Live data from Hacker News

“35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

reddit.com

171–180 of 398 posts

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#171

If I'm going to see ads, I'd prefer targeted ones personally. Show me something I might want - product discover is actually hard, if an ad can show me something that solves a need/want I have that's great for me and for the company.

Many of the comments in this thread are talking past each other, by ignoring one side or the other of the cost/benefit balance. It's pointless to shout "But it has benefits, leave it the way it is!" and "But it has costs, eliminate the entire industry!" without engaging with the opposing value set.

I don't think that anyone would disagree with you that true product discovery - educating you about a thing you didn't know about that solves a problem you have - is a benefit of good advertising. Lots of advertising isn't about product discovery, for sure, it's about persuading you to buy a thing you don't want and reminding you about a product you already know about and building an image about the product, and many people want to get off the hedonistic, materialistic treadmill that such persuasion pulls towards, but let's ignore that for now and assume that targeted ads lead to a benefit to the consumer of improved product discovery.

However, I don't think this is a very big benefit, in the real world. I can count maybe 3 things that I've bought in the past year or so where product discovery was important to me, where I was genuinely surprised that the solution was that easy and available. Heck, one was such a big benefit, I'll share: I changed the faucet hardware in my bathroom vanity, but instead of laying on my back and trying to turn the nuts by hand or squeeze in a pair of channel-locks between the sink and the wall, this time I got a targeted ad in my Amazon search results for the faucet advertising a basin wrench, which I didn't know was a thing. That's genuine product discovery, it saved me a little discomfort and a little time, and cost $6. I like the basin wrench, but if targeted ads didn't exist and I could pay a third party to provide me with the same advice I get from targeted ads, I'd value the service at maybe $2/year.

Targeted ads, especially as they're currently implemented, do have a cost to you as a consumer. It's largely invisible to non-technical users, but they do have a significant cost to your privacy. They cost computing cycles and battery life. They cost control of your devices, of your software, and of the websites you browse. Personally, those are pretty significant costs to me. And worst of all, IMO, they have a huge cost in mental fatigue, clamoring for my attention, because for every targeted ad that matches the "has this problem/wants to solve it with this product" combination there are 10,000 that fail one or the other condition. I value these costs pretty high, I bought an SBC just to run PiHole, I pay for Netflix so my TV is ad-free, I buy songs on my phone and wear noise-cancelling headphones in the shop at work so I don't have to listen to the incessant f*ing radio ads. Ugh. And there's little chance I can do anything about the billboards on my commute, though those are contextually targeted to my area rather than invasively targeted. I've probably spent hundreds of dollars avoiding ads, if I could pay someone hundreds more to make the entire industry disappear from my perception I would do so in a heartbeat.

That said, it's not possible to put a number on either the cost or the benefit that's true for everyone. Personally, I feel that those advocating targeted ads generally underestimate how much data is being collected, overestimate the benefits of product discovery, and underestimate the benefits available from alternative, less consumer-costly mechanisms for targeting, like content/context-based targeting.

How many dollars per year do you think the benefits of product discovery, as provided by non-GPDR, non-CCPA, no-holds-barred targeted advertising is worth to you? What price would you put on its costs?

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pay for ad time slots, not user impressions. This is probably the worst thing you can do to online advertising. It's probably one of the only good things about the online ad industry. If you book time slots, only the biggest players will be able to compete for that slot. Essentially killing the entire selling point of online ads, which is giving a chance to smaller players a chance at the game. I don't want to, ever…

You don’t necessarily need to implement bidding on a dedicated slot—-the TV comparison assumes you’re sending the same thing to each user. This isn’t TV though, you can display different ads to different people of you wanted. How about a system where probability of seeing an ad is weighted by how much money an advertiser pays? Then you just normalize across bidders and choose on that curve. Then perhaps the time slot…

The problem with any model where ad performance is based on how much cash you can throw down is that scams are much more profitable typically than legitimate services. A scam page can afford $5/click if it's scamming 1% of its clicks for $5000. Bidding on clicks is just a race to the bottom in terms of quality.

