-----------------------------------------------------------------
SearchReturn Discussion List
"Understanding Internet Search Technology"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Published by:
Disa Johnson SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
September 26, 2006 SearchReturn Issue #094
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEND POSTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Refer a friend: http://www.searchreturn.com/subscribe.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
// -- ESSENTIAL NEWS -- //
"Paid To Read On FBI's Radar"
"Google Chicago Tribune Story Continues"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- ESSENTIAL NEWS -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> Paid To Read On FBI's Radar
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_40/b4003001.htm
Essentials: Even though they decline to prosecute, and no laws
may actually be broken, Paid To Read (PTR) gangs of clickers now
appear on the FBI's radar. It may be usage of the word "fraud" in
click fraud that got their attention. Even purveyors of more
traditional click fraud exploits are getting worried. One Russian
programmer that sells a clickbot application even quipped "You
aren't going to send the FBI to me, are you?" after admitting the
primary use of his clickbot is to cheat advertisers.
The problem originated with search engines that seem to be
overzealous in distributing their ads so widely across parked
domains and other low quality scraper sites. The shame is that
distributing ads to these sites fuels the fraud uncontrollably,
when the engines could simply exercise more caution with whom
they choose for distributing their ads.
No one can stop click fraud from happening altogether. Anonymous
browsing, and the anonymous proxies that enable it, is one of the
fundamental ways to click ads and go undetected. If your purpose
is to earn money with PTR, and you're careful enough, then you
can do so successfully and never get caught. The thing is, there
will always be anonymous browsing.
The search engines could choose to not charge click costs from
users that visit through anonymous proxies or refuse cookies.
They won't. In the meantime they are making a mint. They cannot
possibly detect even the most basic anonymous browsing from
competitor fraud, let alone sophisticated methods that deploy PTR
gangs and a recipe that can make them impossible to detect. It's
not as if the search engines aren't aware what they can do.
Briefly, Google blocked Tor, a peer-to-peer anonymizer, but that
only lasted hours or days. There's too much advertiser money at
stake.
The search engines also count on the fact that you aren't going
to spend the time to go through the trouble of finding bad clicks
on your own. You would have to spend the time to successfully
argue for a refund too. With stories like this one from
BusinessWeek, cases where the search engine's meager refunds were
awarded, their flimsy explanation that they didn't charge for the
majority of the fraud in the first place is disingenuous, and the
whole thing seems pointless for all that energy expended. People
have begun to consider it just an unfortunate cost of doing
business.
The problem is the search engines won't reveal any real details
at all. It is true they can't and shouldn't. Sure, you can get a
column of clicks from Google they say were delivered and not
charged against your account. But in fact, all that really does
is allow Google to argue a smaller payout for you is appropriate
after their "investigation." It proves they recorded clicks and
did not charge you, but the real details remain hidden by Google
so they can tell you what they want.
Hence the quagmire for advertisers that is favorable for the
engines. The only defense an advertiser has is planning budget
limits after a seasoned account has built up some obvious norms
for you. If you have some runaway keywords, (ones you want to
appear every time a search is conducted), watch them carefully
for fraud spikes. Don't count on the FBI to do anything about
click fraud. The activity does not appear to be illegal at this
time.
Your only legal recourse today might be civil court. For the most
part though, those matters have largely been resolved by the
search engines already. Their settlements for the past are in.
There is little you can do but be vigilant about fraud moving
forward. Be sure to consider supporting measures by Washington
that can address the issue, the same way spam legislation has
sent some spammers to jail. Then the FBI will not only take
notice, but perhaps take action as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> Google Chicago Tribune Story Continues
...As read in the Chicago Tribune
Essentials: The second installment of the detailed story covering
Google, including a sidebar on Matt Cutts, does a better job for
describing search engines and how they work through an
examination of Google. The first in the series seemed to the veer
off course with too much time wasted on YouTube. Thursday's part
was far more in depth, and started with where Google's real
competition is.
During the Katrina disaster last year, the story relates how
initially users found better and timely information at Yahoo!
while Google served its normal results (which were inadequate at
the time). What's more, Google failed against Yahoo! again this
year for a query on the tropical storm Alberto.
One interesting thing that appears, are the voices of Jan
Pedersen and Steve Berkowitz, who mention that while Google's
index may have increased in size to outclass other search
engines, this in no way makes Google necessarily superior.
For finding highly obscure documents, a larger index that
includes such documents can be superior only to those that
search them.
The idea of "perceived comprehensiveness" is cited by Jan while
defending the quality of smaller indexes such as Yahoo!'s, where
the results can satisfy just about as many queries as Google.
Only the most esoteric queries go unanswered by Yahoo! or Ask
where Google may have something.
There were diagrams showing spiders on a globe depicting how
Google gathers content, indexes and ranks content. There were a
few mentions of the algorithm being Google's special sauce and
highly guarded company secret. Of course there is nothing truly
secret about the way any of the search engines order their
results, as the last quote from Ashok Chandra (GM of Microsoft
Search Labs) clearly states: "In this game, there is no 'secret
sauce,' there is just sauce."
How true.
Finally, the image of Matt Cutts appears, spreading his hands (as
if relating the measurement of a spammy fish that he caught last
summer). The article mentions Matt's history as a Defense
Department intern, and described him as wielding control over
what they say Webmasters call the "Google death penalty," going
on to describe the brief BMW fiasco.
Matt says the action taken by Google was one way to advocate for
users. He mentions the company wants people to enjoy Google the
same way people enjoy and develop good feelings about companies
like Apple and TiVo. He describes it as if Google is determined
to capitalize on their popularity among fans, much like Apple and
TiVo do with their fans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Tuned.
Got feedback?: http://www.searchreturn.com/feedback.shtml
Archives: http://www.searchreturn.com/digest-archive.shtml
Alternate formats:
http://www.searchreturn.com/info-formats.shtml
Manage Subscriptions:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/manage-subs.shtml
Problems unsubscribing? Contact the postmaster:
mailto:postmaster@searchreturn.com
Information on how to sponsor this publication:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/advertise.shtml
Published by SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
Website Membership:
http://www.searchreturn.com/register.shtml
The contents of the digest do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of SearchReturn or Disa Johnson. SearchReturn and
Disa Johnson make no warranties, either expressed or implied,
about the truth or accuracy of the contents of the SearchReturn
Digest.
Copyright 2006 Disa Johnson. All Rights Reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------