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

201–210 of 220 posts

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

#201

Post by bittermang »

drewmol wrote: post #196
zaroth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former would be theft, and the later would be fraud. So, let's hope not...

Although I'm not in the industry, I assume that depends on verbose and difficult to understand contact terms...

Ha ha ha,

Which account registered the "fraudulent * " clicks? That account receives $X per click, which we've determined, and no you can't see our math. Proprietary information, don't'cha'kno.

*Advertising host admits no wrong-doing, has investigated itself, and found itself not at fault. Offer subject to limitations. See Attorney General for details.

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

#202

Post by Buge »

bittermang wrote: post #200
Buge wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also think of the human benefit gained from ads. Free search, free email, free news articles, free videos. Also consider how Hacker News survives. As soon as you start charging a fee, you eliminate huge swaths of the world population. Ads are an equalizing force.

Human benefit? The trash bags full of money being thrown around the room, while we fight over the scraps? Or we can talk about the purposeful obfuscation of the industry. How you have no way of verifying clicks, or views, or anything. How Cost Per Click is just an arbitrary number you and unknown others compete against, all for the pursuit of fake traffic and the hope of winning the advertising lottery. It is more wo…

Well scraps are better than nothing.

Just because some people have $1000 doesn't mean that $5 isn't better than $0.

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

#203

Post by Buge »

drewmol wrote: post #195
Buge wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also think of the human benefit gained from ads. Free search, free email, free news articles, free videos. Also consider how Hacker News survives. As soon as you start charging a fee, you eliminate huge swaths of the world population. Ads are an equalizing force.

I agree advertising certainly has a place and tradeoffs. It's seems more like a cost shifting, less direct, obfuscated payment terms model than 'free'. Certainly people being advertised to are paying for it because the ads are successful, just not a direct exchange of money for content/service but instead a payment of time/attention for psychological manipulation/impression which will result in a direct payment somet…

Is the economy a zero-sum game? Just because some people are making money doesn't necessarily mean others are losing money.

And even if it is a zero-sum game, it would be a form of wealth redistribution from rich consumers to poor consumers. No one wants to advertise to poor people, they only want to advertise to rich people. But making a product ad-supported makes it free for everyone. Rich people's eyeballs are used to subsidize poor people's content.

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

#204

Post by whipoodle »

kyrra wrote: post #153
whipoodle wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with such programs is they require you to be logged-in to work. As soon as you use incognito mode, sorry chump.

How do you expect to pay for something and have it work without being logged in to some system? Be it some over arching login system like Google or per logins per website.

I don't expect that, I just think it's a fundamental limitation that makes it not worth it for me.

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

#205

Post by zaptheimpaler »

srean wrote: post #187
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are farms of blogs with junk content and reviews that exist purely for ad revenue and referral marketing. Online communities have sockpuppets doing the same shit. Respected news papers have "submarine" PR pieces promoting one product or another. The fake positive reviews you mention already exist - both on blogs and sites like Amazon, App Store etc. In this vast sea of noise, it is very hard to find good inform…

I agree with everything you said, but carpet-bombing the crap out of all ads does not seem to be an improvement. Ads satisfy a real need, stamp it out artificially and it will come up with some other name, some other form. This war against * is too hackneyed an approach, admittedly, very popular in the US. It has not done much good anywhere.

Well using ad nauseaum is not carpet bombing or waging a war - all depends on how you define war. Its just sending a message, if enough people send the message things will change. If not, they will continue to get worse.

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

#206

Post by srean »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #205
srean wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said, but carpet-bombing the crap out of all ads does not seem to be an improvement. Ads satisfy a real need, stamp it out artificially and it will come up with some other name, some other form. This war against * is too hackneyed an approach, admittedly, very popular in the US. It has not done much good anywhere.

Well using ad nauseaum is not carpet bombing or waging a war - all depends on how you define war. Its just sending a message, if enough people send the message things will change. If not, they will continue to get worse.

It depends on how it is used, but I would have no qualms about going after the egregiously annoying and inherently dishonest ads. Those are the ones where even the advertiser knows that a click indicates absolutely no intent to explore or to buy, the reader was just tricked into triggering a booby trap. Some pages are so bad that it feels like navigating a veritable minefield, you dont know where to position your mouse to read the damn article. To all who wants to go after these guys, godspeed. I dont use adblock, but I do use flashblock and nuke javascript on all except a few whitelisted sites that I keep expanding as needed.

But seriously, I am genuinely tickled that my sarcastic comments on this post was mistaken for genuine lack of knowledge regarding paid reviews and submarine articles.

My goal was to point out that if one kills one specific form-factor it will reappear in some other form-factor and it already has; to point out that the notion that reviews, articles, word of mouth can be a substitute for ads is a silly idea [0]. Paid reviews and submarine articles being some of the other form factors. Those reviews and articles are just as dishonest if not more so and ignoring them to target others rather indiscriminately is not going to result in a better web. Thats closer to a baby throwing a tantrum than anything else.

An indiscriminate war against all ads is just childish and silly. Silly is the sweeping notion that _all_ ads are essentially motivated by malice [1] and only does harm to the reader.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15109873

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15110059

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

#207

Post by srean »

philipodonnell wrote: post #183
srean wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed sir, glad that you concur. My downvoters dont seem to agree. Poe it is.

I'm pretty sure one of you is being sarcastic, but I can't tell which one. :-)

Why chose when you can have it all.

May be this will help https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15115082

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

#208

Post by squarefoot »

hanetzer wrote: post #198
squarefoot wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Badly exposed, maybe, but surely not ridiculous. We are so used to wasting hours alone in front of a screen while being bombarded by advertising that we are totally forgetting what it looks like to get out and speak with other people. Word of mouth, baby. When a product is good it makes a good subject for conversation with friends and relatives, and they surely don't cover my mouth with duct tape as a form of ad-bloc…

Off topic, but are you still interested in those ActiveX h264 dvrs? I've got sdks for a few variants of a chip family commonly used in them and am working on reverse engineering their binary kernel modules, and was hoping to start gathering helpers.

Hi, thanks. I have only one of the old 4 inputs models left, but should get one of the new AHD ones and be able to do some tests in a while. I'm not expert in reverse engineering but if I can help I'll be glad to.

I'm almost new here, if there is a way to send PMs to other people I didn't find it.

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

#209

Post by taneq »

jdavis703 wrote: post #163
taneq wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the user will be blacklisted on both the supply and the demand side Isn't that a win, for a user who already runs an adblocker?

No it just means that you start seeing really crappy ads, i.e. Russian bride ads and malware ads with big "download' buttons.

Except you don't, because you run an adblocker.

Also, receiving untarged ads may mean you're no longer being tracked, which is a bonus if you're concerned about privacy.

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

#210

Post by tonyedgecombe »

cat199 wrote: post #121
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that worked then advertisers would just switch to cost per acquisition.

quantified by? measured by? "oh hey google, trust us, noone converted, we promise"

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/6268632?hl=en-GB
Post reply on HN