4 ms·

Commit click and impression botnot fraud? That's not a real, legal, thing. "Click fraud" is just what some businesses term interactions that they might not pay

Commit click and impression botnot fraud? That's not a real, legal, thing. "Click fraud" is just what some businesses term interactions that they might not pay for. There is no legal, or moral, requirement to only click links if there is some chance that you will increase the income of some "advertiser".

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Click fraud would be actual fraud if the the clicks originate from the person getting paid for the advertising. When an unrelated third-party does it, though, it is not.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  Isn't that what most click fraud is, though? Paying someone/something to click your own ads? Who would do click fraud if they aren't somehow being compensated by the ad provider?
  - danso 10y ago
    "Unrelated third party" is presumably a party that is not being paid by the beneficiary of ad revenue.
    - rudolf0 10y ago
      Right. But my question is... why would an unrelated third party engage in click fraud? All I can think of is some kind of framing, in an attempt to get a site owner delisted or sued.
- nieksand 10y ago
  That is a great response and true. What these researchers are proposing does not match the usual meaning of click fraud. Though the harms it causes are similar: * advertiser is paying for clicks/impressions from a bot rather than a user * publisher/network sending lower quality traffic to advertiser faces reputation and financial risk Likewise, depending on the situation fake social media profiles also can harm the quality of said network. In terms of damages caused by the researchers' action... clicks would be the most harmful. Especially against insurance, loans, and mortgages which they seem to be interested in. Those have some of the highest CPCs around. (e.g. http://www.wordstream.com/articles/most-expensive-keywords http://www.wordstream.com/articles/most-expensive-keywords)

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

Click fraud would be actual fraud if the the clicks originate from the person getting paid for the advertising. When an unrelated third-party does it, though, it is not.

rudolf0 10y ago
Isn't that what most click fraud is, though? Paying someone/something to click your own ads? Who would do click fraud if they aren't somehow being compensated by the ad provider?
- danso 10y ago
  "Unrelated third party" is presumably a party that is not being paid by the beneficiary of ad revenue.
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    Right. But my question is... why would an unrelated third party engage in click fraud? All I can think of is some kind of framing, in an attempt to get a site owner delisted or sued.
nieksand 10y ago
That is a great response and true. What these researchers are proposing does not match the usual meaning of click fraud. Though the harms it causes are similar: * advertiser is paying for clicks/impressions from a bot rather than a user * publisher/network sending lower quality traffic to advertiser faces reputation and financial risk Likewise, depending on the situation fake social media profiles also can harm the quality of said network. In terms of damages caused by the researchers' action... clicks would be the most harmful. Especially against insurance, loans, and mortgages which they seem to be interested in. Those have some of the highest CPCs around. (e.g. http://www.wordstream.com/articles/most-expensive-keywords http://www.wordstream.com/articles/most-expensive-keywords)