Nickname: J

Review: Don'f forget about the smaller advertisers out there. Click fraud is making advertising on SEs less attractive to those who are not part of an affiliate network; the guys with much larger budgets. If these guys are all SEs are interested in, then there's probably very little hope for the rest of us. Currently SEs are benefiting from click fraud, so don't expect too much action. The problem will be discussed for a long time still.

Date reviewed: Aug 4, 2006 9:40 AM

Nickname: DJ Peace

Review: Compared to "old" forms of advertising, click fraud should not be much of an issue. I pay for magazine ads with no guarantee of a target prospect contacting me, but with Internet marketing you will typically get "serious" inquiries. Even if someone is "just curious," they still have an interest that may turn into business down the line. Perhaps I should sue the wedding magazines that promise a certain circulation but fall short of that number, or they put them in outlets that have little to no benefit. It seems to me that once an IP address registers as "a click" there would be no more charges when that same IP address clicks again, or again. Bottom line: advertisers know that there is going to be a percentage of non-business interest. As long as they are making money, the lawsuits should cease.

Date reviewed: Jul 31, 2006 9:47 PM

Nickname: Bob

Review: AdWords is auction-based, so if more click fraud is detected, competitors will raise bids. AdWords allows you to calculate your cost per action, so if that is too high, just drop your bid until your cost of action is inline.

Date reviewed: Jul 31, 2006 8:45 PM

Nickname: SEC

Review: I know that the CPA model is one that a lot of people like, but the fraud will just shift from fake clicks to fake actions. You'll be paying the fraudulent charges any way you look at it--only Google will probably build in cost to be monitoring your "actions." As for Google acknowledging fraud, they've done it for a while. They've just done a weak job of crediting for it (but not as weak as others).

Date reviewed: Jul 31, 2006 3:42 PM

Nickname: SEM_Expert

Review: Google needs to understand that their data about monthly clicks does not catch with third parties data, and in some case when the gap is more than 57% with 2 auditing companies vs. Google you can wonder if click fraud is not underestimated.

Date reviewed: Jul 27, 2006 10:33 PM

Nickname: Losing Money?

Review: The companies advertising through Google invest a certain amount of money into their web marketing. The amount of money this generates is generally considered in multiples of what they put in, so $1 invested might make $2 or $10 or more in return. Click fraud reduces this, but if they weren't still making money hand over fist, they'd leave. So they made $9.90 for every $1 they put in instead of $10... they sue the people who made that possible?

Date reviewed: Jul 27, 2006 6:16 PM

Nickname: Steve

Review: It seems obvious to me that the solution to click fraud is ultimatly a pay-per-action model. In such a model, adwords would become a predictable cost of doing business.

Date reviewed: Jul 27, 2006 5:52 PM

Nickname: Alex

Review: One thing Google understands is timing. This development comes on the eve of an anticipated ruling on the click fraud suit in Arkansas. Good to see that Google finally (publicly) understands that 1) fraud exists and 2) advertisers are aware of #1. This 11th-hour conversion is a bit too convenient to be taken at face value and it doesn't exactly fix the problem; it just acknowledges the obvious.

Date reviewed: Jul 27, 2006 5:03 PM

Nickname: Roman Geyzer

Review: I find it curious that Google is being demonized as if they are creating or perpetuating click fraud. In fact, by releasing this system they are proving to be the most proactive of the search engines at combating click-fraud. This isn't just about making advertisers "feel good." When advertisers have more information about possible click fraud, they are better armed to inform Google of other potential fraud so that the information feeds forward and backwards. Unfortunately, click-fraud is a part of doing business online but the reality is that if advertisers felt they weren't getting sufficient ROI from their AdWords campaigns, they would have left Google already.

Date reviewed: Jul 27, 2006 4:41 PM

Nickname: magic hat

Review: While click fraud is a problem, it's the advertisers' own fault for advertising with Google in the first place. If they don't think Google is doing enough, then stop advertising with Google. It's that simple. And Google is correct that if they tell the world how the plan to protect against click fraud, then more complicated click fraud schemes will arise. I think it should just be accepted that 10-15% of clicks are going to be fraudulent. I don't really see a way to effectively diminish that percentage.

Date reviewed: Jul 27, 2006 4:15 PM