Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Click Fraud — An Insider Look 87

Posted by Zonk
from the gotta-love-them-clicksters dept.
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece going inside the world of click fraud. It includes the record of a phone call the reporter had with someone calling themselves 'Kiss' who operates many pay to click and parked sites. From the article: 'Reached by telephone, Kiss says that his registration name is false and declines to reveal the real one. He says he's the 23-year-old son of computer technicians and has studied finance. He owns about 20 paid-to-read sites, he says, as well as 200 parked sites stuffed with Google and Yahoo advertisements ... He claims to take in $70,000 in ad revenue a month, but says that only 10% of that comes from PTRs. The rest, he says, reflects legitimate clicks by real Web surfers. He refrains from more PTR activity, he claims, because it's no good for advertisers, no good for Google, no good for Yahoo."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Click Fraud — An Insider Look

Comments Filter:
  • by From A Far Away Land (930780) on Friday September 22, 2006 @03:56PM (#16163017) Homepage Journal
    "inside the world of click fraud":

    "Nothing to see here. Move along."

    I guess I got defrauded into clicking on a story that wasn't there.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by flyingfsck (986395)
      www.clickmonkeys.com
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Nos. (179609)
      These "Nothing to see hear move along" jokes are getting as old as everything else. They were vaguely funny when there was a story about government coverups and such, but even those have happened so often its lots its effect.
      • ""Nothing to see hear move along""

        You're right, that would only be funny in a story making fun of deaf or blind people. Certainly not in a story about people who click with no intention of using the page they are loading.
      • by Sigma 7 (266129)
        You'll have to blame Slashdot's developers for making that joke.

        For some reason, if you try to read a story that just recently appeared on the front page, Slashdot simply gives an error message similar to "Nothing to see here. Move along." I suspect that is a syncronization issue, where the story is only half-posted.

        • by Al Dimond (792444)
          We all know this. It doesn't change the fact that the jokes are getting old.
        • I thought it was an attempt to discourage First Post Trolls, by locking people out for a few minutes from posting, if they'd refreshed the homepage several times in the last minute.
  • Good on him (Score:2, Informative)

    by celardore (844933)
    It won't last forever, but I'd love to earn that money for doing that amount of work. Even if only for a few months. As long as he pays his taxes, and he still gets paid then great for him. Save up for when the bubble bursts while you can.
  • by mpapet (761907) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:00PM (#16163054) Homepage
    I think I'd say the same thing if I was talking to a reporter.

    I seriously doubt ethics suddenly kicked in at some threshold number of sites. Instead, I would argue there is some kind of point beyond which managing so many parked domains stops getting really profitable.

    Between the cheating story from a couple of days ago and this, I'd say trying to earn an honest day's pay is much harder. It is for me anyway.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:00PM (#16163057) Journal
    ...every banner I clicked on, I might have made may be a nickel. But the PTR thing gives a new meaning to that old phrase.
    • by ackthpt (218170) *

      ..every banner I clicked on, I might have made may be a nickel. But the PTR thing gives a new meaning to that old phrase.

      I'd probably have less. I don't click on banners, but that's probably because most of those I see are advertising something I (a) view as shoddy OR (b) have no use for anyway. I'm never going to click on one of those Mortgage ads, why would I ever even think of doing business over a large financial matter with point and click ad vendor? I want to see a face and know where to find so

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I claim to be a billionaire and made it all by clicking fraud.

    That guy only claims a few hundred K.

    Feh.
    • by dunng808 (448849)
      Your link is broken. I kept clicking on "fraud" and the only thing that happened was that the word got highlighted. My finger will fall off before I make my first Franklin.
  • Earlier this year 360is.com published a brief note on clickfraud in their newsletter/bulletin thing, citing sources that Clickfraud as set to reach $1.8B by 2008. I expect we are going to see a lot more of this Fraud2.0.
    Full report/page: here [360is.com].
    Nick.
  • 10-15%? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eric Savage (28245) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:05PM (#16163099) Homepage
    So 10-15% of clicks are fake, and over time this number will fluctuate up or down, never reaching zero. But the important thing is that this means 85%-90% of clicks are legitimately interested people, assuming your ad is clear and accurate, which is the responsibility of the advertiser. Anyone who has ever worked with advertising should know that spending ad dollars with quantifiable results that high is a marketer's wet dream.
    • A bit ot perhaps but I'm wondering how the fellow can measure the average amount of time a user spends on a site. If I visit a site by clicking an add, his log shows 1 entry. The referer of which should be google btw so how he traces the ad display source is also a mystery. If I read his pitch and navigate away or simply close the site, that action isn't logged. He only sees the initial hit so how can the assumption be made of an average few second visit?

