click fraud lawsuit

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/click...suit.html?.v=1

There's a thread on it in SearchEngineWatch:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...?threadid=5064

One of the posters' comments struck me as interesting:

This is a case where the burden of proof will be on the people
bringing the suit, which will be expensive and lengthy. Judges will
struggle with the technology, after all, if we in the industry can't
define what it is how can then judge on whether it is happening?

Is this a common opinion (that "we in the industry can't define it")?
I'm surprised, because most people I know who have a technical
background in HTTP and web servers can define it and cite many means
by which it can occur. Of course, they cannot identify each and every
instance of click fraud, nor can they discern the difference between
fraudlent and non-fraudulent intent. However, I wouldn't think this
to be an impediment to discussing the problem.

--gregbo
gds at best dot com

gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/click...suit.html?.v=1

There's a thread on it in SearchEngineWatch:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...?threadid=5064

One of the posters' comments struck me as interesting:

This is a case where the burden of proof will be on the people
bringing the suit, which will be expensive and lengthy. Judges will
struggle with the technology, after all, if we in the industry can't
define what it is how can then judge on whether it is happening?

Is this a common opinion (that "we in the industry can't define it")?
I'm surprised, because most people I know who have a technical
background in HTTP and web servers can define it and cite many means
by which it can occur. Of course, they cannot identify each and every
instance of click fraud, nor can they discern the difference between
fraudlent and non-fraudulent intent. However, I wouldn't think this
to be an impediment to discussing the problem.

No way will they win that. They have to prove the clicks are invalid. All
Google has to do is show the judge all the peopel online crying because
their adsense accounts got closed and say "see we do stop abuse".

--
Viper
Are you seeking revenge?
http://www.seekingrevenge.com

"Viper" <venomx (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/click...suit.html?.v=1

There's a thread on it in SearchEngineWatch:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...?threadid=5064

One of the posters' comments struck me as interesting:

This is a case where the burden of proof will be on the people
bringing the suit, which will be expensive and lengthy. Judges will
struggle with the technology, after all, if we in the industry can't
define what it is how can then judge on whether it is happening?

Is this a common opinion (that "we in the industry can't define it")?
I'm surprised, because most people I know who have a technical
background in HTTP and web servers can define it and cite many means
by which it can occur. Of course, they cannot identify each and every
instance of click fraud, nor can they discern the difference between
fraudlent and non-fraudulent intent. However, I wouldn't think this
to be an impediment to discussing the problem.


No way will they win that. They have to prove the clicks are invalid. All
Google has to do is show the judge all the peopel online crying because
their adsense accounts got closed and say "see we do stop abuse".

It's my understanding that some people whose AdSense accounts were
closed feel they were not at fault, and that they themselves were
victims of click fraud. Anyway, FWIW, I don't think the people
bringing the suit will win either. However, I still think PPC is a
bad business model *because* it can be so easily abused.

--gregbo
gds at best dot com

gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:

"Viper" <venomx (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/click...suit.html?.v=1

There's a thread on it in SearchEngineWatch:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...?threadid=5064

One of the posters' comments struck me as interesting:

This is a case where the burden of proof will be on the people
bringing the suit, which will be expensive and lengthy. Judges will
struggle with the technology, after all, if we in the industry can't
define what it is how can then judge on whether it is happening?

Is this a common opinion (that "we in the industry can't define it")?
I'm surprised, because most people I know who have a technical
background in HTTP and web servers can define it and cite many means
by which it can occur. Of course, they cannot identify each and every
instance of click fraud, nor can they discern the difference between
fraudlent and non-fraudulent intent. However, I wouldn't think this
to be an impediment to discussing the problem.


No way will they win that. They have to prove the clicks are invalid. All
Google has to do is show the judge all the peopel online crying because
their adsense accounts got closed and say "see we do stop abuse".

It's my understanding that some people whose AdSense accounts were
closed feel they were not at fault, and that they themselves were
victims of click fraud. Anyway, FWIW, I don't think the people
bringing the suit will win either. However, I still think PPC is a
bad business model *because* it can be so easily abused.

--gregbo
gds at best dot com

Has anybody mentioned these companies that are ripped off by webmasters who
abuse AdSense? I heard about some centres in India where people click many
adverts. Both Google and the webmasters earn. The advertiser loses. As a
result, of course, the value of clicks declines too.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:
It's my understanding that some people whose AdSense accounts were
closed feel they were not at fault, and that they themselves were
victims of click fraud. Anyway, FWIW, I don't think the people
bringing the suit will win either. However, I still think PPC is a
bad business model *because* it can be so easily abused.

