[adwords.blogspot.com...]
Today, we’re announcing the launch of a new AdWords feature enabling advertisers to have a much more detailed picture of invalid click activity in their account. The metrics of “invalid clicks” and “invalid clicks rate” will show virtually all the invalid clicks affecting an account.These clicks are filtered in real-time by our systems before advertisers are charged for them. The resulting data will of course differ from one advertiser to the next. In addition, a much smaller number of invalid clicks may also be credited to advertisers’ accounts after-the-fact, as the result of a publisher being terminated from the AdSense program for invalid click activity. These will appear as account-level credits.
[edited by: engine at 8:24 am (utc) on July 26, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] added quote [/edit] [/edit][/1]
So do advertisers get charged for these bogus clicks? Are these filtered out before the credit card is charged? I am getting daily credits for bogus clicks so why can't Google just not charge me for those?
No. These are clicks filtered out before they ever get to the advertiser. They were simply never shown before. They were still there, the information was just not available. You do not get charged for them.
ROI is not a defense against fraud, you publishers need to quit promoting voodoo economics, if fraud was controlled by market conditions there would be no fraud laws on the books, it doesn't work in any other industry or market and doesn't work for search engines.
Of course it does. Not necessarily fraud by name, but loss by one means or another, be it bad debt that has to be written off because it's uncollectible for whatever reason, or shipping damage that's unrecoverable, or loss by other damage or theft (don't you think grocery stores figure in how much they expect to lose via shoplifting when they crunch their budget numbers?). It's a reality of business - loss happens. That's the way business works. You work towards eliminating it as best you can, but you NEVER can eliminate it entirely, so you build it into your calculations for ROI and accept that you are going to take some losses.
That doesn't mean you don't want to work towards lessening it, or that you're sanctioning fraud. It means you've got a realistic picture of how to run a business.
ROI is not a defense against fraud, you publishers need to quit promoting voodoo economics, if fraud was controlled by market conditions there would be no fraud laws on the books, it doesn't work in any other industry or market and doesn't work for search engines.
Stealing is stealing - that's why there are laws against fraud. No one's suggesting fraud is "controlled" by market conditions. I'm saying advertisers adjust their bids to acccount for fraud or other types of "invalid" clicks that go undetected.
Google is interested in maintaining the integrity of their system. If fraud were left unchecked, the bid amounts would start to approach Zero. In other words the entire system becomes worthless.
And for the record, I've been the victim of click fraud many times for thousands of dollars. I don't like it and I expect the "system" to help protect me. When it reached the point where my money all went to "fraud" (and this happens on some systems) then I just took my money elsewhere. Voodoo economics at work!
In fact, I wouldn't care right now if 95% of my clicks were "invalid" as my ROI is still excellent.
This is probably the most asinine thing I've ever heard. If you worked for me and I saw this, you'd be gone.
In any case, one can discard the hyperbole and be left with a valid point: ROI is what determines whether an advertiser is in or out.
Fact is, there are losses from theft in all kinds of businesses. Major retailers don't quit the retail business just because they can't stop all shoplifting. That doesn't mean they've given up on detecting shoplifters, however. Similarly, post offices, freight companies, and courier services lose a certain number of shipments to theft, but that doesn't mean they don't try to prevent and identify theft--or that their customers don't continue to use the mail, freight services, or overnight couriers.
Again: If you don't trust Google or other PPC services, find another way to reach prospective customers. Maybe you could use hand-delivered advertising flyers. (Oops--those might get blown away by the wind or tossed by delivery people.) Or you could try radio or TV. (Nope--there's no guarantee that the audience you're paying for isn't in the bathroom.) Newspapers might work, too. (Just don't think too hard about the Audit Bureau of Circulation's loosened standard for "paid circulation" or the recent circulation-fraud cases involving major newspapers like the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES.)
circulation-fraud cases involving major newspapers like the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES.
The execs are facing prison for knowingly propping up circulation numbers, fraud is taken seriously, they weren't in front of the judge blowing an ROI defense up his nose.
BTW, the arrested execs were from Newsday (Long Island,NY)
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 6:02 pm (utc) on July 27, 2006]
In fact, I wouldn't care right now if 95% of my clicks were "invalid" as my ROI is still excellent.
This is probably the most asinine thing I've ever heard. If you worked for me and I saw this, you'd be gone.
When my boss and I sat down to discuss this "click fraud" matter, we actually both agreed that it is irrelevant what percentage of our clicks are fraudulent/accidental. If I recall correctly, he said "Even if it's 99.9% fraud, if it's profitable, who cares?" So I was actually understating his exaggeration. ;)
So long as our ROI remains positive and better than we could achieve with other methods of advertising then we will continue to advertise with Adwords. The moment that either ceases to be true, we will reallocate our Adwords budget.
