Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Relying on click-fraud consultants to provide accurate numbers about click fraud is like trusting a rustproofing shop to tell you if your car needs rustproofing.
Relying on G$$G for accurate click fraud numbers is like trusting the car dealer to give you the best deal.
that is an opinion that you have failed to substantiate... in particular, these generalizations about what was "left out" prove nothing, because none of you have provided any evidence of what was actually left out of the article.
and why waste bandwidth giving us a totally irrelevant scenario in iraq, when you could have just as easily backed up your point with real examples of what you claim was left out of the article?
the marketwatch piece built itself around paraphrasing, for example, quoting schmidt as saying "will likely" takes his entire sentence completely out of context... that is not quality journalism, it's the author creating an opportunity to inject his own opinion into the piece.
the marketwatch article failed to report the admission that schmidt made about not being capable of catching all click fraud... because the pro-google author obviously slanted the piece to his agenda.
as for "wishy-washy", lol, the author backed it up with specific quotes from schmidt, and some of us out here agree with the point he made... it's clear that you do not agree, and are therefore attacking the forbes article.
...when you could have just as easily backed up your point with real examples of what you claim was left out of the article?
It's in the original post. The scenario is for those who didn't get it when they read the original post. ;)
the marketwatch article failed to report the admission that schmidt made...
Obviously, Schmidt said a whole lot that isn't in either article, lol. However, the MarketWatch article is fair and balanced precisely because it did report that there is little agreement as to the degree of click fraud there is.
To date, Google, Yahoo Inc. and other Internet search providers who know their exact click fraud rates have not made the information publicly available, leaving the question about click fraud's impact largely a mystery... In some cases, automated software programs generate hundreds of thousands of clicks, each one generating a charge for the advertiser... So far, there's very little agreement about how often click fraud occurs.
Relying on G$$G for accurate click fraud numbers is like trusting the car dealer to give you the best deal.
That's a poor analogy, but even if it were valid, the fact remains that people buy cars. And if a car buyer doesn't like a dealer, he'll buy the car somewhere else.
It's the same with PPC ads: Advertisers who don't trust Google, Yahoo, MSN, Kanoodle, etc. can take their business elsewhere. Google isn't a public utility like the electric company, the water works, or the sewer system: Buyers have choices, including the choice of avoiding PPC entirely in favor of CPM banners, affiliate programs, or offline advertising.
So far, we haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there's been a lemminglike exodus of advertisers from Google's PPC networks. If and when people stop buying AdWords (or cars, for that matter), I'm sure we'll hear about it.
who's "original post"? you *still* haven't backed up your claim that the forbes article "left out" information.
>>>However, the MarketWatch article is fair and balanced precisely because it did report that there is little agreement as to the degree of click fraud there is.<<<
talk about "left out", the marketwatch article failed to include any quotes from the companies who monitor click fraud, but the forbes article did report an opposing viewpoint.
so the martinibuster version of "fair and balanced" is to never give equal air time to those who don't agree with the pro-google agenda?
Google isn't a public utility like the electric company, the water works, or the sewer system:
True, they are more like the troll under the bridge.
so the martinibuster version of "fair and balanced" is to never give equal air time to those who don't agree with the pro-google agenda?
The article reports on both sides. My last post reproduces that point. If you read the MarketWatch report, you will see that at least fifty percent of it is devoted to defining click fraud, illustrating methods for creating click fraud, and discussing motivations behind click fraud. That's comprehensive reporting.
It then ends with this sentence:
"We have click fraud under control and its getting better, in the sense we're catching more of it," he said. Yet, when pressed, he refused to provide a figure for how often it occurs with Google ads.
That's fair and balanced. ;)
pro-google agenda
Geez Louise... I'm merely pointing out the Forbes article is an editorial, not a straight report. I'm not falling on one side or the other about the click fraud issue. So I don't know where you're coming from with the pro-Google thing.
[edited by: martinibuster at 7:34 pm (utc) on Aug. 14, 2006]
Or at least a googly Marissa Mayer quote ;
"The utmost thing is the user experience, to have the most useful experience."
hmmm, thanks for that Marissa.
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 7:34 pm (utc) on Aug. 14, 2006]
A percentage is assumed, like in other businesses, and anyway advertisers are not charged for invalid clicks, and reimbursed if some weren't detected in advance.
Ah, but are all the fraudulent clicks marked as invalid?
Also, the invalid click percentages seem to be low and under control, at least according to the AdWords blog (discussing a controversial third party study, etc.):
The third-party people's methodologies were wrong. However, ask people from the telecom and security industries and you will get a much different story. It's only a matter of time before a much more in-depth study is made by people who understand how the Internet works down to the wire.
Also, while PPC probably won't go away, it will be of value to advertisers (despite their protestations) to know the actual risks they face, rather than the presumed risks that G wants them to believe, in order to make even more informed ad spend choices.
That's a poor analogy, but even if it were valid, the fact remains that people buy cars. And if a car buyer doesn't like a dealer, he'll buy the car somewhere else.
Yes, but there are regulations (at least in the US) that govern the specifications put out on cars, such as miles per unit of fuel and pollutant emissions. These are factored into the cost of cars. And if you're going to argue that advertising affects no one but advertisers (who "know" how to compute ROI if they're "smart"), the price paid for advertising will rise with (undetected) click fraud, which will be passed on to customers, who will, one way or another, cause a higher demand for accountability.
It's the same with PPC ads: Advertisers who don't trust Google, Yahoo, MSN, Kanoodle, etc. can take their business elsewhere. Google isn't a public utility like the electric company, the water works, or the sewer system: Buyers have choices, including the choice of avoiding PPC entirely in favor of CPM banners, affiliate programs, or offline advertising.
While this is true, this doesn't mean these businesses won't wind up under some form of government regulation if they are unable to regulate themselves.
