April 10, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

Google settlement or not, click fraud won't go away

(continued from previous page)

But critics say the settlement doesn't really address the core problem.

"Unfortunately, the settlement doesn't appear to resolve the basic question of what constitutes click fraud and when search engines are on the hook for it," Eric Goldman, assistant professor of law at Marquette University Law School, says on his blog. "On that front, Google still will have an advertiser relations issue that needs further attention."

While the lawsuit would cover all advertisers who claim Google owes them refunds for fraudulent clicks, experts can only speculate as to what effect the settlement would have on another click fraud lawsuit against Google, filed in federal court in northern California, whose lead plaintiff is Web hosting firm AIT (Advanced Information Technology).

"Ninety-million dollars is chump change where the issue of fraud is concerned, particularly when the settlement is 'advertising credits,'" AIT spokesman Alex Lekas wrote in an e-mail. "It is almost comical how the resolution to the problem is to simply offer up more of the conduit to the problem."

Advertisers who are demanding auditing and certification for clicks on display and banner ads will eventually demand it for clicks on pay-per-click ads too, said Greg Stuart, chief executive of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), a trade association for the online advertisers. (CNET, publisher of News.com, is a member of IAB.)

The ad network leaders are, by most accounts, trying to offer their own solution. Google and Yahoo say they already employ several layers of filters to detect patterns that could signal invalid click activity and to determine the source of dubious clicks, looking at things like browser type, time of click and Internet Protocol address, which signals whether the click is coming from the same computer over and over.

Google also says it takes action to curb click fraud on its partner publisher Web sites that display ads for money. "We terminate publishers from our partner network on a daily basis as a result of invalid (click) activity," said Ghosemajumder.

But the ad networks say they also need advertisers' help in curbing the problem.

"There is a common misperception that search engines have all the data they need to make authoritative decisions about clicks," said John Slade, senior director of product management in charge of click protection at Yahoo. "There is data we don't have access to unless the advertiser gives it to us; data in their logs, like how long did a particular visitor stay on a site, or how many pages did a particular visitor view."

The problem only gets more vexing. In a new twist, Harvard University graduate student Ben Edelman issued a report last week that includes video and log data he says shows that Yahoo has inadvertently allowed spyware companies into its pay-per-click food chain, costing advertisers even more in click fraud costs. Yahoo said in a statement that it is investigating the claims.

For some, "black magic"--a term for click fraud in the late 1990s--is just a cost of doing business in an evolving digital world. But for those who aren't so willing to dismiss the issue as that, Michael Caruso, founder of click audit firm Clickfacts, asks: "Who can afford to lose 25 cents on the dollar?"

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
click fraud, advertiser, settlement, online advertising, Internet search advertising

5 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Akin to magazine circulation fraud
Lot of parallels here with why the <a href="http://www.memwg.com/blog/adsense/Click-fraud-akin-to-inflated-magazine-circulation.html">Audit Bureau of Circulations</a> was created. Google and Yahoo will resist exposing any of their data, but if forced to they may try a self-regulated route like the ABC.
Posted by Eric Giguere (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's been over ten years ...
There has been click, impression, and other types of Internet ad-related fraud for over ten years now. I think it is time that the method of charging per click, or "impression" (ad requested from web server or rendered in web browser) is closely examined. IMO, the anonymous nature of Internet use makes it difficult to construct strong tracking mechanisms that will reliably and robustly identify and reduce click fraud.
Posted by CPCcurmudgeon (51 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So what's the problem?
&gt;&gt;&gt;A lack of clear standards for determining what is a fraudulent click, or some sort of third-party clearinghouse to monitor the situation, means some advertisers believe they can't do much more than head to the courts when they think there's a problem.&lt;&lt;&lt;

With all of the millions of lawyers we have in the US today... you mean to tell me that there isn't even ONE who can define fraudlent click?

ALL non-validatable clicks (validatable via VeriSign or some other credible source) ARE invalid.

Require them to validate clicks using irrefutable means and that will solve the problem.

So what's the problem?

Walt
Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Click fraud services
With something like www.clickprotector.com you can nail offenders and get your money back!
Posted by kintax (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Click fraud services
With something like www.clickprotector.com you can nail offenders and get your money back! I use it on two of my sites, and while i havent found any fraud yet, it's kinda like good piece of mind to know that there's a service that is watchdogging your clicks. now what to do about impression fraud... lol
Posted by kintax (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.