Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Google Agrees to Pay $90mln on Click Fraud Lawsuit 132

Posted by samzenpus
from the pay-the-man dept.
Hitokiri writes "Google has agreed to pay up to $90 million to settle a class action lawsuit 'Lane's Gifts v. Google'. The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by Lane's Gifts earlier this year in an Arkansas state court and is designed to settle all outstanding claims against Google for fraud committed using its pay-per-click ad system back to 2002Google has made a statement on their blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Agrees to Pay $90mln on Click Fraud Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • by Hulkster (722642) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:21PM (#14880243) Homepage
    The January/2006 Wired had an article titled "How Click Fraud Could Swallow the Internet" [wired.com] that presented a case study of a charter-jet service victimized by this ... turns out it was their competition doing it to use up their on-line marketing budget. Google Girl [watching-paint-dry.com] basically stonewalled 'em.
  • by tacokill (531275) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:30PM (#14880277)
    Hey submitter and editors -- Google isn't PAYING anything. They are giving credits to buy more advertising.

    Am I the only one who recognizes the difference between "getting paid $1" and "getting credit for $1 - at that company"?

    • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:34PM (#14880305) Homepage Journal
      Also, they say its not just for Lane's Gifts.
      It is a 90mln limit based on how many people apply for backdated invalid clicks.

      From the blog linked above:


      For all eligible invalid clicks, we will offer credits which can be used to purchase new advertising with Google. We do not know how many will apply and receive credits, but under the agreement, the total amount of credits, plus attorneys fees, will not exceed $90 million.
    • Maybe Slashdot editors (and this submitter) work for the RIAA accounting department in their spare time!
    • From a company like Google, credits are as good as cash.

      Now Lane's Gifts just need to set up an advertising agency, and its clients will advertise via its account (and credits) on Google.
    • by flyingsquid (813711) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @12:10AM (#14880690)
      Hey submitter and editors -- Google isn't PAYING anything. They are giving credits to buy more advertising. Am I the only one who recognizes the difference between "getting paid $1" and "getting credit for $1 - at that company"?

      Plus, if Google is clever, they'll get just some guys to click on the ads bought with credit and use up that $90 million in no time...

    • For a publicly traded company paying something can be better than having to expense something or reducing your revenues. The primary quantity of interest is net income, which is accrued revenues - expenses and is not cash-flows. They could very well have decided to expense the whole amount this year, which would have hurt their earnings regardless of when they paid it. However, as with most class-action lawsuits, the settlement terms require that the claimants pursue the plaintiff for their reimbursement
    • The lawyers in the case are going to take their winnings in Google advertising links? This I gotta see!
    • Well, if I had 90 million bucks in advertizing budget, I'd be able to make five times that in whatever I was peddling. Or you could resell advertizing to interested parties.
      • Not if that $90 million was tied to google click throughs only. Get burnt by an advetising scheme and be forced to use it again, for the dubious possible return in new sales. If the sales revenue was generated the first time why would it be generated the second time. What will be the restraints placed on the lawyers legal fees, especially if they are administering the fund, the more they argue and obstruct claims, the more they keep and the less anybody actually gets.
  • Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jimmyhat3939 (931746) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:31PM (#14880284) Homepage
    My guess is this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a smart move for Google to try and resolve this stuff once and for all, but I doubt strongly this and related issues are likely to go away anytime soon.

    Reasons why I'm concerned about Google's business:

    • The fact that it's basically impossible to ascertain how prevalent click-fraud is.
    • The fact that many many people accidentally click on ads. Don't believe me? Try clicking *anywhere* on the blue ad box that shows up over results. Notice that a click even way on the right of it counts.
    • Many businesses are still in a 'honeymoon' with Google and aren't yet seriously computing the performance of their clicks (how many clicks turn into sales).
    • Do you seriously believe Google can keep getting $0.11 of revenue per search done on the site? Don't believe the statistic? Read the SEC filings and compute it yourself.

    Cue Google-fanatic flamewar.

