Live data from Hacker News

Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

facebook.com

201–210 of 381 posts

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#201
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We built a page logger. Any time a page was loaded, we'd keep track of it. They reinvented the access log? By hand? Are people really that detached from how servers work?

Access logs can't record if javascript is enabled. There are other things I would be interested in if I were doing this too, I'd check the browser's TZ, check if flash was enabled, etc. and do it across sessions. Depends how far they went profiling their visitors, it clearly says in the article they were tracking if js was enabled, so yes, you'd need to roll something or another by hand. GA relies solely on js for ex…

easy: (new Image()).src = document.location.href + "Hey, i have javascript

And then compare in the log.

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#202

My startup is essentially an advertising aggregator (pooling traffic from a variety of publishers and routing it to advertisers) and dealing with things like bot detection is a HUGE chunk of what we work on, technology-wise. Let me try and give you an idea of how deep the rabbit hole can go. - Okay, you want to detect bots. Well, "good" bots usually have a user agent string like, "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2…

could you just add a mouse-over event to each ad that sets an isHuman flag?

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#204
post #195

My startup is essentially an advertising aggregator (pooling traffic from a variety of publishers and routing it to advertisers) and dealing with things like bot detection is a HUGE chunk of what we work on, technology-wise. Let me try and give you an idea of how deep the rabbit hole can go. - Okay, you want to detect bots. Well, "good" bots usually have a user agent string like, "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2…

this is a great use case for bayesean filtering, and I bet you could even hook up an existing bayes engine to this problem space, if not just write one up using common recipes - I've done great things with the one described in "Programming Collective Intelligence" ( http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596529321.do ). Things like "googlebot", "certain IP range", "was observed clicking 100 links in I'm sure facebook en…

Well yeah, getting a training data set, and then having your algo not be poisoned, seems like it is a challenge all around!

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#205
post #185

My startup is essentially an advertising aggregator (pooling traffic from a variety of publishers and routing it to advertisers) and dealing with things like bot detection is a HUGE chunk of what we work on, technology-wise. Let me try and give you an idea of how deep the rabbit hole can go. - Okay, you want to detect bots. Well, "good" bots usually have a user agent string like, "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2…

And then there are the "wet bots" - Amazon Turks and overseas humans (lowly) paid to use a regular browser and PC and manually click on stuff for whatever purpose (rig internet voting, drive fake advertising charges, steal data, skew hit counters - whatever).

All that is really no excuse for not developing a foolproof system. And if you know that you don't have a great system to catch fraud, then you should simply leave some money on the table.

See, the essence here is not to come up with a great algorithm. This is not a programming contest. But to create a system where everyone (publisher, advertiser, ad-network and customer) wins.

In this very early stage, the success of Facebook's Ad network should be measured only by one metric - ROI of Advertisers. And that number has to be consistently better than Google's.

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#206
post #193
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there are the "wet bots" - Amazon Turks and overseas humans (lowly) paid to use a regular browser and PC and manually click on stuff for whatever purpose (rig internet voting, drive fake advertising charges, steal data, skew hit counters - whatever).

Is an impression from a mechanical turk not a true impression? Its a real person, after all. If the premise of marketing and advertising work due to mere exposure, then intent of the view shouldn't be measured. What you are getting at however is very important to ad-driven internet business models. You make the empathetical deduction that if you are there for one purpose, you are impervious to advertising. Now, if yo…

The problem with mechanical turk impressions/clicks is typically the country of origin, since they usually involve paying people in third-world countries a fraction of a cent which is still worth some nominal amount to them. Say you are an advertiser who runs an ecommerce site that only ships within the US. You don't want to pay for impressions/clicks from people in India because you can't actually sell to them, even if they are "real" people and not a script.

Also, there is "brand marketing" and "performance marketing." I'm not sure they have classic definitions, but generally brand marketing is based on "mindshare" and tough to quantify. This is basically any TV commercial -- Budweiser doesn't expect you to jump off your couch the second you see a Bud Light commercial, but maybe a week later when you're in the supermarket, you spot that new brand of beer and recall the commercial with Jay-Z rapping and grinding with some models, and think, "eh, maybe I'll try Bud Light Platinum, I will purchase this and consume it later because I like the idea of rapping with models," even at a subconscious level.

