Is Adsense vulnerable to parasites?

What is Google's stance about link hijacking?

[buckworks]

There are all sorts of downloaded programs out there that can overwrite affiliate links for their own benefit, and it's likely only a matter of time until our Adsense ads are under this kind of attack as well .... scumware trying to intercept the credit for clickthroughs that legitimately come from our pages.

1) Does Google have plans to monitor for this kind of thing, or is there a place we can report suspicious activity?

2) Will Google be vigorous about kicking out any entity caught trying to interfere with anyone else's Adsense clicks?

I couldn't find anything in the FAQ or terms of service that applied to this; if it was there I missed it.

Elisabeth Archambault

[bird]

Google AdSense Standard Terms and Conditions [google.com]

6. Prohibited Uses.
You shall not [...]:
(i) generate fraudulent impressions of or fraudulent clicks on any Ad(s), including but not limited to through the use of robots or other automated query tools and/or computer generated search requests, [...]
(ii) edit, modify, filter or change the order of the information contained in any Ad and/or Ad Unit [...]

That might already be enough to cover this kind of activity.

[Blue_Fin]

Elisabeth, excellent question. May I suggest that you submit this through the technical help area of Adsense? I have been very impressed with Adsense handling of emails and I'm confident that if you address this to them, it will be seen by the appropriate people.

I feel pretty confident of one thing though. Google will treat this issue very seriously and I very much doubt that we would have to put up with the cr*p that we do with the affiliate networks who benefit greatly from link hijacking. So while there is financial incentive for the affiliate networks to allow this to continue (and affiliate managers in some cases), there is absolutely no incentive for Google to allow it. I also suspect Google's fraud detection technology would catch it because the hijacker's CTR would be inflated.

[brycen]

Excuse the naïve question: but how do the link hijackers work? Is this a conventional virus or trojan that modifies files on web servers? Or something more devious?

[dmorison]

Excuse the naïve question: but how do the link hijackers work? Is this a conventional virus or trojan that modifies files on web servers? Or something more devious?

Various ways - it can be achieved through an Internet Explorer "browser helper" object, which is how things like the Google Toolbar work. IE provides hooks into virtually every aspect of the browsing process - and URLs can easily be rewritten by such an object.

I also recall a case recently in which an ISP (I don't think they were a very big one) were intercepting affiliate links on their caching proxy servers and re-writing them to contain their affiliate ID instead!

[justageek]

As Blue_Fin said, they will figure it out. Remember that they are a search engine still trying to figure out marketing so it will be a while, but they will.

We use a third party to handle the clicks for clients we help. It's really quite easy to prevent. Without getting technical the jist of it is a authenticated redirect which works extremely well.

The program that I've seen that is scary for the websites but great for the advertisers is the one that reads the real advertisers url and sends the user to it when they click. Near as I can figure no one makes any revenue off the click. I suspect it was written by someone that just doesn't like Google or Overture or any of the ppc engines.

[brycen]

Google's *OWN* toolbar blocks other advertiser's popups. This seems massively unwise, as they loose the moral highground on hijinks like this.

[Blue_Fin]

Blocking popups, which a lot of people consider a wonderful feature, is not the same as link hijacking. I can't agree with your analogy, brycen.

[brycen]

Blocking popups is interfering with someone else's advertising campaign.

Hijacking links is interfering with someone else's advertising campaign.

Same thing.

It is still the same thing, no matter how much you (or I) hate popups.

Google, as a online advertising agent, should not be subverting other forms of advertising. This is like a newspaper going around to houses and removing the junk advertising flyers left on doorknobs. This is like a billboard vendor hijacking city buses and removing the advertising panels. This is like a Yellow pages sales agent on a vigilante spree, shooting telemarketers.

It's just not a good idea. Kettles calling pots black have been a bad idea for centuries.

[europeforvisitors]

Google doesn't block popups. Users block popups.

Providing a tool that users control (by choosing to install or not install the software) isn't the same as blocking popups across the Web.

IMHO, blocking popups is no different from blocking worms or viruses: It's a defense against allowing third parties (in this case, advertisers) to take control of the user's computer by launching new browser windows.

[buckworks]

Parasite programs that hijack links in one way or another don't just interfere with another site's promotions, they actively steal the commissions that would be due if said promotion actually sends a paying customer to the merchant.

That is substantively different from blocking popups.

[justageek]

The whole idea of blocking pop-ups is interesting and getting off topic a little. Personally I despise them. But on the other hand there is the issue of the hijackers, such as ezula, getting in trouble for interference of what a website is trying to convey to a user. Isn't blocking a pop-up the same essentially the same thing? It does interfere with what the web site wanted the user to see. Ezula just provides the tool and a user has the option to use it or not but ezula is held accountable for it.

[europeforvisitors]

There's a big difference between a user's filtering pop-up ads and a software program's alteration of the content served by a third-party site. In any case, as you say, we're getting a bit off-topic. :-)

[killroy]

One use full distinction is that when pop ups are blocked, users know what they are missing. furthermore, it'S no more then if a user uses a user agent that doesn't support javascript. You cannot demand all browsers to support javascript simply because otherwise they'd "modify" the website by not showing popups.

link hijackers on the other hand dress their own content up as beeign part of the site, and not just hide parts of the original site, but show new thing that the side owner doesn't know about as beeing part of the site. The visitor will asume that the served links are part of the site and make hte site creator responsible.

It's a different thing to show something new as part of the site, then to merely hide/remove some of the things already present on said site.

SN

[justageek]

So by removing something a web site owner wants their user to see it should not be considered altering content. OK. I get now. I won't get mad at the paper boy for clipping out the coupons anymore as he did nothing wrong ;-)

[dragonlady7]

Well...
Taking away and pointing out the absence is WILDLY different from adding and pretending it was there to begin with. If the paper boy is adding fliers for his band, printed on stolen newspaper sheets that look like part of the classifieds, and removing the ads for rival bands that were actually paid for in the classifieds, then that's hijacking.
If the paper boy drops the paper and the junk fliers fall out before he puts the paper on your doorstep, he's taking away your junk. Both are wrong, but one is far more misleading.
The analogy doesn't quite hold up, though, because everybody's got the equipment necessary to see the fliers in the newspaper. Not everybody has javascript enabled anyway, so they can't all see popups to begin with.
And if the paper boy left you a note saying "the ads fell out of the paper when the neighbor's dog attacked me, sorry, if you want them go ask mrs. johnson; they're in her dog's doghouse", so that you'd at least know they were missing and if you want them you know where to find them, then he's not misleading you at all. Thus, the popup blocker that says it's blocking popups isn't misleading you. You can go get those popups if you want-- turn off the blocker and reload the site and oh look, popups.

So, I don't see a connection either. Not the same thing. If you really *want* to be mad at Google, go ahead. People always seem to find a way.

[brycen]

Ok, by that logic Overture can release a new toolbar that blocks AdSense. Not misleading at all, you say, since the toolbar would tell you how many AdSense advertisements it blocked.

Google is stealing other people's advertisements, plain and simple.

-Bryce

(PS: Does the paperboy get to use the dog excuse every single day?)

[dmorison]

A pop-up is like the paperboy being paid to knock on your door and tell you about a particular advertisers' product/service, rather than discreetly deliver your paper through the letterbox as you expect it to be delivered - non-intrusive; and in your own time etc. etc.

An advertiser that pays the newspaper distributor to have the paperboy knock on your door and plug their product/service directly must accept that many households would consider this to be a nuisance and may take steps to prevent it from happening.

Ditto pop-ups.

An end user blocking a particular presentation mechanism (read "pop-ups") is a completely different issue to that of a third party altering the content of any presentation mechanism (read pop-ups, IFRAME javascript content within a page etc. etc.) that has not been blocked.

[brycen]

Even if the paperboy was knocking on the door, it would be inappropriate for the telemarketing company to step in and block him.

Unless Google wants someone to block Adwords, it should not block popups. Don't mess with other people's advertising, no matter how intrusive.

[dragonlady7]

>(PS: Does the paperboy get to use the dog excuse every single day?)

He does if you paid Mrs. Johnson's dog to do that to him in the first place.

But, in real life, he'd quit the job.

