Webmaster Forum Rules | Posting Guide | Contact Us | Testimonials | Contributing Geek Program | Advertise on Geek/Talk
Welcome to the GeekTalk Webmaster Discussion Forums from GeekVillage.com

Click Here To Register. It's Free!

Go Back   geek/talk: Signature-free discourse for serious web publishers > YOUR FRIENDS: The geek/talk Community > Archives of the best threads
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-22-2004, 10:22 PM   #16
Robert from SI
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Robert from SI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marlton, NJ USA
Posts: 1,126
Default

>>>>
"We have sophisticated technology that detects and eliminates fraud,"
>>>>

Says the Google spokesman as he comments on Google suing a company for commiting fraud.

Does anyone else see the irony in this?



__________________
It's all just ones and zeros.
Robert from SI is offline  
Old 11-22-2004, 10:24 PM   #17
Aaron Dragushan
Registered User
 
Aaron Dragushan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 626
Default

larwee - thanks for contributing and welcome to geek/talk!
Aaron Dragushan is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 01:02 AM   #18
Steve_S
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Steve_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Posts: 5,224
Default

Hi larwee,

Welcome to the "village" Great to have you FINALLY appear!


G already PAID this affiliate. The check was cashed. The demand for return of the funds was made. Thats a very critical issue which seems to be somewhat diluted by some of the PR spin. You are supposed to catch them BEFORE the check clears.

You normally DON'T sue unless this occurs since you generally have no damage incurred.

For example, you catch a cheater before the check is cut and cashed/cleared, terminate the fraudster and credit back funds to the advertiser. Sometimes you issue a stop order on the check. Iv'e never seen a Superior Court action under these circumstances.

Natch, I'm not an attorney but this should be self evident!

Edit: Try this link for the article:

http://asia.cnet.com/news/personalte...9202285,00.htm

Last edited by Steve_S; 11-23-2004 at 01:48 AM.
Steve_S is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 01:52 AM   #19
Czar

Webmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 9,495
Default

It's 1999 all over again.

Click and impression fraud used to be the hottest issue in online advertising, with operators of 'get-paid-to-surf' programs and early CPC-based ad networks virtually crippled by simplistic devices and methods in the late 90s and into 2000-2001. The issue appeared to fall from the radar of mainstream online advertising for a couple of years after that as online ad spending began to dry up and advertisers moved to support CPM-based networks that placed an explicit emphasis on fraud prevention.

Many in the industry (including a huge number of Geek/Talkers) have long feared that this issue would inevitably arise to challenge AdSense extraordinarily. While it's easy to guard against the more simplistic software-based methods and proxy exploits, AdSense's supreme roster of advertisers and their high rates of pay serve as irresistable carrots dangling in front of hungry click fraudsters.

What worries me is not only a rise in the use of devices that have been developed explusively for use in exploiting AdSense, but the presence of requests on programmer BBs and freelance marketplaces for people to click on ads a given number of times a day in exchange for a share in the revenues. These worrying trends, along with exploitation by orchestrated criminal networks, are threats not only to AdWords advertisers but to the viability of AdSense itself.

We've already seen a number of publishers expelled from the network this month who claim to have done nothnig in breach of Google's terms. This could very well be the case, as it was when high rates of 'innocent' publishers were expelled from networks in the late 90s due to poor validation systems employed by networks at the time. If Google can't discriminate between genuine fraud and either anti-competitive clicking or normal human/bot activity, much more collateral damage may be suffered before fraud is diminished as a major issue for the network.

This is a worrying trend and while I wouldn't like to be in Google's shoes right now, I have my fingers crossed that other Geek/Talkers are spared from having their accounts deactivated due to hostile or genuinely irregular click activity.
__________________
Czar

Follow Geek/Talk's Twitter Feed and Facebook Page to stay up to date with new discussion threads and online ad industry highlights.

Important GeekVillage Links: Home | Rules | Posting Guide | Report Trouble | Feedback | Advertise on GV
Czar is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 12:21 PM   #20
cheznoir
Member.
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 485
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve_S

G already PAID this affiliate. The check was cashed. The demand for return of the funds was made. Thats a very critical issue which seems to be somewhat diluted by some of the PR spin. You are supposed to catch them BEFORE the check clears.

You normally DON'T sue unless this occurs since you generally have no damage incurred.
But to be fair to google, if it was a sophisticated play across numerous accounts it might not be "catchable" the first month or so because you might dismiss it as just a stats irregularity, we have all probably seen sites of ours have giant traffic spikes when google falls just right or stories get passed around the bloggers etc. So I think if anything, this shows that google just doesn't dismiss high paying sites out of hand as some try to insist they do.

