Forum Moderators: buckworks & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google's Starts Steps For Click-Fraud Crackdown

Google is testing a new ad model to deal with fraud: cost-per-action ads

         

Demaestro

9:03 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



<article snippet>
Google is testing a new advertising model to deal with click fraud: cost-per-action ads. Advertisers don't pay unless the customer performs a certain action: buys a product, fills out a survey, whatever. It's a hard model to make work -- Google would become more of a partner in the final sale instead of an indifferent displayer of advertising -- but it's the right security response to click fraud: Change the rules of the game so that click fraud doesn't matter.
</article snippet>

[wired.com...]

Demaestro

8:43 pm on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



No one has any thoughts on this or did I miss another thread on it?

herb

8:49 pm on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Cost Per Action

[webmasterworld.com...]

bostonseo

8:50 pm on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)



Old news.

europeforvisitors

8:57 pm on Jul 26, 2006 (gmt 0)



Also, the Beta News article that the WIRED story linked to included the statement: "The new program is apparently not intended to replace the pay-per-click system; rather, it would be offered as a separate option."

luke175

1:47 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



After Google hosed all my legit (non Adsense, nonaffiliate,non-optin) Adwords campaigns...why the hell would I give them more access to my business?

I always said this recent move was to frustrate people to make them more accepting of CPA...and Google checkout.

rbacal

1:52 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)



After Google hosed all my legit (non Adsense, nonaffiliate,non-optin) Adwords campaigns...why the hell would I give them more access to my business?

I really wish people could post their urls to their sites and landing pages for all these "legit, quality" sites. I've actually seen a few of them, from a dropped link here, and some other info on other sites, and man, it's scary what people think is legit.

Anyway, the answer is that some people will give more access if it makes them money. And if it happens to be the only way some people can make money, they'll be desperate to do it.

I doubt we'd use a CPA google model, because I suspect we'd have to accept payment thru google itself, and end up making really extensive changes to our sites and the way we use/access our current payment processors.

We're watching, but not eager to jump until it has a track record.

syber

2:42 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I really wish people could post their urls to their sites and landing pages for all these "legit, quality" sites. I've actually seen a few of them, from a dropped link here, and some other info on other sites, and man, it's scary what people think is legit.

More innuendo against people who don't agree with you. Many people here have legitimate gripes about Google's business practices.

aeiouy

2:50 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



More innuendo against people who don't agree with you. Many people here have legitimate gripes about Google's business practices.

I don't know I know several people who screamed at the top of their lungs to me who told me they had quality sites only to find out they had a form demanding an e-mail address as their landing page.

I have started lumping in all this claims of quality landing pages and being screwed right up with the people who claim their were wrongfully banned from Adsense and did nothing wrong.

rbacal

3:12 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)



I don't know I know several people who screamed at the top of their lungs to me who told me they had quality sites only to find out they had a form demanding an e-mail address as their landing page.

I have started lumping in all this claims of quality landing pages and being screwed right up with the people who claim their were wrongfully banned from Adsense and did nothing wrong.

Definitely. But I'm sure we all understand that all these people are "complaining" anonymously using screen names, even.

One site that got kind of url dropped here really tickled me. Usual rant and rave complaining. Claims of great content/usefulness, etc. So I went to the site. What I found was basically a site that used a database that included names and addresses of golf courses in various places.

That's the content. 3-5 ads of various sorts on each page. No other information (oh wait, it used google maps!). No links to sites. No prices. No reviews or comments.

Now, of course, there are plenty of sites you CAN go to (which btw are in the organic search listing) that provide really good, fresh information on the topic. How this one was of use is beyond me.

BUT, I don't doubt the site owner believes his site is of great use and relevance, and great quality. But google didn't, and I certainly don't and I really doubt anyone could see how this offered anything original or different at all.

At least the guy tried to do something more than the 3 ads, and a bunch of bogus stuff.

Bottom line: Lots of webmasters out there have very low low standards for themselves, and I'm betting a lot of those folks simply don't have the ability to offer something more. I bet there are some good sites that google hit, but sheesh, some of this stuff is just gawdawful, and pointless.

rbacal

3:17 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)



Many people here have legitimate gripes about Google's business practices.

No doubt. I wish someone could set something up so that the complainers could voluntarily uncloak from their anonymity, and have people actually SEE their sites, and the quality they have.

In my view, if I wanted to make a really strong case against google on this issue, I'd want people to see my site, my landing pages and even my ad text, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that google has screwed up royally.

I know it can't be done here. But I'd just LOVE to see all these nifty keen, hugely valuable sites, if only to reassure myself that the gripes are indeed justified.

tchale

5:57 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My only foray into PPA was pay-per-call. Miva, Ingenio, Verizon. Didn't work for me or clients. Although we didn't give it much of a chance. But dealing with Verizon, nightmarish, Kafka must be the CEO. Give me my Google PPC, PFC, PPA, whatever.

-Tom

luke175

7:59 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



A PR5 ecommerce site, no opt-in on the landing page, no adsense, no affiliate links, full privacy policy, contact info, blog, forum, etc.

That's the most I can say I guess. Spent 100k on Adwords, now $10 bids. Rep told me to bid more, no manual review.

I will NOT do CPA in any way.

Tropical Island

11:19 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I know it can't be done here. But I'd just LOVE to see all these nifty keen, hugely valuable sites, if only to reassure myself that the gripes are indeed justified.

It can easily be done. Just post your url in your profile.

rbacal

2:46 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)



It can easily be done. Just post your url in your profile

when i look at people's profiles I don't see any url's. Anyone know why?

netmeg

2:55 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Because they don't choose to post them, obviously. My thoughts on the subject of the so-called "quality sites" are pretty much in line with yours.

europeforvisitors

3:01 pm on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)



Some are new or junior members who can't display URLs in their profiles.

And, of course, some may be old members pretending to be new or junior members. :-)