Comments on: Google’s Eric Schmidt on Click Fraud ‘Let It Happen’

By: Dave Nofmeister

Dave Nofmeister — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:06:34 +0000

The idea of this all correcting itself, also takes it’s toll on lagitamate publishers. I shouldn’t be penalyzed for the real traffic that I send through my site.

Certainly, my expenses on server rental, and my time don’t go down, because a bunch of click-frauders has indirectly attacked my sites income!

By: Robyn

Robyn — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:19:58 +0000

Many websites are set up for the sole purpose of running Google AdSense ads and have very little good content on them. If you look at the page rank for these sites, it’s zero. So, Google has the ability to quickly weed out the sites that are likely to be the cause of most of the click fraud out there. Simply require a higher than zero page rank for someone to run AdSense ads. In addition, Google can afford to hire a small group of people who randomly check sites with low page ranks to see if there’s any valuable content on them. If not, they shouldn’t be allowed to run ads.

For Google to just sit back and wait for the advertisers to solve the problem, while they make money from us because of the problem is evil.

By: Search Engine WEB

Search Engine WEB — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:53:50 +0000

Eric Schmidt is biased towards seeing things from an ROI Business strategy perspective – he can’t empathize with the passions of the Engineers for attaining ALGOrithmic perfection.

But even if the market DID in fact “balance itself” out…..

JUST LOOK AT THE BILLIONS OF EXTRA “FRAUD’ DOLLARS GOOGLE WILL STILL BE MAKING UNTIL THAT DOES HAPPENS!!!!

By: Jim Trego

Jim Trego — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:44:49 +0000

Lets face facts! Even if Google wanted to track click fraud accurately (which they don’t) they can’t. All they see are the clicks related to their search engine. They don’t see the random clicks generated by “click farms” on Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, MSN or any of the other search engines the advertisers use. Using very sophisicated software it is still difficult to gather the data and make click fraud sense of it. Click Defense uses many filters to gather the data to prove PCF (PotentialClick Fraud). One client has submitted a claim for over a million dollars in fraudulent clicks. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Click Defense partnered with a number of law firms eager to take on the search engine giants. Ck out http://www.clickfraudlegal.com

By: Harald

Harald — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:40:35 +0000

Wall Street estimates that up to 35% of all click activity is fraudulent.
Although I think that number is a little inflated Mr. Schmidt needs to be taken down a notch or two.

A few years ago I was the victim of click fraud on two separate occasions.
It was ugly and both Google and Yahoo tuened the other cheek and let their Public Relations Departments shine.
The great equalizer in this debate will occur when people wake up and realize that the KINGDOM of “Do No Evil” is pure, unadulterated public relations.

I have spoken with several leading click fraud companies on this issue and they will all tell you the same thing. The marketplace is slowly maturing but what needs to occur is that individual website owners need to hold the Pay Per Click Search engines accountable with statistical forensic software.

Adsense is the crack cocaine of the internet. Thousands of marketers cannot get off the crack.

My question is very simple. Who is more evil the crack dealer or the crack user? Crack is crack!
Google is sitting on a $7 billion a year crack habit and when the CEO responds in this manner the entire company needs to be taken out to the woodshed and spanked!

Nuff said!