Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Just curious.
Anyways .. I am 99% sure that Google is detecting click bot fraud by simply measuring the numbers of conversions. If you are not converting then you are probably click botting.
They probably don't even pay bother paying you for the clicks that don't convert.
So it's all really a moot point.
sorry - it was a freak timing thing. I was working on the thread at the exact time that someone edited a previous post. I had to delete that particular post then because of it.
Anyway, back on topic.
> The TOS are integral part of a
> contract you agree on with Google.
No one is talking about that at all. The poster just wanted to know if it was illegal to run a click bot.
I don't see how it could be. Googles own bot could be guilty of "clicking" on ads themselves.
> Ethics discussions are pointless here.
I don't know where you get that idea. Ethics are a part of everything. They help clarify and question established positions.
>running an automated process for clicking on links
>is no different than Google running an automated
>process to harvest links.
Smartest thing said in this thread yet. A search engine just dl'd several images from a local site that were "branding ad" or "promotion" based. We track those by image pulls out of the log. Did that search engine just commit fraud? That is the same thing we are talking about in this thread.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:07 am (utc) on Mar. 24, 2004]
And how exactly are they doing that? Not all advertisers use Google's conversion tracking. And if Google did decide to not charge for clicks that didn't convert, then Advertisers would just not serve the conversion code every time a conversion page was viewed.
No one is talking about that at all. The poster just wanted to know if it was illegal to run a click bot.
Actually he asked the following:
Would it be illegal to setup adsense on my website and use a clickbot with proxies to click on my own ads to make money?
So, in that case, it would actually be considered fraud.
In other words, I think they'll stick with charging you once with fraud in the amount of $50,000, rather than a million counts at 5 cents each.
Any clickbot would want to incorporate about 95 impressions per click (to get a normal looking CTR) and a ever changing ip range over multiple pages.
Just having something click the hell out of one ad on one page form one proxy IP will look just as stupid as sitting and clicking your own ads by hand.
What vested interest would google have to go after someone who did this? Google makes a cut out of each click, the actual figure is unknown of course, but they are making more than we are i am sure. The huge pool of adwords advertisers they have will not be scratched by any event, even if you made $10,000 in a day. Adwords is H U G E, all those USA Today frontpage stories about adwords have recruited more customers.
Adwords does not "gurantee" any kind of conversion on clicks, so i would highly doubt google would refund someone if this occured, let alone file charges against someone. I don't think they would give back earned money (that was earned non-legit by a stupid click bot none the less) for services that are not guranteed to begin with.
If everyone in the world was 100% moral production would be a fraction of what it is now.
On another note, go to some other ad service if you want to screw around, don't do it with Adsense. the folks at G are not morons, you are not going to get away with much, if anything. I doubt you will "be taken in front of a jury (ha ha some people here)" but surly you won't have a great chance of seeing a check.
Quite interesting self-regulating ethical responsibility thingy.
Take e-mail spam, for instance, which is now illegal in the US. Yet the e-mail spam I receive is worse than ever. Should I call my local police and ask them to arrest an e-mail spammer in Nigera. Yeah, right.
However, if Google has operations in your country, and you want to try making money on click fraud, I'd be looking over my shoulder with every click. The penalties for theft are much harsher in some countries than in the US, and computers and money transfers leave a trail that just won't go away.
Seems to me Google has to have developed good click fraud techniques to be operating on a global scale, and I'll bet they've become very good at it.
Now why anyone would ever want to implement a click-bot or anything similar in the first place is beyond me. People who do things like that always get caught; maybe it takes a month, maybe a year. But in the end they get caught. At any rate its not good for anyone, spend your time increasing your traffic or producing more web pages if your thinking about this kind of thing.
>The laws of one country do not generally apply in another
Uhm, the way i always understood such things is that the law of the country explicitly mentioned in a signed contract/agreement is binding. So it won't matter if you're clicking from Timbuktu, Siberia or wherever because you signed a legally binding agreement with google.
Terms and Conditions
This is the legally binding agreement between Google AdSense and participating publishers.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California, except for its conflicts of laws principles. Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California.
So i think, yes, it's illegal IF it's against any Californian law. Don't know if Mr. Terminator recently establihed a specific law that handles click fraud of if there's allready one ... anybody's firm with California's laws?
I guess if we know what the californian laws say about click fraud we'll know if click bots are illegal.
If someone is stupid about a "click bot", they will get the boot real quickly. You know what kind of capital and human resources it takes to file suit against someone? It is simply not worth it for Google to stop the world and file suits for fraud in SMALL claims court when they have better things to do that will make more money.
Unless the cash in question is such a huge sum, tens of thousands of dollars, i find it VERY hard to see anyone going to court over a click bot. The whole idea that the entire judicial system gives a damn about a "click bot" is worth laughing at.
The country the person resides in doesnt matter, the laws of the country do not matter, all that matters is that google is more interested in developing it's product, aquiring resources, and making money. A small blip of potentially unmoral activity on googles radar will result in "the email", cancelation of adsense, and no money paid. Google's lawyers are more concerned with working out deals with other companies to exapnd the google empire, not take some guy with a "click bot" to small claims court.
<edit> I spell like a 4 year old, sorry </edit>
So what happens if the click bot was run by someone in russia, mexico canada? I would assume US laws don't apply?
Good question. I'm thinking someone could setup a service in another country and offer the service to publishers. I would never do this myself, of course (too paranoid).
[quote]I'm thinking someone could setup a service in another country and offer the service to publishers.[/qouote]
Anyone in the U.S. could be part of a conspiracy. Also, most other countries enforce laws similar to ours. It is better to be in a U.S. prison than a Mexican prison.
