage and clicked it.
If an ad reads "search for best widget prices now" and it actually means "do so a maximum once a day -- anyhing else may be fraud, clicking the link is confirmation that you understand and agree to this condition. Other terms and conditions may apply" then maybe Zack's behavior breaks the conditions of use. But he needs to be told that before clicking.
So add that text to the ad. If it is important, let's stop arguing about it and just do it.
Or maybe clicking any ad should take you to a page of legal conditions which you have to agree to (and prove you are human, and of the right age and demographic) before it lets you pass.
I've yet to see ads do or say that. If it is important, they should all carry their legal boilerplate for terms and conditions one way of another -- much like financial services and medical ads do on radio and TV. This is advertising. The same rules should apply.
If you think that wouldn't constitute fraud I strongly disagree. In fact, I'm surprised if there haven't been lawsuits filed already, and if there haven't there will be soon.
If you can prove that it was done in bad faith in an effort to drain your money, this is not a tough case at all.