The 95% figure is hyperbole, as I can see from my own conversion statistics that the figure is nowhere near that high. But even if I ran that "invalid clicks" report today and it told me the figure was that high, I would not stop or change my advertising spend whatsoever –– because apparently it is working.
Stealing is stealing
At heart, I am actually an idealist and I hope that all fraudulent clicks can one day be prevented. However, I also hope for the day I stop getting junk email, but I'm not waiting for that day to stop using email to my benefit.
Plus, if I'm going to crusade against an advertising outlet that is falsely reporting metrics to it's advertisers then my list would start with newspapers, magazines (most, not all), Yellow Pages, Billboards, and Cable TV. The major search engine's CPC/Contextual Text Ad services would be near the bottom of the list.
The execs are facing prison for knowingly propping up circulation numbers, fraud is taken seriously, they weren't in front of the judge blowing an ROI defense up his nose.
Tht's because they and their newspapers were stealing from advertisers.
As far as I know, nobody has seriously suggested that the PPC networks are stealing from their advertisers. Crooks on the outside may be, but that's hardly the same.
But, since you defend Google so foolhardily, you'll come up with any convenient metaphor.
I'm not defending Google; I'm defending common sense, simple intelligence, and respect for the facts.
Adjustment - Click Quality
Adjustments to your account balance are itemized on the Billing Summary page, which is found under the My Account tab. If we discover that you've been charged for invalid clicks in the past two months, you'll see a credit in your Billing Summary labeled Adjustment - Click Quality. Learn more about Google's click protection strategies
Anyone else see these in their account?
Anyone else see these in their account?
Pretty much every month for all my accounts. There would appear to be several classes of invalid clicks: clicks that are never charged, clicks that are charged and then credited back (some of which happens when they boot out an adsense publisher), and clicks that (thus far) are never detected as invalid.
All-in-all, it is a very welcome feature for Google that add. The fact that they acknowledge automated problem click detection is a major breakthrough for advertisers. It's a start, and the first time G has publically shown what they can detect without extreme measures.
yah, it may be a first step, but the thing to worry about is not what google finds, it's what it doesn't find!
yah, it may be a first step, but the thing to worry about is not what google finds, it's what it doesn't find!
Its incredible that they aren't looking at other metrics but like the three card monty dealer, you'll see what he wants you to see. The click stream analysis will only catch the crudest of exploits and whats funny about that is they act like its the law to report clicks instantly, it actually hobbles any in depth analysis, sorry guys, you can take all the time you need when you are spending my money.
As far as I know, nobody has seriously suggested that the PPC networks are stealing from their advertisers. Crooks on the outside may be, but that's hardly the same.
No, but the argument has been made that a company of G's engineering talent should have realized how vulnerable PPC advertising was to click fraud. A lot of this could have been avoided with more careful engineering, documentation of existing and possible threats, etc.
Fact is, there are losses from theft in all kinds of businesses. Major retailers don't quit the retail business just because they can't stop all shoplifting. That doesn't mean they've given up on detecting shoplifters, however. Similarly, post offices, freight companies, and courier services lose a certain number of shipments to theft, but that doesn't mean they don't try to prevent and identify theft--or that their customers don't continue to use the mail, freight services, or overnight couriers.
I just hope everyone who is preaching "better ROI" continues to get it when G's costs of detecting fraud are passed on to them. The fraudsters will, undoubtedly, employ more clever means of generating fraudulent clicks.
I dont know where google got this number from as they dont show to me the details on how they got to this numbers. For all I know the numbers were drawn from a big hat. I do strongly believe that google does try to help advertisers fight click fraud in some way other. HOWEVER, I think that google overrates them selves thinking that no one is smarter then them and therefor no one can find past what ever click fraud detection program google has in place.
*****
I would like to see that google will allow for a neutral party for arbitration and log and click reviews. Any advertisers who believe that they were victim of click fraude and google not accepting any of this coulc then receive an unbiast review of the situation and the reports and logs. They could check with the records of google as well and come to a honoust and fair conclusion. I have asked google if something like this can be found. I was told no and there is no reason as the system of google is so perfect that there is no reason to get a third part involved. If they would allow for it however then I am sure many advertisers could start getting better sleep and google would show itself in a better daylight. Why play hide and seek if you have nothing to hide.
****
I just hope everyone who is preaching "better ROI" continues to get it when G's costs of detecting fraud are passed on to them. The fraudsters will, undoubtedly, employ more clever means of generating fraudulent clicks.
Sure, and Google will employ more clever means of detecting fraudulent clicks. (Google has too much at stake to roll over and play dead.)
Also, CPC is just one possible approach to ad pricing. CPM has been around far longer and is more widely accepted by mainstream advertisers. (Google is already using it for site-targeted ads on the content network.)
Finally, why get worked up over something you don't have to live with? This may seem obvious, but if you don't trust pay-per-click advertising in general and Google in particular, wouldn't it make more sense to find an alternative that you do trust?
This is completely insensitive of you. People have been burned by click fraud and new rules and I think its more then fair that they can discuss these things among each other as we have been doing here. People are upset about certain things and you come in here each time and try to pick an argument. You also say that if we dont like it or trust it then we should not use it. Thats a somewhat pediatric approach to the subject. Any comsumer of a product or service is entitled to discuss its failures or quality level.
You know as well as anyone that google has got a strangle hold on the market which does not allow for many advertisers to find alternative way to promote their site. So what should they do? Just pay, ignore the abuse and pay each day for a number of clicks that are simply bogus? Or can they continue to advertise and while doing so try to find ways to get rid of clickfraude or lousy customer service?
Finally, why get worked up over something you don't have to live with? This may seem obvious, but if you don't trust pay-per-click advertising in general and Google in particular, wouldn't it make more sense to find an alternative that you do trust?
Makes sense to me, but there isn't an alternative that will offer the kind of incredible sweetheart deals that google has offered for the last several years.
Click fraud on the second tier networks is so bad, and their distribution channels so tainted they aren't usuable, overture costs more, and MSN is in alpha (not really beta).
But the bottom line is that people are worked up because they have chosen ways of doing business that CANNOT exist without the low CPC prices and relatively high reliability of google.
They chose em. They decided. It's like building a business that's based on 1 dollar a gallon gasoline because you just happen to have this sweetheart deal to get it at that price. But when that deal goes away, you have NO options.
Bad business. Bad business people, Bad business decisions. It's sad, but then, a lot of people are maybe better off getting regular jobs if they don't have a business knack.
so now one form of fraud is more acceptable than another? i think not... many court cases over time have proven that the company taking the money is still responsible for stopping the fraud, no matter what the source.
>>>if you don't trust pay-per-click advertising in general and Google in particular, wouldn't it make more sense to find an alternative that you do trust?<<<
obviously a minority opinion, as evidenced by the hundreds of advertisers who are suing google.
google has what, only 36 people dedicated to fighting click fraud? and some of those people are engineers? compared to what they gross in sales, it sounds like nothing more than window dressing for the lawsuits.
There is no action we can take on basis of this new information.
Sure there is. Information is power. If you have a high invalid click rate, can come up with some suppositions from that?
I dont know where google got this number from as they dont show to me the details on how they got to this numbers.
See Tuzhilin's report [googleblog.blogspot.com] as a halfway decent--or at least the best primer--we have on the subject as of now.
I would like to see that google will allow for a neutral party for arbitration and log and click reviews.
Agreed. That is what is needed to dispel much of the doubt. If the IAB [iab.net] or similar would ever step up to the plate, well, seems as if they're gun shy.
So what should they do? Just pay, ignore the abuse and pay each day for a number of clicks that are simply bogus?
What are you suggesting? That advertisers continue to give money to a company they think is cheating them or ignoring fraud? And if an advertiser doesn't trust Google now, what realistic solution will make that advertiser trust Google in the future?
Constructive criticism is fair. Venting is understandable, within reason. But many of the posts on this forum show a fundamental distrust of Google, and I just don't see the upside of working with a company that you don't trust. There's gotta be a better way.
Note from a recent case with a big public company (Enron):
Judge Sim Lake has already said that he will instruct the jury that deliberate ignorance or willful blindness of fraud is no defense. His admonition sends a stern warning to businesses everywhere: what you don’t know really can hurt you, particularly if you’re supposed to know.
Assigning a few engineers to examine clicks is woefully inadequate in light of the plethora of information freely available about click rings, click bots, MFAs, customer complaints and howtos for defrauding adwords advertisers.
Google won't even recognize the word "fraud" they insist on googly terms like "invalid clicks", that may come back to bite them.
"Invalid clicks" is an umbrella term that encompasses fraudulent clicks and other types of clicks that Google doesn't think advertisers should have to pay for.
Also, "fraud" is a term with a specific legal meaning. Surely you don't think Google should credit advertisers only for clicks that are known to meet the legal definition of fraud?
[edited by: mona at 5:55 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] tidying up [/edit] [/edit][/1]
Schmidt extolled the enhanced trackability of the online pay per click advertising model versus pay per impression models, while acknowledging “smart but evil” people try to “go around system.”
LOL They know crooks are are signing up with AS and let them in anyway only later to play cat and mouse with them and make bizarre statements.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt believes there is a “perfect economic solution” to click fraud: “let it happen.”
One the other side, i havent heard anyone ask to go to google and start clicking on the ads.
They don't ask; they just do it. See Kevin Lee's column [clickz.com] at ClickZ or CNN's article [money.cnn.com] about a speech by Google's CFO concerning click fraud, which cited competitor click fraud.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt believes there is a “perfect economic solution” to click fraud: “let it happen.”
He doesn't--he made that very clear--and repeating the lie doesn't make it true.