Has anybody mentioned these companies that are ripped off by webmasters who
abuse AdSense? I heard about some centres in India where people click many
adverts. Both Google and the webmasters earn. The advertiser loses. As a
result, of course, the value of clicks declines too.

Yes, this topic comes up on SearchEngineWatch also.

--gregbo
gds at best dot com

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:03:57 GMT, gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:

"Viper" <venomx (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/click...suit.html?.v=1

There's a thread on it in SearchEngineWatch:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...?threadid=5064

One of the posters' comments struck me as interesting:

This is a case where the burden of proof will be on the people
bringing the suit, which will be expensive and lengthy. Judges will
struggle with the technology, after all, if we in the industry can't
define what it is how can then judge on whether it is happening?

Is this a common opinion (that "we in the industry can't define it")?
I'm surprised, because most people I know who have a technical
background in HTTP and web servers can define it and cite many means
by which it can occur. Of course, they cannot identify each and every
instance of click fraud, nor can they discern the difference between
fraudlent and non-fraudulent intent. However, I wouldn't think this
to be an impediment to discussing the problem.


No way will they win that. They have to prove the clicks are invalid. All
Google has to do is show the judge all the peopel online crying because
their adsense accounts got closed and say "see we do stop abuse".

It's my understanding that some people whose AdSense accounts were
closed feel they were not at fault, and that they themselves were
victims of click fraud. Anyway, FWIW, I don't think the people
bringing the suit will win either. However, I still think PPC is a
bad business model *because* it can be so easily abused.

--gregbo
gds at best dot com

I think it is and always has been a ludicrous business model and has
been since its inception.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:06:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:

"Viper" <venomx (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
gds (AT) best (DOT) cut.here.com wrote:
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050405/click...suit.html?.v=1

There's a thread on it in SearchEngineWatch:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...?threadid=5064

One of the posters' comments struck me as interesting:

This is a case where the burden of proof will be on the people
bringing the suit, which will be expensive and lengthy. Judges will
struggle with the technology, after all, if we in the industry can't
define what it is how can then judge on whether it is happening?

Is this a common opinion (that "we in the industry can't define it")?
I'm surprised, because most people I know who have a technical
background in HTTP and web servers can define it and cite many means
by which it can occur. Of course, they cannot identify each and every
instance of click fraud, nor can they discern the difference between
fraudlent and non-fraudulent intent. However, I wouldn't think this
to be an impediment to discussing the problem.


No way will they win that. They have to prove the clicks are invalid. All
Google has to do is show the judge all the peopel online crying because
their adsense accounts got closed and say "see we do stop abuse".

It's my understanding that some people whose AdSense accounts were
closed feel they were not at fault, and that they themselves were
victims of click fraud. Anyway, FWIW, I don't think the people
bringing the suit will win either. However, I still think PPC is a
bad business model *because* it can be so easily abused.

--gregbo
gds at best dot com

Has anybody mentioned these companies that are ripped off by webmasters who
abuse AdSense? I heard about some centres in India where people click many
adverts. Both Google and the webmasters earn. The advertiser loses. As a
result, of course, the value of clicks declines too.

Roy

Word was that the real damage gets done in China, where a bowl of rice
goes a long way.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:17:02 +0100, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

...
in China, where a bowl of rice goes a long way.

depends on the quality of your catapult.

But why pick on China? sure there's a lot of folk there, but last I heard
those with a net connection were too busy making money to prat around
earning a few shekles for every '000 clicks

--
Rover Cars - RIP. Let the asset stripping begin.

Big Bill wrote

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:06:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
Has anybody mentioned these companies that are ripped off by
webmasters who abuse AdSense? I heard about some centres in India
where people click many adverts. Both Google and the webmasters earn.
The advertiser loses. As a result, of course, the value of clicks
declines too.

Roy

Word was that the real damage gets done in China, where a bowl of rice
goes a long way.

Racist bastards.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

William Tasso wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:17:02 +0100, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

...
in China, where a bowl of rice goes a long way.

depends on the quality of your catapult.

But why pick on China? sure there's a lot of folk there, but last I heard
those with a net connection were too busy making money to prat around
earning a few shekles for every '000 clicks

China GDP per capita is $5000. A factory worker gets about $20 per week.
"Clicking" would be useful income for them.

gtoomey