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

211–220 of 220 posts

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

#211

Post by CM30 »

srean wrote: post #78
shubhamjain wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would keep ads. But I would prefer if advertisers are not allowed to lie or make unverified claims on ads. I would perefer to be able to take an advertiser to court for the claims made. That still leaves a lot of room for word play and weaseling ..."upto 80% improvement in blah", but better than nothing.

Isn't that what the Advertising Standards Authority does in various regions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authorit...

There are laws and guidelines stating that claims made in ads have to be backed up, or at least not misleading and there are companies who've been fined or forced to take down ads because of it.

Whether it works well is another question though.

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

#212

Post by CaptSpify »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #190
kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that can only support itself with ads has no right to exist at all in my view.

How exactly do truely free to use websites run if not with advertisements? Where does StackExchange get its money?

> How exactly do truely free to use websites run if not with advertisements?

They don't. And I consider this a feature, not a bug. The www existed just fine before advertisers came onto the scene, and it can function even better when they leave.

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

#213

Post by colejohnson66 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #212
colejohnson66 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do truely free to use websites run if not with advertisements? Where does StackExchange get its money?

> How exactly do truely free to use websites run if not with advertisements? They don't. And I consider this a feature, not a bug. The www existed just fine before advertisers came onto the scene, and it can function even better when they leave.

Are you saying the internet would be a better place without StackExchange?

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

#214

Post by srean »

CM30 wrote: post #211
srean wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would keep ads. But I would prefer if advertisers are not allowed to lie or make unverified claims on ads. I would perefer to be able to take an advertiser to court for the claims made. That still leaves a lot of room for word play and weaseling ..."upto 80% improvement in blah", but better than nothing.

Isn't that what the Advertising Standards Authority does in various regions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authorit... There are laws and guidelines stating that claims made in ads have to be backed up, or at least not misleading and there are companies who've been fined or forced to take down ads because of it. Whether it works well is another question though.

> Whether it works well ?

You must be kidding, right ? I would be happy if it works at all.

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

#215

Post by CaptSpify »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #213
CaptSpify wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How exactly do truely free to use websites run if not with advertisements? They don't. And I consider this a feature, not a bug. The www existed just fine before advertisers came onto the scene, and it can function even better when they leave.

Are you saying the internet would be a better place without StackExchange?

I think SE would indeed be a loss, but I do strongly believe that the loss would be well worth it to push out internet advertising. Additionally, I don't believe that SE's only viable financial model is advertisement.

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

#216

Post by hanetzer »

squarefoot wrote: post #208
hanetzer wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None that I know of, but you can find me on freenode in gentoo channels, other places, and #exploiteers. Gathering hardware data would be a good place to start.

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

#217

Post by hanetzer »

squarefoot wrote: post #208
hanetzer wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, I'm still recovering from hurricane Harvey, so I may not be online as much as usual, but you can memoserv me and I'll get it once I'm back online.

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

#218

Post by squarefoot »

hanetzer wrote: post #217
squarefoot wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, I'm still recovering from hurricane Harvey, so I may not be online as much as usual, but you can memoserv me and I'll get it once I'm back online.

Got it, will contact you asap. I'm very sorry about the hurricane, best luck to all of you people over there.

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

#219

Post by cat199 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #210
cat199 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

my understanding was this (sub)thread pertained to actual conversion - e.g. someone bought something.

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

#220

Post by cat199 »

runeks wrote: post #143
cat199 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

true, but which likely-related things are shown is also a decision for the algorithm to make, and one which can be skewed in a variety of positive or negative ways
Post reply on HN