    • by DeafByBeheading (881815) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:43PM (#14880330) Journal
      Don't believe me? Try clicking *anywhere* on the blue ad box that shows up over results. Notice that a click even way on the right of it counts.
      ...businesses that advertise with Google are planning to file suit against jimmyhat3939, alleging enticement to commit click fraud.
    • Can we define click fraud? I mean, I think the problem is that ads don't do much. I've long felt that all ads can do is say "Hey, I'm here!" I feel like people don't notice the google ads anymore, and I discriminate against ads I hate. If someone telemarkets me, I wouldn't buy if they were selling computers for dimes. If I get pop-upped to death, I'm not going to look at the products. So I wonder how effective all these net-ads are, esp. with people blocking them with FireFox's AdBlock, etc.
      • by xiando (770382)
        "So I wonder how effective all these net-ads are, esp. with people blocking them with FireFox's AdBlock, etc."

        There are people out there who have a hard time working the remote control for their TV. When these people go on the Internet they use "Internet Explorer" with no updates and they don't even know there are alternatives to it. Imagine your mother on the Internet to get an idea who's looking at the pop-ups desperately trying to figure out how to close that (or any other) window.
        • There are people out there who have a hard time working the remote control for their TV. When these people go on the Internet they use "Internet Explorer" with no updates and they don't even know there are alternatives to it. Imagine your mother on the Internet to get an idea who's looking at the pop-ups desperately trying to figure out how to close that (or any other) window.

          Yeah, TV and IE both suck life, so I avoid both. In the IE case, I also avoid the sub par software under IE, aka Windows, which is

        • by Anonymous Coward
          Imagine your mother on the Internet

          For what I use the Internet for .... uh ... no thanks.

      • If you are shopping for a service google adds are often better to use than the results.
      • by x2A (858210)
        Popups etc, I agree, but I've used google adwords from both sides - when looking for cheap secure certificates, for various sites I've worked on, I've followed google ad's AND made the purchase. Also, one of my clients registers adwords, I was actually surprised at how many direct sales it brings in (not counting people who come to the site, then come back later to make the purchase - can't track those so easily).

        Google ads work because they're shown to you while you're actually looking for them.
    • by neodiogenes (930950) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @11:35PM (#14880500)
      1. It is possible to measure click fraud. There are certain statistics that can be used to calculate its effect quite accurately, even if they can't be used to determine it on a per-click basis.

      2. This may be true but in the end the value of a click is the choice of the consumer. People clicking accidentally on a Google ad is no different from people "accidentally" hitting the remote in the middle of a Bud commercial and missing the second half of the 30 seconds. These accidental clicks are factored into the overall effectiveness of the ad.

      3. Most small business might be in the honeymoon, but not large businesses. Most of these are looking very seriously at the bottom line, and finding it's lower than they expected.

      4. At the per-click rates customers pay for certain terms, yes I believe it. Compared with other forms of advertising paid search is turning out to be an incredible value. The main question is how much Google and Yahoo can continue to fine-tune the targeting to squeeze out that much more revenue.

      --- not a Google fanboy as such, but convinced online advertising is where the money is at.
    • Welcome to advertising. How many people really bought your product after seeing the ad? How many wouldn't have bought it without the ad? How can you even measure these numbers? Advertising is for the most part a giant scam. Are you going to buy RC cola instead of coke or pepsi if you don't see their ads this week?
      • I disagree about advertising being a "giant scam".

        What, essentially, is the difference between RC cola and Coke/Pepsi? Most people (myself included) don't even know what RC cola tastes like because they've never tried it.

        Why haven't they tried it? I think it comes down to marketing and advertising. That's why coke and pepsi make millions/billions of dollars each year, and RC cola would be lucky to get 1% of what they do.

        You argued against your own argument by bringing up coke/pepsi and RC cola.
        • that's right, gp was a fool, anyone pointing out how worthless advertising is should point out Wal-mart's expansive growth while Sam Walton was still alive, and prevented any type of circular/flyer or advertisment from being used.

          I don't know about you, but building a a company that made 6 of your 'relatives' hit the top 15 richest people in the world isn't that shabby.

