Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: werty
Click quality is a challenging area, and Microsoft is working hard to address all aspects of this issue. Click quality reports are a small innovation that is designed to help give advertisers more visibility into this area.
Low-quality clicks are clicks that adCenter classifies as non-billable, including those that adCenter has identified as:
Invalid clicks Clicks that have characteristics of low or unclear commercial intent Clicks that exhibit patterns of unusual activity Clicks that originate from spiders, robots, questionable sources, or test servers Clicks that should be filtered out for other reasons
If they'd make their criteria public and clear webmasters could ensure it doesn't happen
I think you may be looking at that from a publisher perspective. This is in the Adcenter interface, not any kind of ad partner interface. Microsoft's traffic is almost all its own at the moment.
wide brushIt will be interesting to see - for the first time - an engine reporting what percentage of its clicks they effectively send to the scrap heap. there have been some reports from Yahoo on the percentage of clicks they invalidate, but only across the whole network, not on a per site basis - so from that pov it's a whole lot less broad brush than anything else out there.
In addition - I don't see how you can easily graph or chart low quality by reason. With spam filters on emails, there is usually a series of factors that get measured that finally trigger an email as "spam", but graphing or tabling all the reasons? - what purpose would that serve? If a click is 1) a "double clicker" and 2) on a proxy IP number and 3) using an unidentifiable browser, which "box" would you put the click into? or would you start over reporting your unchargeable clicks?
I think it's a big step and time to see if the others follow suit. Microsoft makes big claims about their traffic quality compared to the others and they seem to be wanting to put clear daylight between themsleves and the others on this issue.
(I still want volume though!)
[edited by: Receptional at 10:36 am (utc) on July 9, 2007]