• http://seo-theory.blogspot.com/ Michael Martinez

    Google has yet to indicate that they have actually investigated the technology that was developed to generate click-fraud en masse. So far, all they’ve been able to show us is that they don’t know or won’t disclose what they know about how click-management networks operate despite the fact that the technology has been described and referred to on the Internet for yeats.

    To lay this issue to rest, Google needs to show that they can detect a click-management network using a diverse set of servers at differnt NOCs, cycling through random IP addresses.

    But if they do that, then the click-managers will know that they have left a footprint and they’ll make adjustments to their technology.

    Google needs to find a better way to address advertiser concerns about click-fraud, not the least of which includes a better way of managing their AdSense network. A rising number of complaints from people who claim they did not click on their own links but were kicked out of the network for doing so implies there are either a lot of liars out there or that Google is doing worse at policing the issue than they believe.

  • http://www.traffick.com AndrewGoodman

    Hi Danny, OTOH, Google does make public the total number & percentage of detected invalid clicks, broken down by ad group. This is available manually by running a report in the reports section of the AdWords interface. I’ve seen this ranging from 10% to over 70%. The point is, those are clicks Google is saying it detected but for one reason or another did not charge you for.

    Granted, this doesn’t go the next step towards breaking down how many of the invalid clicks were deemed to be click fraud “with intent” etc., but it is something.

  • http://fantomaster.com/ fantomaster

    “Detected click fraud” and REAL click fraud may or may not be two entirely different things. Google and others could have lots of reasons to downplay the issue at hand – just as third party anti-click-fraud service providers will probably have a vested interest in blowing it up beyond proportion.

    However, all that Google currently seems to be prepared to do is to keep autoreferencing their own (arguably strongly biased) take – and yes, these are mere word games and guesses. But then, so is downsizing “perceived click fraud” down to 0.2% based on vague, eminently deniable insinuations by the one party primarily affected.

    The only viable solution to this connundrum would be to implement trusted third party check up technology and certificationl, similar to what the offline publishing business has been doing for years to support their advertising rate cards, etc.

    Anything less will only qualify for self-serving superstition …