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

141–150 of 220 posts

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

#141

Post by wyager »

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 can imagine several reasonable belief systems that would justify attacking advertisers; for example, if you view advertising as a form of psychological pollution.

However, given that one generally chooses to go on websites that serve ads, I think it's harder to justify messing with web ads as opposed to, say, billboards.

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

#142

Post by wyager »

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.

I would feel bad about this if YouTube wasn't already ramping up targeted demonetization via "YouTube Heroes".

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

#143

Post by runeks »

cat199 wrote: post #118
Drdrdrq wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mean…

> In this case I trust Google because their incentives are aligned with advertisers Is it? The better the overall search algorithm, the less the need to hack around it by paying for placement.. Some level of 'bad results' helps ensure that ads are needed in the first place, and junk sites provide a ready source of bad results.. Now, when junk sites cause you to lose revenue, the equation gets unbalanced, but that is…

> The better the overall search algorithm, the less the need to hack around it by paying for placement..

All the things you need are not necessarily known to you in advance. It’s entirely possible that someone has created a new product that no one knows about, and allowing these companies to pay for visibility allows you to discover these ideas that you might end up finding useful. The idea is that when advertisers pay for placement, they better have a useful product (that can recoup the cost), or else they’ll be throwing money out the window.

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

#145

Post by swills »

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.

I'm not sure this actually IS related. I think bot traffic is a bigger problem. Are you saying there's as much fake ad click traffic from AdNauseam as there is from bot traffic?

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

#146

Post by whipoodle »

fatjokes wrote: post #144

People just want free stuff. Google did introduce a program (Contributor) which would allow users to pay to fund their content creators without seeing ads. Last I heard that program was not doing well.

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

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

#147

Post by tyingq »

shimon_e wrote: post #136
tyingq wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect part of the uptick in fraud was Google's release of headless chrome. It uses less memory than other approaches, so any click farm converting over would have more capacity.

Google can detect headless chrome.

Wouldn't the fraud clickers build headless chromium from scratch and try to close the couple of giveaways?

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

#148

Post by osrec »

I am finding Google adverts less and less effective for an e-commerce business my parents run. I think it may be because consumers are getting better at ignoring the ad-noise on the web, and this is potentially quite worrying for Google and other ad based businesses. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that this fake traffic could be an attempt re-bolster their main revenue stream, and they've been caught out by their customers!

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

#149

Post by zaptheimpaler »

srean wrote: post #93
amelius wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguments against ads: - They provide unsollicited information, which distracts and irritates users. - They use screen real estate. - They use bandwidth. - They use energy. - They make websites slower. - They introduce security problems. - They track users, collect their data. - They incentivize companies to disrespect our privacy. - They put users in an information bubble. - Market failure: not the "best" product wi…

I think those descriptions are a little too subtle and too nuanced. Broader generalizations that make more sweeping claims would work better to make the point.

Absolutely. Broad, biased statements are indisputably the best way to gain deep insight into an issue. Details and worries about correctness often muddy the waters.

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

#150

Post by ThePhysicist »

jakobdabo wrote: post #91
ThePhysicist wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their website: > As the collected data gathered shows an omnivorous click-stream, user tracking, targeting and surveillance become futile. This is (IMHO) a flawed and dangerous view, as by clicking on the ad you provide valuable information to the provider (I.e. that you visited the website on which the ad was embedded) and this information can be used to build a pretty detailed view of your browsing habits. As…

If you are not running an ad blocker they already know you are visiting those sites from the trackers accompanying the ads, now they will also see a click from you which will make their database about your interests become less accurate.

Yes, but one of the points of running an ad blocker is to avoid sending any information about you to third-party trackers, clicking on every ad nullifies this, even when blocking the third-party cookies. And as I said I don't think that it will make their databases less accurate, as it's often easy to separate false clicks from real ones (due to different engagement rates and requests).
Post reply on HN