Interesting Turn in the clickfraud world

Calling Mr. Jeff Martin….Would love your take on this.

I think this is very positive for Google, and I wish I had some money to buy Google stock.

Link: Google Confirms Click Fraud Rate is 0.02% | Marketing Pilgrim.

In an effort to respond to concerns raised by advertisers and so-called click fraud detection companies, Google also plans a number of initiatives for the coming year. Advertisers will get enhanced reporting, a Google guide to click fraud, and a standard method for reporting invalid clicks to Google. The most intriguing new feature will no doubt bring applause, but also call the bluff on advertisers claiming click fraud foul.


  1. This is certainly interesting news, if not a bit surprising. Of course it’s safe to assume that the actual click fraud rate is still slightly higher, as the best click-fraudians (??) know how to not leave footprints or patterns. Nevertheless, the report from Dr. Tuzhilin last summer went a long way in assuring me that Google is at least making a strong attempt to combat fraud.

    In related news, Google has also announced that they will soon be displaying to advertisers the content match URLs which display their ads. Seems like this will help advertisers control click fraud (term used loosely) from MFA sites.

  2. I love they are going to announce the URLs that contextual is coming from, although if you are handy with Indextools, you have alot of info already. It seems to me that lately Google is really moving toward being more transparent with Webmasters, and that is definitely a good thing!

  3. Well Tony, I read the original post a couple of days ago and rather than rush to throw out my post with the mindset I was in I decided to sit on it for a couple of days.

    I decided to write up my full response at the KeyRelevance blog ( I could get it all out in a formatted response.

    In a nut shell –
    Im not a fan of the invalid clicks report option.
    Its just a number that sits in the reporting with no data to back it up. Google says advertisers could always compare their log files to the AdWords reports to calculate an estimate of the number of invalid clicks exist which is so not true for a number of reasons.

    IP blocking?
    What good will it do? We all know that Google can filter out too many clicks from one IP. That is the lowest form of click fraud. Hopefully some poor advertiser won’t start blocking AOL/Earthlink/Verizon proxies. This is probably more of a “see how we give you more control” thing so Google can pat them selves on the back at SES NY. That panel is almost never a good one for Google/Yahoo.

    Click fraud is like email spam?
    I didn’t see that as a good comparison. It IS important to know how rampant click fraud activity there is despite the number of invalid clicks Google says they can catch.

    Click fraud activity average of to 10%?
    10% of what number? And how is that broke down by vertical? Sure the kitty clothes vertical has a low rate but what about mortgage leads and loans verticals?

    .02% – Google’s new favorite number.
    When you look at that number in context it really isn’t that impressive considering Google holds all of the data and frames the scenario.

    Here’s what that number really means:

    * An advertiser submitting a request for review of suspicious activity and provides a data sample
    * Google reviewing their own data
    * Google siding with the advertiser

    = .02% click fraud rate?

    A couple of things to ask yourself:

    1) How many advertisers are actively monitoring their campaigns for click fraud?

    2) How many times do advertisers agree with Google’s final determination?

    If you’ve read what has been published by SEMPO and been to a few SES panels on this, you would know that many advertisers do not actively monitor and audit their PPC campaigns and that there is usually a strong discord with those who have tried to deal with Google in the past on suspicious activity with their accounts.

Speak Your Mind