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. Consult a lawyer trained in criminal law.
So what happens if the click bot was run by someone in russia, mexico canada? I would assume US laws don't apply?
I come from exUSSR country, now live in Australia and I can say that from where I stand it should definitely be considered as fraud. Although legislation is very underdeveloped in terms of Internet regulations, there is still a whole-world working principle: if you have a contract (money contract) and you cheat another party so that it leads to financial gain/loss - it is fraud, and depending on volumes, and (most important) _motivation_ of the cheater, it can lead up to imprisoning for up to 5 years in Russia ;)
Courts wouldn't dig too deep, but they would use experts in order to determine what is the essence of "clickbot" and motivation for using it. They will not compare with search engines downloading images, etc... they would compare with a more casual things - things they know. I believe that comparison would be something like this:
You sign a contract and you deliver, say, Oranges to a COMPANY. They pay you for each and every kilo. You deliver them during 1 month and then you start mixing them with Apples (which are cheaper) and the company discovers that a couple of months later and you already receive money for that. Court would definitely consider this as fraud, no matter that it may “look” like doing nothing wrong (as hacking might seem as nothing but pressing buttons of your own keyboard – but judges still somehow know it’s illegal). Simple _fake/wrong/not as agreed_ products delivery issue. Judge would name you responsible and depending on your intentions, tactics, etc you may be fined or even imprisoned.
Google is "buying" _real_ clicks, and you _agree_ to sell real clicks. If you cheat - then it's a crime, and Google has every right to rely on court's support if they need not only to stop the contract but also somehow receive refund for the money/time they lost.
Google broke the TOS and didn't get our approval and sent bots to spider and grab all the original information we have and put them on their web site.
TO MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
If clickbot is illegal, googlebot MIGHT be illegal, too.
What do you think?
Newspare can complain a few times just for lawsuit purpose and claim huge amount of damage by google copying them without consent.
Am I missing something?
What do you think?
I think that since you have a way to block spiders, you wouldn't have a case.
In fact, newspapers may be able to make huge money by suing Google for Copyright infringement.
If they open the site(meaning no login for news) and say copying without explicit consent is against law in TOS area, then googlebot comes in and list in the search results.
Newspare can complain a few times just for lawsuit purpose and claim huge amount of damage by google copying them without consent.Am I missing something?
How would googlebot or any other spider get to the sites in the first place if they didn't have a way (subscription) to get to the pages with the content?
Or are you talking about page caching (which might be a problem)?
>>I think that since you have a way to block spiders, you wouldn't have a case.
In order to prevent my site being indexed and me incurring charges for the bandwidth Google use up, I have to implement an 'opt out' technical solution to prevent this from happening. For some reason, it is my responsibility to stop this activity, even for unlinked, newly registered domains. So why isn't it Google's responsibility to prevent clickbots?
Besides, does the AdSense TOS bind publishers to sending human traffic, or traffic of a certain quality? Or are publishers legally obliged to send traffic that converts? What about asking my friends or visitors to click on ads, or trying to attract low quality traffic that I know won't actually buy anything...is this also fraud?
If Google doesn´t enforce an anti-fraud system, BIG advertisers could sue Google, for weak protection on their investment.
Advertisers pay for human visits, not for false clicks, so if they pay, and aren´t receiving that, they must do something.
Remember: It doesn´t matter if this happens in AdSense, so that the publisher can earn some bucks, or even in Adwords, with the competition burning their competitor´s money.
When you make someone loose money, that should be seen as fraud. It doesn´t matter if it´s through cookie altering, clickbots, etc etc.
IMO the arguments about Googlebot are clearly specious. Search engine spiders have been upheld in courts of law as being in the public interest (which they obviously are). Google's cache puts them in a more questionable position and I don't think it has ever been challenged in a general way. Nonetheless there are multiple industry-standard ways to prevent the cacheing, so I suspect a lawsuit would not result in substantial damages even if it were successful.
In order to prevent my site being indexed and me incurring charges for the bandwidth Google use up, I have to implement an 'opt out' technical solution to prevent this from happening. For some reason, it is my responsibility to stop this activity, even for unlinked, newly registered domains. So why isn't it Google's responsibility to prevent clickbots?
I'm not sure but I think because we're talking about the difference between bots with a possible ill intent/*possible* fraud (clickbots) vs. a
bot with a positive intent (getting your site listed) that you can prevent which, if anything, would not be fraud but just a copyright violation... But I hear ya.
>>the AdSense program policies DO cover clickbots, and in broad terms pretty much any other way to generate worthless traffic
I haven't agreed to the adsense TOS (I don't use it). So there would be nothing illegal about me running clickbots presumably? I might be someone who loves publishers and hates advertisers and wants to redistribute some wealth.
>>the difference between bots with a possible ill intent/*possible* fraud (clickbots) vs. a
bot with a positive intent (getting your site listed)
It seems to me that intent is not so clear cut. The only definite winner from Google's spidering and caching activities is Google themselves. I have sites where the only thing I get from Googlebot is bandwidth charges, privacy concerns, and wasted time writing a robots.txt to block a copybot I didn't ask for in the first place.
But the Googlebot discussion is probably off topic so I will leave it. I guess the point was that a bot in itself is neither positive or negative, and it seems to me that the only illegality involved in using one is in breaking a company's TOS.
Blaze, I politely suggest that you restrict your comments on this topic to the legality of clickbots.
Although you do make an (off topic) point that paying for a conversion is the only way to overcome clickbot 'fraud'.
For example, Denial Of Service attacks are illegal (AFAIK, although I don't know what statute covers this kind of cybercrime). A clickbot intended to disrupt a company's ability to do business could easily be interpreted to be a similar form of attack.
