5 ms·

I worked for online advertising platform for a while and I must say it's difficult here to decide who to trust. In case of Google I would way G, but with Facebo

by annnnd 10y ago

I worked for online advertising platform for a while and I must say it's difficult here to decide who to trust. In case of Google I would way G, but with Facebook... who knows. It is simply incredible what scammers do to get the money from advertisers (except delivering any value, that is) and what lengths they will go to to get "their" money. Of course G and FB can't reveal their countermeasures, so we must trust them blindly... But I believe Google has no problem distinguishing between legitimate ad shows/clicks (not that I approve of this invasion of privacy, but that's the way it is). I do understand the risk publishers are taking (it might be someone else making fraudulent clicks which could get them banned), but I don't think there is a better way.

tluyben2 10y ago
If they indeed can distinguish between those then they surely are frauding publishers out of money. As they use the fraudulent clicks story a lot: if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense. It is just a perverse incentive and powerplay (after all these years there is no competition).
- dhimes 10y ago
  So if they are refusing to pay the publishers are they refunding the advertisers for clicks? If they are doing that then they can argue that they are doing their best.
  - annnnd 10y ago
    Can't say for Google, but we did. It is only fair. It is in interest of Google that the advertising market works for everyone involved (with a notable exception of fraudsters, of course).
- annnnd 10y ago
  Because they must not allow publishers to try guessing which methods might be able to escape the scrunity of G. If they can recognize 99.997% of fraudulent clicks and fail at 0.003%, you can be sure that those 0.003 will soon balloon to 10% if publishers are allowed to experiment unchecked. But yes, it is a powerplay. They can afford this, so they do.
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    But it might not be the publishers: it can and often are competitors. It is quite normal that people, from all walks of life, ask me if I search for their company in Google, to click on competitors' adwords. If the small entrepreneur thinks like that then it is not a stretch (and I know companies who did just that) to think many are actually hiring people and bots to click on adwords and adsense of competitors.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  " if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense." Not banning them is the move that doesn't make sense. You have someone who is purposefully trying to subvert the rules. Why oh why would you allow them to continue?
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    Because the publisher might not be at fault: it is a good way to get a competitor out of business and that has happened. Have a botnet click on your competitor, he gets banned and loses income? How does that make sense? And have to mention Google can use this to ban anyone without any justification otherwise. Which was the topic.
dandare 10y ago
Even with the best intentions and technology they will inevitably make mistakes. Unless they have a resolution process of any kind (and it seems they don't) they are crushing innocent people.

by annnnd 10y ago

tluyben2 10y ago

If they indeed can distinguish between those then they surely are frauding publishers out of money. As they use the fraudulent clicks story a lot: if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense. It is just a perverse incentive and powerplay (after all these years there is no competition).

dhimes 10y ago
So if they are refusing to pay the publishers are they refunding the advertisers for clicks? If they are doing that then they can argue that they are doing their best.
- annnnd 10y ago
  Can't say for Google, but we did. It is only fair. It is in interest of Google that the advertising market works for everyone involved (with a notable exception of fraudsters, of course).
annnnd 10y ago
Because they must not allow publishers to try guessing which methods might be able to escape the scrunity of G. If they can recognize 99.997% of fraudulent clicks and fail at 0.003%, you can be sure that those 0.003 will soon balloon to 10% if publishers are allowed to experiment unchecked. But yes, it is a powerplay. They can afford this, so they do.
- tluyben2 10y ago
  But it might not be the publishers: it can and often are competitors. It is quite normal that people, from all walks of life, ask me if I search for their company in Google, to click on competitors' adwords. If the small entrepreneur thinks like that then it is not a stretch (and I know companies who did just that) to think many are actually hiring people and bots to click on adwords and adsense of competitors.
st3v3r 10y ago
" if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense." Not banning them is the move that doesn't make sense. You have someone who is purposefully trying to subvert the rules. Why oh why would you allow them to continue?
- tluyben2 10y ago
  Because the publisher might not be at fault: it is a good way to get a competitor out of business and that has happened. Have a botnet click on your competitor, he gets banned and loses income? How does that make sense? And have to mention Google can use this to ban anyone without any justification otherwise. Which was the topic.

dandare 10y ago

Even with the best intentions and technology they will inevitably make mistakes. Unless they have a resolution process of any kind (and it seems they don't) they are crushing innocent people.