Google files a lawsuit Attempting To Define Click Fraud

[blairsp]

Its reported on one of the other forums that G have initiated court proceedings against a publisher for artifically increasing their click throughs - no url of course (this rule can work against a forum some times!). Anyone know anything? Even a name of a publication

[europeforvisitors]

If someone comes to my site from an SE they typed in a term relavant to my ads.

Advertisers aren't interested in people who click on an ad because they can't find useful information on a page--they want legitimate leads.

[ogletree]

My affiliates are happy. The people that go there and sign up for their services are happy. How is that a problem.

[Never_again]

How is that a problem.

Easy, by your own admission, and I quote, "My pages are worthless..." so you are scamming the system by creating a site that you have no intention of providing any useful information on. Only one conclusion can be drawn, you created the site specifically for the purpose of showing AdSense ads which is strictly prohibited by the TOS.

[ogletree]

Not this again. I have emails from adsense saying my sites are fine. They have been hand reviewed. They really are not that picky. But I will stop this conversation this thread is about cheats and I am not a cheat. This forum is for people like you and me. It is for anyone on the web. There were talks at pubcon on how to do what I do.

[ogletree]

I meant conversion rate I do affiliate ads as well.

[Buzliteyear]

There are more articles on this. Looks like G is doing major PR on this.

I especially like the quote... "While no one is certain of how much money is generated fraudulently, some executives in the industry estimate losses account for 5 percent to 20 percent of total sales. Some suspect the problem is growing, too, as Google, Overture and others syndicate their ads to small or international publishers that can be hard to police."

[edited by: Jenstar at 7:48 am (utc) on Nov. 24, 2004]
[edit reason] Sorry, no links to non-authority sites [/edit]

[hyperkik]

ogletree, you brought this about by casting slurs against ethical publishers and the value of their impressions - slurs you now admit were not backed by any data - while having no credibility due to your status as an unabashed, unapologetic spammer, polluting the Internet with garbage sites.

You probably do have letters from Google saying that your sites meet their minimum criteria for AdSense, following your corrective actions in response to the "excessive keywording" warnings you received. That makes me wonder about whether Google has a viable long-term strategy for AdSense. Beyond that, my opinion of your sites is no lower than yours, so I'm not sure why you are so defensive.

[europeforvisitors]

You probably do have letters from Google saying that your sites meet their minimum criteria for AdSense, following your corrective actions in response to the "excessive keywording" warnings you received.

On the Google News forum, he's talked about his banned sites, so maybe Google Search standards are less forgiving than those of the AdSense network. :-)

[loanuniverse]

I can't blame anyone for trying to make money as long as it is legal.

As a publisher interested in the long term viability of the program my problem is with Google.

[diamondgrl]

It's time for some people on the Web to learn basic business ethics.

There are many many business practices that are not technically illegal but nonetheless do great damage, whether by polluting the world, causing ethnic strife and war, preying on the innocent and trick them out of their money, etc.

You can either stand for ethical business practices or not. Ogletree happens to be one of those who doesn't, in this case by polluting the internet with garbage and wasting all of our time, and I don't think we should rationalize his behavior by saying that technically it's legal so therefore that makes it okay.

[loanuniverse]

Diamondgrl:

I usually stay away from trying to impose my values on other people.

If anything, I would try to influence Google to tighten its standards, because I think that they are both filling the net with useless junk and diminish the value of the program in the eyes of a substantial number of advertisers.

These publishers can claim all they want that advertisers are happy about placing their ads on these pages.... I am not buying that argument.

[hfwd]

Worthless content yet high-clickthrough sites aside

No argument that the click-fraud ring should be persecuted, right?

[ogletree]

From conventions and reading posts here I think we all agree that breaking the law is bad. Fraud and cheating the system is bad. We all hate email spammers and people that use tons of popups or try to get their site to show up for off topic searches. I don't think this should go into ethics or who is wrong and who is right. I don't force Google to put my pages in. I put my sites up on the net and G decides they should show it. I don't submit to Google. As far as AS goes it is the lazy way to get money. You can make a lot more with affiliates you just have to put work into it. The only thing I have said aginst other sites are that they are going after unrelated traffic. Also what is wrong with my sites showing up in searches that would normaly not show any results or very few. Most of my traffic comes from searches that show less than 1000 results.

[wonderboy]

Ogle, I would much prefer to go to a site I was looking for from SE than having to go to your site first, only to find out its another of these crappy sites with misleading titles and description...

You don't just put your pages on net and Google magically places you in top of RPs, you must have optimised the crappy template to the best of your knowledge to scam as many people as possible.

Really hate sites like yours, get me worked up every time I see them.

W.

[ken_b]

Click fraud and site quality are two very different issues.

This thread was originally about click fraud.

If Google can fight click fraud in court, or by other means, and win, it's good for them, good for advertisers, and good for honest publishers.

[Never_again]

It's time for some people on the Web to learn basic business ethics.

There are many many business practices that are not technically illegal but nonetheless do great damage, whether by polluting the world, causing ethnic strife and war, preying on the innocent and trick them out of their money, etc.

Right on target diamondgrl.

[Visi]

Umm...I think the point has been made that ogle is working within the system. Others have pointed out that unless Google wants to change the system he is not doing anything against the existing TOS.

He/she should be praised for inititive in finding a way to make money, not chastised for doing it. There are many approaches and although you may not agree with all of them, you do have to recognize it is up to Google as the generator of ads to determine acceptance.

Now can we move this back to the thread topic which I believe was Google filing against a company for clicks not generated in the proper manner. See site has been taken down now?

[hyperkik]

Nonsense. All spammers should be criticized, let alone unapologetic, profiteering spammers. If they wish to pollute the web with garbage, well-justified criticism is the very *least* of what they deserve.