sebastian
08-03-2004, 01:52 PM
i am interested to know what webmasters are doing to circumvent click-fraud. these "article writers" all have the same answers but in the real day-to-day, i find these resolutions imposible.
ideas?
In response to: http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3387581
-------------------------
the answers from the "SEO professional" writers is always the same : "mill your logs as diligently as possible and discover click-fraud and demand refunds."
in my opinion, these solutions are obviously coming from someone NOT living in the trenches of dotcom. here's why:
1) it takes good skill and expensive software to mine the logs 'correctly'. moreover, the time involved in this activity is tremendous. coupled with the high costs of PPC and management of such, this "log milling" creates more expensive and opportunity cost loss. if you are a "high volume" site as we are, all factors become multiplied significantly.
2) the above also can only work in situations where the same person, from the same IP or domain is banging you consistently. any other "patterns" would not be enough to create a case for click-fraud. the real problem drivers are going to be waaay smarter than this. they will utilize IP-spoofing techniques, multiple networks of people and machines across the globe. for this to be a "money-maker" for them as they pay people to click ads, they will be absolutely diligent about utilizing all the "faults" of the TCP/IP based internet infrastructure.
3) have you ever dealt with the engines as a customer? we are platinum customers with google and 'premium' paid inclusion customers with yahoo; and we still get horrible service. you can never speak to anyone technical enough to understand what you are saying regarding log files anyway. it's usually some young phone jockey who is only the first step in the long climb to a knowledgeable individual. after explaining your 'log information' to the 10th person you might actually get someone who can assist, but again you've burned up hours of valuable time and as soon as you hang up, you may or may not actually get the refund ...and the process starts all over again.
4) the engines make money off of click fraud and are apprehensive about discussing it in any manner. read the articles ...including yours jessie, the overture "response" ...the google "response" is all lip-service carefully crafted by the attorneys so as to not accept nor project any guilt regarding the subject. their responses aren't helpful nor insightful. just 'fluff'.
the engines should implement a "pay per acquisition" model. this method is far more beneficial to the advertiser as the cost paid to the engines is only incurred if a "sale" is made. the amount of click fraud would immediately bottom-out.
i truly believe the engines are well aware of click fraud and the amount of money they make from it. publicly, they may commit to fighting it, but behind closed doors, managers need to show numbers and if click-fraud increases numbers, top priorities will not be set forth to combat it. it's basic human, and moreso, basic and common corporate behavior.
there is an answer : pay per acquisition. that's the answer. but the engines won't make that "ambiguous' money with that so it's not something they are interested in entertaining.
ideas?
In response to: http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3387581
-------------------------
the answers from the "SEO professional" writers is always the same : "mill your logs as diligently as possible and discover click-fraud and demand refunds."
in my opinion, these solutions are obviously coming from someone NOT living in the trenches of dotcom. here's why:
1) it takes good skill and expensive software to mine the logs 'correctly'. moreover, the time involved in this activity is tremendous. coupled with the high costs of PPC and management of such, this "log milling" creates more expensive and opportunity cost loss. if you are a "high volume" site as we are, all factors become multiplied significantly.
2) the above also can only work in situations where the same person, from the same IP or domain is banging you consistently. any other "patterns" would not be enough to create a case for click-fraud. the real problem drivers are going to be waaay smarter than this. they will utilize IP-spoofing techniques, multiple networks of people and machines across the globe. for this to be a "money-maker" for them as they pay people to click ads, they will be absolutely diligent about utilizing all the "faults" of the TCP/IP based internet infrastructure.
3) have you ever dealt with the engines as a customer? we are platinum customers with google and 'premium' paid inclusion customers with yahoo; and we still get horrible service. you can never speak to anyone technical enough to understand what you are saying regarding log files anyway. it's usually some young phone jockey who is only the first step in the long climb to a knowledgeable individual. after explaining your 'log information' to the 10th person you might actually get someone who can assist, but again you've burned up hours of valuable time and as soon as you hang up, you may or may not actually get the refund ...and the process starts all over again.
4) the engines make money off of click fraud and are apprehensive about discussing it in any manner. read the articles ...including yours jessie, the overture "response" ...the google "response" is all lip-service carefully crafted by the attorneys so as to not accept nor project any guilt regarding the subject. their responses aren't helpful nor insightful. just 'fluff'.
the engines should implement a "pay per acquisition" model. this method is far more beneficial to the advertiser as the cost paid to the engines is only incurred if a "sale" is made. the amount of click fraud would immediately bottom-out.
i truly believe the engines are well aware of click fraud and the amount of money they make from it. publicly, they may commit to fighting it, but behind closed doors, managers need to show numbers and if click-fraud increases numbers, top priorities will not be set forth to combat it. it's basic human, and moreso, basic and common corporate behavior.
there is an answer : pay per acquisition. that's the answer. but the engines won't make that "ambiguous' money with that so it's not something they are interested in entertaining.