4 ms·

Money. They’re faking ad delivery.

• nomel 9y ago
  Do the ad suppliers have some sort of analytics in place to catch fraud like this? "This ip viewed 200 adds within 10 seconds!"
  • tomlor 9y ago
    Not really, all these shenanigans occur in a nested series of iframes. The original webpage that served up the initial ad iframe can't see down into these. Whatever supply partner the webpage is using doesn't want to shed light of this to the publisher or else that supply partner may be replaced. This issue is illuminated to some degree by 3rd party ad analytics companies that monitor this via crawlers and user panels. This problem is also attacked from the advertiser side that will use 'viewability' providers to ensure their ad is, well, viewed.
    • firebones 9y ago
      Advertisers should have a centralized reporting service that pays bounties for submitting violators. Is fraud worth enough to support a whitehat community exposing the ad equivalent of "vulnerabilities?"
  • heartbreak 9y ago
    It’s a cat and mouse game like any kind of fraud/prevention.
  • thearn4 9y ago
    The Software Engineering Daily podcast has a good ongoing series on ad fraud that explores why that isn't happening.
  • munchbunny 9y ago
    Some do, but like in most fields, fraud is a moving target, so you will always be a bit behind on the defense.
• mjevans 9y ago
  Reflecting on your statement and the 'incompetence' statement... maybe they're trying to prove an ad displayed for a given duration of time. (As a consumer, I actually hate all ads; they belong as suggested discount incentives after searches; when I'm actually /looking/ for something.)
  • ars 9y ago
    > maybe they're trying to prove an ad displayed for a given duration of time. If that was their goal then 1 request per second would be more than sufficient (and also excessive), but the animated image seems to show a continuous flood of requests.