          Value per dollar belongs to Word of Mouth. it's true that 'paid' advertising can promote a lot of things, but at the end of the day it's no
        • RC Cola is good, but the best of them is Kroger's cola brand, especially their version of diet lime cola... I think it beats all others. Food Lion (gross though they otherwise are) makes the best lemon-lime soda.
        • I have had RC cola. I haven't bought it again because it tastes worse- way too sweet. I also buy diet pepsi instead of diet coke whenever I can- because it tastes better. No amount of advertising by Coke makes me change my mind on that (selling for a buck less a case has, or the corner store having coke but not pepsi has. But not advertising).
    • "Many businesses are still in a 'honeymoon' with Google and aren't yet seriously computing the performance of their clicks (how many clicks turn into sales)."

      I'll try not to be Mr. Obvious here, but consider this: when companies buy time on TV, they have no idea how effective those ads are. What I mean is, they can see the ratings for the TV show and you can guess how many people saw those ads based on the ratings, but that is no guarantee anybody actually watched the commercial, and even if they did, you
    • "The fact that many many people accidentally click on ads. Don't believe me? Try clicking *anywhere* on the blue ad box that shows up over results. Notice that a click even way on the right of it counts."

      Still brings them a customer. That's the point. Accident or not, they still go to that site.
    • I spent over $1500 a month on Google advertising for my synthetic oil distribution business.

      Each lead (submission form with name, number, address request for more info etc) that came through cost us about $15 a piece. That's not what we were paying per click, but by the time we paid for all of the people who clicked on and just browsed the site without submitting information, and by the time all of the fradulent clicks were factored in, it came out to $15 a pop.

      Not what we want, but it is a lot better than
  • Measuring Results (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thunderstruck (210399) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:32PM (#14880286)
    I wonder why internet advertising does not take a page from the radio advertising playbook. Daily, on the radio, I hear ads that say "Mention this ad and save an additional 12%!" This system allows the advertising folks to learn quickly whether their ad is reaching its audience. The customers come in and tell you so.

    Is there any reason why internet ads do not do this?
    • Yes. Because if that happened, some of the profit from the ad would go to the person doing the search instead of Google. Google doesn't want this and therefore won't ever offer coupons on their site.

      Pretty soon, two trends will effectively offer these kinds of discounts. First, Yahoo and MSN are going to start giving you discounts/prizes for searching on their sites. Second, look for companies to expand on A9's current idea of giving you a couple percent off things you buy at Amazon if you use their searc

      • ugh, it's not google that will be giving the offer any more than it would be the radio station! It's up to the company buying advertising space/time to work out how affective it is - *they* include the message "mention this ad for discount". If everybody mentions it, they know to keep advertising there, otherwise, they'd look at discontinuing advertising there.

        Come on, think!
    • Re:Measuring Results (Score:5, Informative)

      by M0b1u5 (569472) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:43PM (#14880332) Homepage
      We do things differently on the web. Your suggestion **IS** used by some advertisers, but I suspect it is not too popular.

      On the web, all you have to do is create different landing pages for each of your adverts. These are unique, and the stats speak for themselves.

      Using decent server side code, it's also possible to distinguish which advertisement your actual purchasers arrived from, and this is quite prevalent amongst serious e-commerce businesses.

      If your IT department isn't all that good, you can splurge big time on a very sophisticated WebTrends account, which will do all this stuff, and a lot more besides.

      • Re:Measuring Results (Score:1, Informative)

        by dotdan (902253)
        An alternate option is to log the referer. @OP: If you have a site, go into your control panel and check out your web stats. You should see a nice list of referring websites. Most general scripts can get the same info and record it to a database, where lots of nice statistics can be printed out. It's a lot easier than it sounds.
        • that gives you the people that come on to your site from say google.
          but does it also tell you howmany of those people went on to buy somthing right away?
          how about people who used google to find you, checked out your product but only came back a week later, using a bookmark, and then bought your product?

          referers give you a good basic idea of where people are coming from, but if you want more than that, you'll have to do the stuff that sounds a bit harder.
    • "I wonder why internet advertising does not take a page from the radio advertising playbook. Daily, on the radio, I hear ads that say "Mention this ad and save an additional 12%!" This system allows the advertising folks to learn quickly whether their ad is reaching its audience. The customers come in and tell you so."

      I'm not sure about Google specifically, but there have been plenty of ads like this. Really, it's about different flavors of advertising. Some adverts simply want to get the name of the prod
    • Daily, on the radio, I hear ads that say "Mention this ad and save an additional 12%!" This system allows the advertising folks to learn quickly whether their ad is reaching its audience. The customers come in and tell you so.

