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

61–70 of 220 posts

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

#61

Post by 47 »

runeks wrote: post #30
birken wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Google can't detect this? Enough advertisers have conversion tracking that Google can detect if a person is clicking a zillion ads and never actually converting, in addition to the other multitude of ways they detect fraud. I'm sure in the battle between fake traffic producers and Google there are probably tricky ways you can fool Google, but a person clicking every ad is not one of them. Also... this doesn…

> 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…

Actually Google do not have a complete market control. I managed a 100M+ ecommerce startup and our largest traffic source is Facebook and Instagram.

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

#62

Post by shubhamjain »

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.

I disagree. A large advertising budget will win more eyeballs but that doesn't meant a shitty product will have a free reign. A product has to work hard to justify its value. Yes, marketing and advertising is misused to make people pay more for the same thing, but that doesn't mean that chief benefit of advertising, which is discovery, is lost in the process.

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

#63

Post by closeparen »

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 intent of AdNeuseam seems nothing but despicable.

To some, the intent to operate a business, particularly one that depends on advertising, is despicable. They consider the act of making money (i.e. revenues > costs) to be evil exploitation of workers, and the act of getting people to buy something they can survive without (i.e. advertising influences whether and how much consumers buy) to be evil consumerist waste, part of a culture of buying shit you don't need, which they see as a cancer on human civilization.

Running a DoS attack against advertising has a decently advantageous risk:effectiveness ratio as a technique to fight capitalism, if that's your intention, and for some people it is.

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

#64

Post by ko27 »

convery wrote: post #57
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…

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

If you are talking about the obfuscation, and not the ad-block part, then they never had those 2$ to begin with.

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

#65

Post by cyphar »

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.

4chan has been shilling it quite heavily as well, and (of course) they've been championing articles like TFA as proof that their technique is working. I personally think that there is a fair point to make that Google has already been sabotaging people who were trying to make a living off advertising (see the YouTube "adpocalypse"), so I can see where the anger might be coming from.

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

#66

Post by clarry »

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…

> Ads can be hated. That's all right. But, why would anyone be so hell bent on depleting advertisers budget.

Why not? Many of us are so hell bent on not wanting to see ads that we actually run adblockers. Then ad companies want to dmca or prosecute adblockers and advertisers call us thieves for using one (however, none of them would reimburse the ram, electricity, internet bandwidth, and time wasted with all that unsolicited spam). I don't care if they go bankrupt.

> 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?

When they pay for clicks, they're gambling. No sympathy. It might be a good idea to cap that gambling budget and consider less risky ways to reach people if the yield isn't high enough.

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

#67

Post by _pmf_ »

convery wrote: post #57
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…

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

The cynic in me: Oh, no, my daughter will have less 2h videos of people unwrapping Kinder surprise eggs to watch; a cultural loss.

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

#68

Post by legopelle »

srean wrote: post #59
amelius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

I imagine a single state-owned database where merchants enter detailed product information. The consumers may then query the database at their leisure.

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

#69

Post by cyphar »

Despite what your opinion might be on the ethics and justifications of the people involved, I find it quite concerning that they're being painted as "ad fraudsters". This sounds like the same Orwellian re-definition of words as "piracy". There is no implicit or explicit, social or legal contract that says if I click an ad that I must then purchase the product. Nor is there any agreement that if I click an ad that I have to be interested in the product. So you couldn't really argue it's deception. And most importantly, I have no financial gain from doing it (EDIT: assuming that I'm not the person who is making money from the ads). The term "fraud" is an intentional misuse of the word to frame the conversation in a way that is quite deceptive.

Is exploiting a flaw in the existing CPC advertising system "fraud"? No. Is it unethical? Possibly, depending on what your view is on the justification. You could argue that devaluing the worth of tracking-based advertising is trying to do a net good, and that it might counteract Google's attempts to become a monopoly in online advertising. But you could also argue it's going to ruin small businesses that rely on advertising as a significant part of their income.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

legopelle wrote: post #68
srean wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

I imagine a single state-owned database where merchants enter detailed product information. The consumers may then query the database at their leisure.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN