Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 220 posts

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#51

Post by Drdrdrq »

birken wrote: post #40
runeks wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter if the traffic is 0% fake or 90% fake, all that matters is if the traffic is making you a profit or not. Only under the assumption that no competing, superior technologies exists. The worse the efficiency of the ad-model, the more attractive the alternatives will be. Criticizing Microsoft over delivering an inferior user experience twenty years ago is in the same category as the critique against G…

What alternatives? The key product here is Google search which is what attracts the consumers. The advertisers are dealing with Adwords not because Adwords is the greatest platform in history, but because Adwords is the platform where the consumers are. Ad fraud, no matter how massive, has no effect on the consumer side of Google search. Google has a strong incentive to fix this because any money going to scammers is…

> It's a game of whack-a-mole for sure, but at the end of the day the higher the level of fraud on the marketplace the easier it is to catch, so the scammers are somewhat limited in how much damage they do.

This is a perfect summary of what is going on.

In this case I trust Google because their incentives are aligned with advertisers', and they certainly have both data (from Google Analytics and other sites) and means to distinguish between a human and a bot.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#52

Post by Drdrdrq »

cft wrote: post #12
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

This could be a coordinated 4chan attack https://files.catbox.moe/6ueduv.png

Give me a break. It is laughably easy, even trivial for Google to filter out such traffic.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#53

Post by runeks »

birken wrote: post #40
runeks wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter if the traffic is 0% fake or 90% fake, all that matters is if the traffic is making you a profit or not. Only under the assumption that no competing, superior technologies exists. The worse the efficiency of the ad-model, the more attractive the alternatives will be. Criticizing Microsoft over delivering an inferior user experience twenty years ago is in the same category as the critique against G…

What alternatives? The key product here is Google search which is what attracts the consumers. The advertisers are dealing with Adwords not because Adwords is the greatest platform in history, but because Adwords is the platform where the consumers are. Ad fraud, no matter how massive, has no effect on the consumer side of Google search. Google has a strong incentive to fix this because any money going to scammers is…

> What alternatives?

I’m not claiming any alternative exists right now. I’m saying that the less efficient Google is at converting dollars paid by advertisers into visitors, the greater the pressure from future (unknown) technologies that eradicate the inherent inefficiency in Google’s model.

If I knew exactly how to capture Google’s ad revenue, I would be starting a company rather than writing comments on HN.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#54

Post by shubhamjain »

madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget?

Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but despicable.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#55

Post by runeks »

runeks wrote: post #41

I find this really interesting. We’re all familiar with exploiting vulnerable software, but this appears to be exploiting a vulnerable business model. Does this attack work with Facebook as well? I think the difference in client authentication might prevent this attack on Facebook (just ban accounts that click too many ads). But, on the other hand, Google might be able to use IP-addresses to accomplish the same. Taki…

Possibly profitable attack vector:

1) Accumulate short position in Google stock

2) Develop and deploy malware that delivers fraudulent clicks from regular users

3) Cash in on now-profitable short position, caused by negative media attention regarding Google’s business model

4) Repeat

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#56

Post by Drdrdrq »

chillydawg wrote: post #47
runeks wrote: post #41

I find this really interesting. We’re all familiar with exploiting vulnerable software, but this appears to be exploiting a vulnerable business model. Does this attack work with Facebook as well? I think the difference in client authentication might prevent this attack on Facebook (just ban accounts that click too many ads). But, on the other hand, Google might be able to use IP-addresses to accomplish the same. Taki…

A lot of people are perma logged into Google these days due to Gmail. They've got their claws in deep.

And even without the account, there are many ways to track users across sessions.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#57

Post by convery »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

Or for the contentcreators, think Youtube, their CPM going from 2$ to 0.5$ just because people dislike Google seems a little cruel.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#58

Post by amelius »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

The problem with ads is much bigger than most people realize.

To put it simply: ads work against the free market; instead of the "best" product, the one with the largest advertisement budget wins.

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#59

Post by srean »

amelius wrote: post #58
shubhamjain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

The problem with ads is much bigger than most people realize. To put it simply: ads work against the free market; instead of the "best" product, the one with the largest advertisement budget wins.

Free market cannot work without propagation of information. Curious what kind of mechanism you envision to solve that problem: public service anouncements in place of ads ?

Re: Google Issuing Refunds to Advertisers Over Fake Traffic, Plans New Safeguard

#60

Post by new299 »

shubhamjain wrote: post #54
madars wrote: post #8

In related news, certain subreddits have been promoting the use of https://adnauseam.io/ , a fork of uBlock origin that automatically clicks all the ads encountered. The same redditors also encourage searching for high-CPC terms (e.g. insurance or rare medical conditions) to maximize the impact.

It's hard to understand the level of _schadenfreude_ that warrants use of AdNauseam. Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget. What if the advertiser is not a rich company but a small business. How acceptable it's to destroy the potential value of her budget? Of course, Google might already be detecting it, but the intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but…

I don't use AdNauseam.

However, it doesn't seem that hard for me to understand. If you see advertising as a social ill, that seeks to manipulate people into making purchases that they neither need nor will make their lives better. If that's what you believe it doesn't seem inconsistent to want to do everything you can to make advertising nonviable.

Post reply on HN