      Is there any reason why internet ads do not do this?

      Because they don't need to ask you, they already have that information -- each time you click on a link that takes you to their site, the webserver can log the referrer URL. With a search engine, the referrer URL will contain bot
  • Deceptive (Score:4, Informative)

    by celeritas_2 (750289) <ranmyaku@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @10:33PM (#14880294)
    Honestly, RTFM poster. Google says it will give advertisers who believe they are victims of click fraud up to 90 mil in advertising credits.
    • by Afecks (899057)
      Honestly, RTFM poster.

      What manual? Did I wander into a Linux IRC help channel?
    • Honestly, RTFM poster.

      What manual? I think you mean "RTFA".
      OT: Your name reminds me of an incident last semester in Latin I: The teacher was explaining his simple test on how to tell if a word is abstract or concrete(so you know whether the ablative of means or manner applies to it): Can you put a bunch of it into a bag and bash somebody's head in with it? Of course, his example happened to be "speed", and the class burst into laughter. Just because the Romans didn't have methamphetamines don't mean the

  • so how much is the going rate for the banner slot (top of the page) on slashdot? and for that matter, other popular sites? how much cnn front page time can 90 million get you?


    cribot.com [cribot.com]

    • Re:the going rate (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Erazmus (145656)
      Are the Adsense subscribers going to get screwed with this settlement? Imagine if Google gives out $90 million in credits, and displays those ads contextually via Adsense, but decides to pay the Adsense subscriber well below (or even 0) the normal rate for the ad. Who will know? It'll look like a PSA to the Adsense subscriber. He has no idea how much the placement of that ad on his/her website cost the advertizer. And Google gets to burn through $90 million without it costing anything for themselves.
      • ...the advertisers have decided to put the whole $90M into a single shot ABSOLUTELY HUGE advert... it's pot luck who will get to see it, but let's hope they were intending to make a purchase!
    • There are banners on /.??

      Oh yeah, that's right, I vaguely recall seeing one, before I added the following to my adblock list sever years ago (or so it seems):

      http://.falkag.net/* [falkag.net]

      http://ads.odsn.com/* [odsn.com]

      I'm not sure if that was all, I'm looking in the list of blocks, and I seem to recall those being the ones, there might have been more/different ones though.

      I've got about 75 different blocks, and it seems to clean up most of the internet.

      (Email me if you want the list).
      • by Anonymous Coward
        I don't block Slashdot ads. I like the site, and I see the ads as a substitute to subscribing (which actually *is* a substitute, since they remove ads when you subscribe).

        I even sometimes click a few that I am interested in.
    • Re:the going rate (Score:2, Informative)

      by smaddox (928261)
      Slashdot has a banner at the top?

      Man, i didn't know people still had to put up with that crap. I just assumed once AdBlock became so prevalent they just got rid of it.

      Anyways, if you dont know what adblock is, you dont belong on slashdot. However, if you can't get Adblock to work like it should, you should check out http://www.pierceive.com/ [pierceive.com].

      It will cover all of your adblock list needs. It even has an autoupdater, so you can stay up to date, even if your forgetful like me.

      What did people do be
      • Re:the going rate (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Jack Sombra (948340)
        Blocking every bit of advertising is not good for the net. Let say someone tomorrow came out with an addblock tomorrow that out of the box (thus no config from dumb users needed) blocked 95% of ad's on the net. What would result be? Majority of sites either closeing down or having to move majority of their content to premium pay to access areas. To host and maintain a website costs time and money, popular sites even more so, cut off or lessen their revenue sources (and the spread of ad blockers is turnin
    • Tell us, what's the going rate to advertise our sites in your /. posts? Do we have to pay more when you get modded up?

      (Hint: people will continue to make fun of you until you put your link in the sig where it belongs.)
  • I'm using adsense. This can't be good for my "shareholder value". Somebody, that means me, will have to pay for this. Anyone want to buy me dinner all next month?
  • Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by XMilkProject (935232) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @11:18PM (#14880452) Homepage
    This story is complete bullshit, It doesn't even begin to represent the truth. For those that didn't RTFA, let me paraphrase:

    Google usually allows advertisers 60 days to claim invalid clicks and recieve a refund for those clicks. Google has made a deal wherein they will allow advertisers to make invalid click claims going all the way back to 2002, and offer advertising credits for all of these clicks. Google does not yet know how many invalid clicks will be reported, but under the terms of the agreement the maximum credit given will come to a total of no more than $90 million.

