• RainboRick

    Two things always strike me about studies of click fraud: (1) there’s no common definition of what constitutes a fraudulent click, and (2) the studies are always conducted by someone with a vested interest in the results. With no standards for methodologies and no independent investigations, it’s not surprising that there’s so much acrimony and suspicion among advertisers.

  • http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ Matt Cutts

    AP called it a handful of advertisers; does anyone know how many it was, or the selection criteria for the advertisers?

    Just curious..

  • http://www.seroundtable.com rustybrick

    Waiting to find all this information out…

    “Until we see the actual report, it’s hard to compare. More to come later, when we have more information.”

  • http://gregbo.livejournal.com/ CPCcurmudgeon

    One reason the effects of click fraud are masked is because of the great ROI some advertisers are getting when comparisons are made to media they formerly advertised on, such as print or broadcast. There are numerous examples of advertisers who don’t bother to check for fraud because they don’t have time, or aren’t worried because they are getting good enough ROI. I think as time goes on, and comparisons are made to past Internet advertising spend, there will be more challenges that clicks are fraudulent.

    As a thought experiment, consider what would happen if this technology was used for a critical vote (e.g. a US President) instead of advertising. How confident would we be that the amount of fraud is negligible?