4 ms·

Maybe more focus should be on the fraud instead of the people who are wondering if ads are worth pursuing because of having to set aside a part of their budget

• bunderbunder 7y ago
  > why isn't the fraud better tracked? Because the people who are best-positioned to do something about click fraud also make heaps of money off of click fraud. For example, browser extensions like AdNauseam that randomly "click" on ad links are maybe meant to be a middle finger aimed at the ad networks, but, realistically, if you, the person doing the advertising, are paying for clicks, then the main effect of such extensions is to transfer money from your pocket to the ad network's.
• 55555 7y ago
  The ad networks don't seem to want to reduce fraud much. Possibly mostly because reducing fraud comes at the expense of denying real users, and the eventually-CPA-adjusted auction model means that the fraud should just be "factored into the price" and in that sense it's not a problem, and so they'd rather not deny 10 fraud clicks if it means accidentally elimininating 1 real click. But whatever the reason, they mostly view it as an issue advertisers should deal with. On the advertiser side, fraud has a small impact due to idiot brands bidding up prices and also another small impact due to the fact that you need to cull all the worst placements/domains when you first start using a network or launch a campaign. On the publisher side, each fraud penny earned is a penny directly taken away from legitimate publishers. Fraud is much more a problem for publishers than for advertisers.