    So in other words, this posting is either FUD or just bullshit, and Google isn't paying anything, but rather offering advertising credits.
  • $90mln? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Trogre (513942) on Wednesday March 08, 2006 @11:38PM (#14880513) Homepage
    Since when have we been using mln to denote million?

    What's wrong with calling 90 Megabucks $90M ?

    Unless people are worried about conflicting with powers of two, but in any case that should be denoted: $90Mi, or 90 Mibibucks.

    Or does mln denote "Millions of dollars worth of in-store advertising credit", which another poster has pointed out is what the plaintiff is receiving.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    If Google is paying out up to $90m in advertising credits, that won't make Google show any more ads. I understand Google uses some kind of auction system to price ads. If the people getting these credits will have more of their ads shown, others will have less of their ads shown. Will the auction system reduce prices for everyone else due to this, or will clickthroughs simply go down slightly so that, in tune with the laws of economics, people will notice their clickthrough rates decreasing and a few of th
    • "people will notice their clickthrough rates decreasing and a few of them will stop advertising with Google?"

      No, you pay per-click, if your clicks go down, then the amount that you will have spent with google will by extension go down. You'd only want to stop advertising with google if your clicks weren't translating to enough sales.
    • My understanding of the ad auction system is...

      A bunch of people write an ad, and bid on a keyword, stating how much they're willing to pay for a click. When someone searches for that term, Google shows ads based on (1) how much people are bidding at that time, and (2) how many clicks those ads have gotten in the past (so dud ads don't get shown after a while).

      If Google gives up to $90 mil of advertising credits to advertisers, what will happen is:

      1) For recipients who already advertise, they'll probably ad
  • Click Fraud Facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by JehCt (879940) * on Thursday March 09, 2006 @12:04AM (#14880666) Homepage Journal

    Click fraud runs about 40% when noobs manage a Google Adwords account. Much of that comes from Adsense via the Google content network, because it's a way for webmasters to line their pockets at the advertisers' expense. Competitor click fraud happens too.

    The ways to control click fraud are:
    1. Set low bids on the content network. Click fraudsters pick on the richest bids.
    2. Exclude sites from the content network that show below average conversion rates.
    3. Use your own tracking URLs to double check Google's conversion figures.
    4. Don't show your ads in cheap offshore locales. Some sleezebags have set up click fraud offices in these places where people are paid to surf and click on your ads.

    Discount your bids to account for the cost of click fraud. As long as you are happy with your net cost per conversion, click fraud is just a cost of doing business. Your bids are lower, Google earns less. If Google wants to earn more, they should the eliminate fraud.

  • Great News (Score:2, Interesting)

    This is great news, I have been tracking all of our Google Ad Click-Throughs for months now.

    Personaly i have seen hundreds if not thousands of tracking erros

    For example a user clicked on our Ad 10 times in less then 5 seconds, and then another user clicked on it 5 times in less then 1 second.

    Thank the lord for timestamps !
  • by Doomedsnowball (921841) <doomedsnowballs@yahoo.com> on Thursday March 09, 2006 @12:15AM (#14880712)
    Basically it's an economics problem that the brilliant people at Google have realized. They could win the suit, but only after spending WAY too much on lawyer fees. Of course both sides would agree to a settlement by the defendant (more money, less work for the lawyers on both sides). This is also an opportunity that can't be passed by a defendant who realizes that their case might not have enough to overcome the amount of money Google can throw at a legal defense (which they could, but again, it's an issue of economics). This problem is clear in Google's blog on the subject:

    For the finance folks out there wondering how we'll account for this, we can say that the attorneys' fees (which will be determined by the judge) will be charged as an expense, most likely in the first quarter, once the amount is determined. The credits will be recorded as a reduction to revenue in periods in which they are redeemed.