Performance marketing is all about ROI. You spend $100 marketing dollars, and you want to make at least $X back. Typically $X = 100 in this example, although in some cases you may want to adjust profit margins or even run at negative profit (for example, if you want to maximize revenue even at an unprofitable rate). Almost any advertiser on the internet has a performance marketing mentality, mainly because it's much easier to actually measure performance. This is why advertisers like the OP are frustrated with Facebook, because paying for bot traffic makes it extremely hard to hit their performance marketing goals.

You are right though, in that this is a huge gray area. To give two extremes, let's say you run an ecommerce site but you'd also like to monetize with ads. So you reach a deal with a shopping comparison site to display their products on your pages in your footer. If you buy AdWords to your site, and those visitors from AdWords scroll down and click on the shopping comparison ads, they are probably fine with paying you for that traffic, although you are probably paying something like $2/click. If you make a page with JUST the shopping comparison ads, and buy traffic from someone who basically infects computers with trojans and overwrites their Google search results to be your site (say at $0.01 per click), then you'll get clicks on the shopping comparison ads and make lots of money, except the shopping comparison site will realize these clicks don't lead to any actual sales for their merchants (since this is extremely poor quality traffic since all the users that end up there have basically no intent) and will kick you off. Somewhere in between adveritsing for "first page Google AdWords" traffic and "trojan/botnet" traffic is basically every other form of internet advertising, and how gray that area is, is typically completely defined by your business partners.

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#207

My startup is essentially an advertising aggregator (pooling traffic from a variety of publishers and routing it to advertisers) and dealing with things like bot detection is a HUGE chunk of what we work on, technology-wise. Let me try and give you an idea of how deep the rabbit hole can go. - Okay, you want to detect bots. Well, "good" bots usually have a user agent string like, "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2…

Would it be useful to have a kind of open source database of "trusted" bots, just to get past that hurdle? I do realize there are many more issues apart from declared user agents.

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That escalated quickly! And so it seems that Facebook could be proven to be the new groupon. I would absolutely not be suprised if the hits were FB bots - however I'd expect they wouldn't be that directly stupid so as to have an Ad-bot net in house. Surely this is some service they outsource for plausible deniability. Something they would have learned from their relationship handing all user data over to the NSA/CIA.…

So without ANY facts your conclusion is that Facebook is fraudulently deceiving advertisers. And that they are doing this using experience from working with the NSA/CIA in order to cover up the fact that $800 million dollars of Facebook's yearly profits will disappear overnight once people realise the truth. And as such they are willing to pay out the ad-bot companies in order to hide this conspiracy. Right.

I think problem is more deep, I do not want to make other Conspiracy Theory but here some story from other huge Russian social network (vk 150m. users). There is one small, not that big group (like fb groups), users made agreement, that no one will post next day (something like honeypot), and those who post would be considered as bot and baned forever. So next day couple or so bots generated comments encouraging others do not go on strike against some political party [0].

I do not know is it applies to FB, but those who have like 100k bots have some power too.

[0] http://imgur.com/Vvkbx screenshot in russian

Edit: spelling Edit2: proper link

Re: Company withdrawing from Facebook as analytics show 80% of ad clicks from bots

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...without ANY facts... What about the farking article? Where they proved that 80% of their clicks were from bots. Then several others confirm they ahve the same experience? What about those facts? I also speculated on what FB is doing. Them giving user data to the NSA/CIA - that is a supposed fact, sure, but I am not the only person who believes this. Am I extremely distrustful of Facebook? Of course! Maybe you hav…

If you are into conspiracy theories then how about maybe this is Google directing a massive bot net to make facebook ads useless? > I also speculated on what FB is doing. Them giving user data to the NSA/CIA - that is a supposed fact, sure, but I am not the only person who believes this. Great argument! A lot of people believe it, so it must be true! Are you for real?!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN