[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]
today we learned that a judge in arizona ruled one of the click fraud "settlements" with google as valid... despite "The deal's opponents last month submitted an affidavit to the court by Greg Hallman, a faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin, concluding that the settlement was structured in a way that would result in marketers receiving ad credits for a small fraction of the amount they overpaid.", as reported by mediapost.
obviously the ruling will be appealed, but afaik, google apparently has no intention of giving any advertisers a refund for those doubleclicks? has anyone out here ever been refunded for doubleclicks?
Sure, and Google will employ more clever means of detecting fraudulent clicks. (Google has too much at stake to roll over and play dead.)
As I wrote, the cost of improved fraud detection will be passed on to the advertisers. Let's see how this sits with the "better ROI" crowd.
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?
I feel it is important that objections to G's fraud detection methods should be made public so that people who are new to online advertising can make informed decisions. If everyone listened to only the "better ROI" crowd, they might lose money due to fraud that G didn't catch but the "better ROI" crowd was able to absorb. Not everyone has a big budget to drop on PPC advertising.
I feel it is important that objections to G's fraud detection methods should be made public
Which methods are you objecting to? Can you be specific?
Which methods are you objecting to? Can you be specific?
For starters, the "doubleclick" policy that was reversed in 2005. At the very least, I feel anyone who was billed for "doubleclicks" under the old policy should be eligible for whatever amount they would have been charged for under the new policy.
As I wrote, the cost of improved fraud detection will be passed on to the advertisers. Let's see how this sits with the "better ROI" crowd.
An excellent point, gregbo. If I understand you correctly, you suggest the possibility that the cost of 3rd party auditing and increased click tracking could end up representing a similar or greater cost than just absorbing the current levels of invalid clicks? (I'm not saying to stop current efforts, just to maintain the current level of effort.)
So, if the overhead of increased tracking adds, say, 20% to the "cost of doing business" and it turns out that only, say, 10% of all clicks are invalid then advertisers could end up paying more for the "90 good clicks" than they used to pay for the "90 good clicks and 10 worthless clicks."
Of course, someone will say "Google should just absorb that cost!" but no business operates that way (and stays in business for very long).
Sounds like more voodoo economics to me.
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 10:16 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
For starters, the "doubleclick" policy that was reversed in 2005. At the very least, I feel anyone who was billed for "doubleclicks" under the old policy should be eligible for whatever amount they would have been charged for under the new policy.
Wait a minute. Your earlier post stated:
I feel it is important that objections to G's fraud detection methods should be made public so that people who are new to online advertising can make informed decisions.
How does asking for reimbursement for clicks under an old, discarded methodology or policy help "people who are new to online advertising make informed decisions?" Wouldn't it make more sense to object to Google's current fraud-detection methods? And, since you didn't mention any specific objections to current methods, can we assume that you'd consider the issue closed if you got a refund for 'doubleclicks' under the old regime?
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 10:34 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
Now its better to pay for fraud clicks because it would be cheaper than putting in a decent detection system?Sounds like more voodoo economics to me.
There already is a decent detection system. I was only exploring the possibility raised that a dramatically better detection system might cost more than just accepting the imperfection of the status quo.
My idealism and realism is torn. I don't like paying for clicks I recognize to be worthless, but I wouldn't want to pay more to get rid of them. Obviously we'd all rather pay less for the same number of good clicks, but would any of us rather pay more for the same number of good clicks if it did come down to that?
Edited: came->come. Who cares about proper tense, really? ;)
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 10:54 pm (utc) on July 28, 2006]
For some of us here, there is a good reason to spend a lot of time and money to prevent fraud, for others, not so much. My guess is that TypicalSurfer has lost a significant sum of money to click fraud and takes this matter very personally. We need people like that to dog Google et al. because sometimes the right decision doesn't always make the most sense on the surface, but we don't need everyone to be like that.
Is Google doing enough to stop fraud? Probably not.
Should they be legally liable for the fraud? Well, if it turns out that they are overlooking some reasonable measure to prevent fraud, or that they are knowingly permitting some to profit from fraud then yes, they should be. Thing is, though, none of us here really know all the details, and we never will; we have to make the best decisions we can with the knowledge we have.
How does asking for reimbursement for clicks under an old, discarded methodology or policy help "people who are new to online advertising make informed decisions?"
Among other things, it alerts them to the fact that there may be money due them because future methodologies might reveal additional fraud.
Wouldn't it make more sense to object to Google's current fraud-detection methods?
Nothing I wrote contradicts this.
And, since you didn't mention any specific objections to current methods, can we assume that you'd consider the issue closed if you got a refund for 'doubleclicks' under the old regime?
No, I would not consider the issue closed. As I've said repeatedly, there is click fraud that can't be detected because it has been designed to look like ordinary traffic that doesn't convert. The "current methods" do not take this into account. But as a good faith measure, G could have increased its settlement, perhaps to the 14% level that ClickForensics has produced. Although I think that number is too low, I think that there is some sentiment that it's an "acceptable" level of fraud (and thus, compensation).
But as a good faith measure, G could have increased its settlement, perhaps to the 14% level that ClickForensics has produced. Although I think that number is too low...
Or maybe too high, since Click Forensics has a vested interest in presenting click fraud in the worst possible light. (Unlike the NYU professor who analyzed Google's clickfraud-detection methods; he wasn't selling anything and was retained by a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Google.)
