-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: About That Fake Post
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #098
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://ejohn.org/files/google-call.gif
Essentials: Google had only just posted on how they highly regard security issues and keep the bad guys out of their system. A Google Blogger software bug allowed a fake entry to publish at the Official Google Blog directly afterwards. The posting pretended to announce the canceling of Google's Click-to-Call service, mentioning (in part) eBay as the reason. This shows a how a user can access Blogger and post as though they were a real Googler, for the time being effectively allowing a bad person in. The post was promptly removed (but not until after screen shots).
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: W3C Meta Nofollow With Link Text Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #095
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060927-074214
Essentials: Danny points to a John Battelle interview with Matt Cutts where Matt says the W3C's use of Meta nofollow and not the hypertext (link) nofollow attribute, is perfectly acceptable. The only difference between the two is that the Meta container would be page-wide instructions, and Matt's nofollow attribute would be for the specific links where it appears.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Paid To Read On FBI's Radar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #095
"The only defense is planned budget limits after a seasoned account has built up some obvious norms for you."
From: Chris Nielsen <christian@nielsentech.com>
Google is already starting to address this with their Site Targeted option. I expect them to move to that system for all of their content networks, or at least those that are questionable. The bigger partners shouldn't need to use fraud.
The answer is simple. Just remove the process by which fraud is committed. Once we have flat-rate advertising, the only way to use fraud is to generate bogus duplicate impressions. Impressions without conversions (real conversions) will cause the advertiser to drop the site. A side benefit of this for publishers should be more consistent income levels.
Thanks,
Chris Nielsen
http:/www.DomainIncubation.com
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Paid To Read On FBI's Radar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #094
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_40/b4003001.htm
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.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Google Blocking Proxies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #090
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060908-080437
Essentials: In the effort to thwart those who would use anonymous proxies to harm Google by sending automated requests that perform things Google doesn't like, the search engine at times will block access via the proxy. These affect searchers who are hyper vigilant about privacy, and has even affected the popular Tor service. Google makes some accommodations for the privacy concerned, using CAPTCHA and requiring cookies that last at least for the session.
Anonymous proxies are the main conduit through with click fraud and ranking systems operate that send massive numbers of queries to search engines. These queries are harmful in that they serve no real purpose for the search engine, and cost them greatly in terms of handling the requests. Blocking anonymous proxies outright would be throwing away the baby with the bathwater, since many individuals use anonymous proxies for actual search.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Links For Sale At Washington Post
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #085
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060818-093102
Essentials: The Washington Post started a paid directory of blogs that gets you an excellent link from the major newspaper. There is some suggestion that the Javascript onclick attribute does not count as a link for it is the real destination, the href reference would in fact pass PageRank initially.
Google's Matt Cutts has said the onclick would be suspicious, and they would quickly diminish or remove the ability for the links to pass PageRank, although apparently there is no current logic in the algorithm that verifies onclick as the same destination as href. Matt mentioned the new links are already dealt with at Google.
Although selling directory appearances would never have been assumed to be spam in the past, it is the perfect case which shows how Google and link analysis changed the Web - for the worse. The first firms to purchase links include businesses such as online casinos. It would make perfect sense that search engine algorithms return to on page factors in determining relevance.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Click Fraud Battle
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #083
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://directmag.com/news/google_clickfraud_surprise/
Essentials: A 17-page Google report delivered from the stage at Search Engine Strategies last week took panelists completely by surprise - and without time to respond. The report contained information compiled by engineers that found click fraud as reported by third party monitoring services overestimates the problem. The report showed the monitoring services fail to properly account for users that go back to landing pages, along with other factors including a confused cookie problem that fails to track back to the originating click between Yahoo! and Google.
Characterizing the methodology of third party monitoring services as "very, very flawed," Google stopped short of saying there was intentional wrongdoing, but using a live platform without informing other panelists and sharing the report ahead of time did not allow the proper discourse about the problem as the room needed. Panelists could only offer a delayed response after the chance to read the paper. The truth is somewhere in between. What is true is that search engines take fair measures against click fraud, and the problem is far worse than they think.
For example, Google produces a statistic that 800 clicks reported as fraud converted at nearly the same rate as 24,000 clicks that were not in dispute. A conversion does not automatically disprove fraud. Conversion tracking may be designed to calculate signups, and fake signup numbers can exceed what Google reports as fraud. The most pernicious type of click fraud from PTR (Paid To Read) gangs of clicksters is well suited for actually completing the signup conversion process with completely fake information.
The search giant either discovers bad clicks and doesn't charge the advertiser for suspicious clicks - even those that lead to conversions, or they wrongly assume a conversion is automatic proof of a good click, even when it certainly is not. The thing about conversion fraud is that it really is fraud. PTR users that take the time to complete a form to show fake conversions are those that do so specifically to fool the search engine. When calculated together, these fake clicks and conversions at times can total to high click fraud estimates that Google criticizes.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Gangs Of Clicksters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #079
"Underground gangs of clicksters are profiting by a notion of the Paid To Read (PTR) phenomenon. The profits are split between the publisher and organized gangs of Web users who even have discussion forums about what they're up to."
From: Ivan Jimenez <imenez@gmail.com>
This is exactly why I do not promote Google's pay per click program for advertisers. As a publisher, Google really hit the nail on the head as only they could but as far as advertising solutions go, Overture is a safer bet thanks to tougher affiliate / partner guidelines and what seems to be a stricter stance against click fraud.
...not eagerly awaiting the day all search becomes paid search.
--
Ivan Jimenez
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Gangs Of Clicksters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #078
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060718-090349
Essentials: A guideline-breaking partnership between AdSense for domains owners, and underground gangs of clicksters are profiting by a notion of the Paid To Read (PTR) phenomenon. The profits are split between the publisher and organized gangs of Web users who even have discussion forums about what they're up to. These networks will click and load pages from search advertising, feigning interest before moving on and so on until exhausted.
The funny thing is their fear that the more people discover their ploy, the more people will join further divide the revenue. As time goes on, these gangsters will increasingly make less money for their work. Despite discussion forums on the topic, this incentivises them to be quiet; not content to be quieted by their guilty conscience - or anything like that.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: NoFollow For Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #076
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060707-084143
Essentials: The inspiring idea of PageRank, (to use the democracy of the Web for calculating rankings), may be dying, ironically because of Google's own success. NoFollow was introduced by Google to thwart increasing blog spam. Now Google has to contend with the fact that NoFollow itself may be up for sale. NoFollow is really esoteric in any case, and has little to do with much outside Google.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=Spam
Back | Top |
"I also like SearchReturn℠, with its old-school look and feel, and the intelligent posts." -Andrew Goodman
SearchReturn readers get carefully selected search engine news and information, actionable marketing tips and expert advice with site owner Detlev Johnson.
"If you haven't seen Detlef's I-Search newsletter, check it out."
-Heather Lloyd-Martin