I have a very hard time swallowing this:
..."click fraud" could still prove to be a major challenge for Internet giants such as Google Inc., which make their money through search advertising. The concern that people fraudulently click on sites to drive up a competitor's ad costs or to boost their own ad revenue was one of the potential pitfalls cited in a published report over the weekend. [Ed.'s subliminal message: PUNT THE CHEESE] Google shares fell 4.6 per cent yesterday after Barron's warned that its stock could be overvalued because of click fraud, ad pricing pressures and heightened competition.So...you set up a system that is measured by an innocuous activity like having surfers of the web clicking through from one page to another and then you penalize someone for doing it too much? What is that about? [Ed. again: no really...PUNT THE CHEESE!] It is not like there are armies of third world clicker throughers out there...is there? Is it just that people realize that by encouraging others to do exactly the activity company X tells its clients they will encourage, driving traffic to their websites."The whole idea of fraudulent clicks really relies on the premise that you have a competitor out there that is trying to suck up your ad budget," said Nick Barbuto, who buys Internet advertising for clients at Cossette Media.
So what if it is false bubbly economics based on no real production? [Ed.: Foot? Cheese? KICK!] Isn't that the real issue? That by doing a certain unproductive activity that somehow valuation is ascribed and two cheques are cut, one to BigCo and one to little guy? What do you think? Is it really "fraud"? How can it be fraud when it is indecernable from successful use of the system?
Comments
'nee - February 14, 2006 10:28 am
I do! Ok, that's not true. But I do click on an ad or two if I like the site, even if I'd never buy whatever it is they're selling.
'nee - February 14, 2006 10:31 am
Why is my foot twitching?
David Janes - February 14, 2006 4:25 pm
Loose ends, nothing much to do with this topic -- I just wanted to bitch some somewhere:
(1)
Google only gives the immediate context around a search phrase in its book search, unless given permission from the authors or the book is in the public domain. Source.
(2)
The Greatest Health Care System in the World™ let my Dad down again -- they only ordered one new knee, when the operation tomorrow is for two. If only we could have a more centralized system, where the right information flowed to the right people running the right spreadsheets, this problem could have been avoided!
Alan - February 14, 2006 4:34 pm
Sorry to hear that - what a mess.
Arthur - February 14, 2006 5:13 pm
where the right information flowed to the right people running the right spreadsheets, this problem could have been avoided!
They need me!
David Janes - February 14, 2006 5:34 pm
Thanks, Al. I'm just shaking my head.
Arthur: are you a spreadsheet guy? I have a picture in my head now of Martin Prince waiting for his career analysis results with his fingers crossed saying under his breath "systems analyist, systems analyist".
Now that I think of it, it's even funnier because I don't think that position exists in any companies anymore, does it?
simone brunozzi - February 17, 2006 4:53 pm
Well, here you can find a (maybe) interesting article about adwords’ click fraud elimination:
http://www.golan.it/how-to-save-google.php
Cheers,
Alan - March 27, 2006 8:00 pm
Here is an interesting article in <i>Wired</i> noting that one problem with click fraud is rival advertisers racking up the charges for the customers of others. It is very odd that a "new economic" harm like this is presented in such a sympathetic light when other econoic harms like theft of copyrighted property would be greeted with contempt by <i>Wired</i>'s usual editorial policy.