My idealism and realism is torn. I don't like paying for clicks I recognize to be worthless, but I wouldn't want to pay more to get rid of them. Obviously we'd all rather pay less for the same number of good clicks, but would any of us rather pay more for the same number of good clicks if it did come down to that?
Good point, but I suspect that some members here would say "Let Google send a bill for the extra cost to its stockholders." :-)
You know, the more I think about this, the more I wonder if Google may not be sending a message to the kvetchers with the new "invalid clicks" and "invalid clicks rate" numbers. Maybe Google is saying: "Here are the numbers that our clickfraud team has come up with. If you trust us, we'd love to continue sending you AdWords traffic. If not, the next step is up to you."
Fact is, Google may not care if some customers (the truly discontented, the arbitrageurs on razor-thin margins, or the businesses that don't understand ROI) choose to walk. If the company feels that it's making a good-faith effort to detect fraudulent or otherwise invalid clicks, why should it bother arguing with a relatively small number of distrustful and highly vocal advertisers? Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to invest its time, resources, and employee goodwill in more productive and profitable pursuits? There's certainly no reason to believe that the majority of advertisers are headed for the doors
Good point, but I suspect that some members here would say "Let Google send a bill for the extra cost to its stockholders." :-)
G's stockholders are already worried about its capital expenditures. They're not likely to look favorably on additional expenditures that cut into profits.
and no, google can't afford to lose advertisers... they lost ivillage last year, they paid too much for aol, and there is the question of what's going to happen to all the myspace traffic that google has been getting.
there are no indications that google will be able to make significant money from anything other than search.
there are no indications that google will be able to make significant money from anything other than search.
Their AdSense revenues aren't exactly chickenfeed.
Their AdSense revenues aren't exactly chickenfeed.
It's the same revenue feed (AdWords). And if they keep lowering EPC with increased YPN and soon to be MS competition, they're going to have to cut into publisher %-age even more.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I wonder if Google may not be sending a message to the kvetchers with the new "invalid clicks" and "invalid clicks rate" numbers. Maybe Google is saying: "Here are the numbers that our clickfraud team has come up with. If you trust us, we'd love to continue sending you AdWords traffic. If not, the next step is up to you."
Is it not also possible that they are sending a message to Yahoo/Overture to provide the same information?
In the recent past Y/O has been sending absolutely garbage traffic. My current Google rate of "Invalid Clicks" is reported at between 4 & 5%. I can only wonder at what level the clicks coming from Y/O are invalid.
I'll make a bet that they will never tell us.
G$$G unleashes fraudsters into its "publisher" network knowing full well it will create a calamity, comes under fire for click fraud (doh!) and later "saves the day" by inserting random guesses into advertisers control panel telling them how much click fraud it controls!
Unfortunately, smart advertisers, law enforcement or wall street don't fall for cartoon endings or fairy tales. Googles entire revenue model is suspect and harms not only advertisers but investors and the entire web community.
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 2:13 pm (utc) on July 30, 2006]
Is it not also possible that they are sending a message to Yahoo/Overture to provide the same information?
Unless Y and the others can convince advertisers that very few of their clicks are invalid, my guess is they'll be forced to include this feature to ease advertiser concerns.
How can Yahoo or MSN supply the same "invalid click" info as Google when nobody outside of Google knows what Google is counting as an invalid click?
I suspect that Tropical Island meant the same kind of information: i.e., invalid clicks according to each network's own definition and detection scheme.
there are no indications that google will be able to make significant money from anything other than search.
There were never any indications that google was going to be able to make significant money from search either. ;)
lol! that's for sure... it sorta came out of nowhere.
these new google ventures sure haven't taken over the world like that... google announces record profits, and their stock prices just keep on dropping?
I think we can all agree that we're dealing with a flawed product here. The two choices are to leave everything the way it is or address the problem and try to fix it. I doubt Google will want to keep putting out a flawed product and wait for a competitor to come up with a better solution.
The product is still supplied on a cost per click basis and the cost of those clicks is dependant on the bid for those clicks. Advertisers will still pay whatever their bid says they should pay.
Why is there a minimum bid except to make sure their raw costs are covered? If it costs an extra nickel per click paid to the third party people, then minimum bids will go up by a nickel. That nickel will effectively "disappear" in big money clicks but it will still get passed on.
I'm surprised that some of you are saying that it will cost too much for Google to hire a third party to address this problem
Why assume that a third party would do a better job than Google can?
At any rate, it's highly unlikely that Google (or any other network of its size) would outsource something so critical, especially when refining its own processes can give it a competitive edge.
It is auditing, much like every large corp gets tax auditors, these are click auditors to ensure they are being fair. It is in Google's best interst to be lenient...
[edited by: mona at 6:02 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] tidying up [/edit] [/edit][/1]
How in the world would it cost a nickel a click
I didn't suggest it would cost a nickel. It was just the number I chose to use in my "If costs increase by 0.0x per click, then minimum bids will rise by 0.0x per click."
I could have used "0.0x" if I had thought of that before you expressed confusion about the intent of my post.
It is auditing, much like every large corp gets tax auditors, these are click auditors to ensure they are being fair.
Three letters spell the big difference between tax auditing and click auditing: I-R-S.
I don't think you'll see third-party click auditing unless all the major players get together, agree on standards, agree on an acceptable level of monitoring, and work to create an independent counterpart to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). And even if that happens, the chronically unhappy naysayers won't be satisfied--they'll just post messages on Webmaster World about how the Audit Bureau of Clicks is a front organization for the greedy, small-business-hating corporate crooks at Google, Yahoo, and MSN.