    Anyone who is acting like Google isn't paying enough doesn't understand either economics or the american legal system (notice I didn't say justice system). They may understand the difference between right and wrong (and I don't think Google is right), but they fail to understand "the way things work in the real world."
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @12:21AM (#14880733) Homepage
    For all eligible invalid clicks, we will offer credits which can be used to purchase new advertising with Google. We do not know how many will apply and receive credits, but under the agreement, the total amount of credits, plus attorneys fees, will not exceed $90 million. -- Google blog.

    All this is costing Google are the legal fees.


    • All this is costing Google are the legal fees.


      That isn't true -- there are lost opportunity costs too, though in practice they certainly won't come out to anywhere near the $90mln number. They do exist, though.

    • For all eligible invalid clicks, we will offer credits which can be used to purchase new advertising with Google. We do not know how many will apply and receive credits, but under the agreement, the total amount of credits, plus attorneys fees, will not exceed $90 million. -- Google blog.

      All this is costing Google are the legal fees.

      Nope. If they have to run a 'credit' ad to get it's clicks, then a 'paid' ad cannot be running. This is costing Google the income from paid aids that are replaced by cred

  • ...it's about time.

  • Lame (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09, 2006 @12:55AM (#14880865)
    Title says "Pay X", description says, "Pay Up To X", will the actual article say "Pay some amount which may be X".
  • by truckaxle (883149) on Thursday March 09, 2006 @02:52AM (#14881219) Homepage
    Overture claims [perlworks.com] to provide "Click Protection" for their pay-per-click advertising service. In reality they fail to prevent the most basic and easiest to detect non-authentic clicks - that is competitors clicking on competitors. They do not even filter out a customer clicking on their own links from within the Overture manager. Nor do they provide a method for an advertiser to test their own ad rendered URL's - a necessary function as a means to test the validity of an entered URL. Since filtering out such clicks would be simple and straight forward using established cookies or session id's - I can only speculate the reasons for not patching this obvious flaw and question the "sophistication of Overtures "Click Protection".
    • As I understand it, Overture's anti-clickfraud system is mostly GeoIP (determines the IP address location of web visitors in real-time) to determine if clicks are coming from offshore locales. As a previous poster mentioned "Some sleezebags have set up click fraud offices in these places where people are paid to surf and click on your ads."

      This does not catch competitors clicking on competitors, unless the competitors have off-shored the click fraud. Neither does it catch customers clicking on their own l
  • The current way the US Legal system handles class action lawsuits is incredibly flawed. Basically, for a scant 90 million bucks, Google is buying the right to continue to commit criminal fraud without fear of financial accountability.

    If I were a GOOG shareholder, I'd say that sounded like a pretty damn good deal. I could care less if someone went to jail over it so long as the company didn't have to pay financially.
  • I was in the adsense program for over two years and all of a sudden I get a message from Google saying our adsense account had received invalid clicks and was closed. What really pissed me off was that my wife and I had just started working on two new sites that were a part of a high traffic network. As such our adsense clicks went up a great deal with in a month and shortly after this they canceled our account. I know that I'm not the only one this has happened to. I personally know several people that
    • This happened to me. Went all the way through the song and dance of confirming the bank account, confirming the address... and then had it shut down right before the first month's disbursement was supposed to be paid out.

      I've been sending Google AdSense one email every month or so (because they won't respond without 2 or 3 emails in a row) asking again for the same simple information: What did you see that constituted an invalid click? So far, they've been completely unwilling to answer this question. They
  • Will GOOG be showing this "up to $90m" as a loss of revenue on the books? Or are they going to account it away so it doesn't hit the bottom line?

    It will be interesting to see how that part of it filters out as the market is starting to show more scrutiny towards Google now that it's "rampant growth honeymoon" seems to be coming to an end.

  • Defraud me, would you? Pretty please? I'll settle for half that and I'll only take 0.02 seconds of your time while I decide whether to accept your settlement. I promise! Can we deal?

  • by Grand (152636)
    We have a e-commerce site and got hit pretty bad from competition on click fraud. So we set up tracking on all paid advertising links. We also set it up so that if an IP came in on the same PPC ad more than 6 times in a week, they would get a landing page describing click fraud. We found that a lot of actual customers were tripping this. In the process of shopping around, they couldnt remember our URL or company name, but they could remember what they searched for to get to our site. They would click o

"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works!" -- from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Working...