3 ms·

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 r

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.

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.