As far as the Overture blocking Google ads scenario goes, just consider this: How many people absolutely hate Google Adsense ads and would in fact seek out a toolbar that would block them? Is there really a demand for that?
Man, those (*$^%@# little green boxes, I can't @&%$ stand 'em. They're so... unobtrusive. I hate that. It drives me crazy. Especially how they crash my browser. Ugh! Such a pain. I make a point of never visiting a website that carries 'em. They're horrible. Take up so much bandwidth. Hijack my browser. Obscure the content I actually want to see.
Yup, sure.

[justageek]

dragonlady7 - I'm not mad at Google. Why is it that someone must be mad at someone else if they ask questions?

Remember that this off topic thread all started with the ethical issue of parasites and the stopping of pop-ups. The real deal is if Google or anyone stops the pop up, thereby altering the original work of art, then they are technically stopping a website from delivering the content that a person was supposed to see according to how the website operates. It's that simple. I agree taking away and adding are completely different. Nonetheless it is altering someone elses work. That is what the whole issue of parasites are about. It just so happens the parasites made money and prevented the real beneficiary from making money where the pop up killer just prevents the making of money.

All the jive about java and such doesn't fly since that is a compatablity issue not a willing third party interference. Plus the part about everyone having the equipment to read is not entirely accurate.

But the analogy you gave would be good if a the little guy from the AOL commercial came to life and stuck the person in the eye at the precise moment they were about to see an ad for, oh I don't know, Prodigy ;-)

[justageek]

dragonlady7 - I have not seen a blocker them. What I have seen though is a free to download version of something simular to what ezula puts out that reads the real url in the ad and sends the user there when they click. Talk about innovation. I've tried it and it works great. Now the content owner doesn't make anything, the advertiser doesn't spend anything, in fact no one spends or makes money and advertisers get there advertising for free. Gotta love this Internet thingy.

[dmorison]

Even if the paperboy was knocking on the door, it would be inappropriate for the telemarketing company to step in and block him.

There is no stepping in by the telemarketing company. The resident is choosing not to answer the door.

[cramalot]

The google popup-blocking feature could be turned on/off at a user's will. If a user doesn’t wish to see pop-ups, then they have the option of blocking them. If a site serves me a popup I manually close the ad anyway without reading or looking at it. Am I any different that the piece of software that does it for me?

I do however wish to see more on the scumware issue. It is a practice that is used by those 'underground' sites and unethical webmasters. The code, content, and images on someone’s site by law shouldn't be modified without consent.
Theft by deception is a better name for it.

[edited by: cramalot at 8:59 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2003]

[brycen]

Popups should be blocked. They suck.

Google, as a pop-up advertising competitor, should not be involved.

[cramalot]

"Google, as a pop-up advertising competitor, should not be involved."

What does that really mean?

So if my company developes a piece of software that blocks pop-ups but uses pop-ups as an advertising media is that wrong?

The only time I see it as unethical is when I create the software but don't block my own pop-up ads.

[edited by: cramalot at 9:06 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2003]

[heini]

Popups should be blocked. They suck.

Google, as a pop-up advertising competitor, should not be involved.

Yep.

[cramalot]

What if google makes a parental filter in the toolbar. Is that ethical?

I have a satelite TV system and I can block certain channels. Is this ethical? I can fast foreward through previews on a videotape. Is this ethical? I can block email addresses with a piece of software. Is this ethical?

[justageek]

cramalot - There is a difference, as crazy as it sounds, when you do it versus using software to do it. Just ask the scumware folks who lost in court battles over it and used the same arguement. I absolutely hate the flippin junk banners. But that's a chance I take and when I willingly go to a site that does it.

I'm with brycen, Google and everyone else should stay out of it especially when they have something to gain by it. How long will it be before they block *ALL* links that can be considered competition.

Don't add to anothers content, don't take away from anothers content, don't do anything to anothers content, don't provide the tools to do it either or you may end up in court like the other scumware companies.

[justageek]

cramalot - All the questions you asked are different. A parental filter blocks the entire site so there was no tampering with the original work of art. Same with the satelite. The video tape is already paid for and the folks who sold it to you already made their money. Email is different because you go to a site willingly versus having crap sent to you that you did not ask for.