We should instead be using user metrics to evaluate and punish ads that lead to pages users regret navigating to.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that opening up the market to "Aunt Mae" will also open up the market to malicious players. The financial barrier of entry of TV & print advertising is a very effective filter against scams. I have yet to see scam ads for fake tech support or "win an iPhone by filling a survey" or some "free" trial which uses unreadable fine print to sign you up for something very expensive, but those are commonplace o…

So the answer to preventing scam ads is only allowing the richest companies have a chance to advertise? Surely there’s a better way.

Well, higher prices not only allow for people to be paid decent money to review the ads manually but are also a bigger risk for any scam operation as not only is it more difficult to obtain & move that amount fraudulently (you're not going to be able to buy a TV ad with a stolen credit card) but they also have much more to lose should their entire operation be discovered (presumably, a TV network discovering a fraudulent attempt will report it to the relevant authorities and will not just give the money back).

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#174

Every newspaper in America has obvious scam ads on its homepage. The whole online ad market is diseased and needs to be uprooted. Common sense fixes: - Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval. - Ban user tracking and targeting. It's a red queen's race and no one benefits. Everyone is better off once it's illegal. - Pay for ad time slot…

>Pay for ad time slots, not user impressions. This is probably the worst thing you can do to online advertising. It's probably one of the only good things about the online ad industry. If you book time slots, only the biggest players will be able to compete for that slot. Essentially killing the entire selling point of online ads, which is giving a chance to smaller players a chance at the game. I don't want to, ever…

You don't need to own a time slot completely. You could still split impressions based on a time slot, eg. you pay for 80% of the impression in a slot and I pay for 20%. You can still target "all sports fans form 10am to 2pm" or something as well.

This would still remove the incentive for fake clicks.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#175

If I'm going to see ads, I'd prefer targeted ones personally. Show me something I might want - product discover is actually hard, if an ad can show me something that solves a need/want I have that's great for me and for the company.

Targeting as it is currently done collects an insane amount of data which is an ever-growing liability which will inevitably blow up when that data leaks or becomes resold/misused.

It's already being misused, consider Cambridge Analytica.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#176

Every newspaper in America has obvious scam ads on its homepage. The whole online ad market is diseased and needs to be uprooted. Common sense fixes: - Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval. - Ban user tracking and targeting. It's a red queen's race and no one benefits. Everyone is better off once it's illegal. - Pay for ad time slot…

>Pay for ad time slots, not user impressions. This is probably the worst thing you can do to online advertising. It's probably one of the only good things about the online ad industry. If you book time slots, only the biggest players will be able to compete for that slot. Essentially killing the entire selling point of online ads, which is giving a chance to smaller players a chance at the game. I don't want to, ever…

Targeting is always harmful. Even if it had no unintended side effects, it would make ads more effective and thus more harmful.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#177

Bummer, one of my reddit ads in 2010 - 2012 outperformed anything I'd done before / since. I was advertising officially licensed Minecraft merch (cardboard steve heads, foam pickaxes) and it did extremely well in MC / Gaming subreddits.

They were using a 3rd party service (Adzerk, IIRC) for ads back then. Now they have their own in house ads engineering dept.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people aren't selfish assholes and want the sites they use to continue to exist.

Oh hey look, this argument. Do you believe that if 100% of people used adblock websites would stop existing?

Some would, yes.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#179
post #94

What I don't get here is - who is doing this? I'm not sure who has the motivation to falsify clicks on Reddit ads. For Google ads, somebody might want to falsify clicks on the ads displayed on their site because they get paid by the click, but who other than Reddit would want to do that here?

I use AdNauseam[0] which blindly clicks ads in the background on any page you visit. It may be morally wrong, but so is the amount of tracking ads do and the amount of malware that ad networks like Google let through.

[0] https://adnauseam.io/

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targeting as it is currently done collects an insane amount of data which is an ever-growing liability which will inevitably blow up when that data leaks or becomes resold/misused.

It's already being misused, consider Cambridge Analytica.

To be fair, Cambridge Analytica was just betting on idiots willingly granting access to their Facebook accounts and the data they ended up gathering was these people's social graph and had nothing to do with ad targeting.
Post reply on HN