Chet
cheznoir is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 05:39 PM   #21
PageUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 25
Default

I'm not surprised at all that the owner of the company that is sued by Google is a Russian national (or Russian-American)...

<Snipped defamatory remarks. Firstly, Google has stated that it has yet to confirm the true identities of its defendants. The two names appearing in the claim may be false. Secondly, this BB does not tolerate discrimination/generalisation based on one's nationality. People from many countries are responsible for spamming and other rogue activities online. In fact, the country that still produces the largest volume of spam globally is a highly developed western nation that maintains only 5% of the world's population, so suggesting that Google should be wary of working with people simply because their names appear to reflect a particular foreign nationality is largely irrational.>

Last edited by Czar; 11-23-2004 at 06:56 PM.
PageUp is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 07:36 PM   #22
Larwee

GeekGuide
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Louis, Missouri USA
Posts: 3,015
Default

PageUP the co-founders of Google are:

Larry Page born in East Lansing, Michigan
and
Sergey Brin born in Moscow, RUSSIA
Larwee is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 05:54 AM   #23
PageUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 25
Default

<<Edited in Czars absence>>

Last edited by Jan; 11-24-2004 at 08:43 AM.
PageUp is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 08:52 AM   #24
Jan

Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Beautiful Darwin
Posts: 4,753
Default

PageUp, please refrain from targetting a certain country in regards to abuse. It is rife everywhere and may be more obvious from certain countries because of the sheer population of such.

Thanks for your future co-operation in advance
Jan is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 08:32 PM   #25
Steve_S
I am a Contributing Geek. Are You?
 
Steve_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Posts: 5,224
Default

Yes, my beloved GEEKS its an old thread but JUDGEMENT has been granted in this case to G for 75 K :

Against: Auction Expert International L.L.C. / DEF
Against: Sergio Morfin / DEF
Against: Alexei Leonov / DEF

Dated: 05/17/2005

See:

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?fu...1-04-CV-030560

Current News:

http://publications.mediapost.com/in...=14209&p=15470

Thoughts: G needs to sue dozens more. Just do it and send loud signals accross the planet. Why keep this so quiet G. Leak the news to the press back in May. Next, a debtors exam and actually attempt to collect the Judgement. Hire a PI, follow the money trail, continue to feed the press with "leaks" and get your "INK"

HTH

Last edited by Steve_S; 07-05-2005 at 08:36 PM.
Steve_S is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 07:26 PM   #26
Czar

Webmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 9,495
Default

It is intriguing that Google didn't have a field day with this judgement. Perhaps back in May the company felt that its best course of action would be to avoid issuing any release that deals with click fraud in an effort to keep the concept out of the headlines. This date also corresponds fairly closely with the network's debut of the CPM-based site targetting feature, which was a proactive gesture aimed at subtly sending a message to the market that click fraud could be battled through evasion (whether the message made sense or not is another matter).

The only other factor that seems to have possibly had a bearing is the fact that Google certainly realises that even a quiet judgement will be heard by the underground elements that the network is trying to target. While small operators who click on a few of their own AdSense ads from the comfort of their bedroom may not have heard of the $75K fine, it's almost certain that organised, commercial operators would have felt the ripples within days of the announcement. Perhaps Google felt that this was a safe medium between serving as a moderate deterrent and keeping the issue out of the public eye for a few weeks.

Since G has suffered from a number of click fraud related articles during the past two months, however, perhaps they'd take a different strategic approach if the judgement had been presented in July rather than May. Nowadays, they'd surely see that a release that discusses click fraud is not necessarily going to do the company harm, as long as the release puts a positive spin on the topic by making G seem either inpenetrable (which it isn't) or determined enough to mean business in protecting its advertisers' accounts from fraud (which it hopefully is).

At least we heard about the outcome, thanks to the savvy PI work of Steve.
__________________
Czar

Follow Geek/Talk's Twitter Feed and Facebook Page to stay up to date with new discussion threads and online ad industry highlights.

Important GeekVillage Links: Home | Rules | Posting Guide | Report Trouble | Feedback | Advertise on GV
Czar is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Adsense fcmedianet Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 7 02-24-2007 06:04 AM
AdSense customer support instructed me to break their TOS Michau Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 4 08-19-2006 08:09 PM
MASSIVE NEWS: GeekVillage acquired by Google, Inc. Czar geek/yak 25 04-02-2006 01:55 AM
Google sues Adsense affiliate for click fraud Robert from SI Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs 25 07-07-2005 07:26 PM

Please support our advertisers. They ensure our survival.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 PM.


GeekVillage.com is copyright © 1998-2014 iOnline Web Design. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.