    • Re:10-15%? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jfengel (409917) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:44PM (#16163333) Homepage Journal
      The problem is the clumpiness. If that 10-15% were evenly spread over all sites, you'd mark it down as the cost of doing business. But if the fraudulent clicks are being targeted to some businesses, somebody's being royally screwed. A greedy click-spammer might end up making 50% or 90% of a particular site's clicks fraudulent.

      The upside, I guess, is that if there are a large number of fraudulent clicks, you'd probably be able to identify them as a group (say, when they come in a sudden spurt, or all from the same referrer). I'd love to see Google say, "OK, obviously you're the subject of an attack. We'll eat the cost this month and try to track down the jackass responsible, but you should probably take a month or two hiatus from advertising with us while waiting for that jackass to move on to somebody else. Sorry."

      If that makes smart fraudsters try to even things out a bit, then yeah, I guess you end up just lumping it in as the cost of doing business. It kinda sticks in your craw that somebody's making something for nothing, but you pursue them the best you can and try not to dwell on it since overall you're making money.
    • As someone who works in Interactive Advertising (net stuff basically) I call bullshit on those percentages. Not that I'd be shocked that a fraudster would lie to a reporter, but still. The article is worth a read if not for the chuckle you'll get when you read about the old granny running a PTR site, claiming to only take in on average about $75/month to supplement her government aid. Yeah right...These people need to be banned from the net or shot, and I don't have much preference as to the order that h
      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Rix (54095)
        How about we ban and shoot all the marketers first? They certainly cause a lot more trouble than these people.
        • Wow, what a generic, uninformed, ignorant, slashbot response.

          • by Rix (54095)
            Hint: When the only argument you can come up with is an ad hominem, it means you're wrong.
            • Right, because your being modded troll shows how on the mark your comment was. The fact about marketing/advertising is that you tend to only hear about it when it pisses people off. There are PLENTY of good examples that people enjoy and appreciate, they just don't make as good of headlines.

              • by Rix (54095)
                Fine then, restrict your marketing to explicit opt-in only, with no strings attached, and no one will complain. That would be what, 0.001% of all marketing?
    • by rtb61 (674572)
      Time for a new firefox extension, click burn, search for all the paid click links and open them in the background and send the returning advertising into null space.

      I am sure with a little effort we can switch those click percentages around ;-).

  • Sounds fishy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Target Drone (546651) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:09PM (#16163126)
    If he's really pulling in 70K a month and only 10% of his revenue is comming from PTR sites then why bother with them. He's just risking getting caught by Google and Yahoo and losing the other 90% of his revenue.
    • by spribyl (175893)
      Thats ~840,000 a year.
      I wonder what his expences are?
      I wonder what his taxes are?
      If someone where racking in that kind of cash some one might notice.
    • Re:Sounds fishy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MoralHazard (447833) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:29PM (#16163242)
      Yeah, I find it interestig that the reporter seems to take these vampire's assertions about their financials at face-value. Fact is, this "Kiss" fellow is far outside the easy reach of US law (Budapest), he's young enough to be amoral and stupid (23), and he clearly engaged in a shady-but-legal business in high gear. I wouldn't trust this guy to tell me the time of day!

      I also find this very interesting:

      On disability since a 1996 car accident, Ballard, 36, lives with her ailing mother and her cat, Sassy. She says she works day and night running Owl-Post, a five-year-old group named after the postal system in the Harry Potter novels. Sometimes, Ballard says she takes a break at lunchtime to tend her vegetable garden or help her elderly neighbors with theirs.

      OK, so she works like a dog at this job, "night and day". Interesting, but...

      She claims her take amounts to only about $60 a month, noting that if she made more than $85, the government would reduce her $601 monthly disability check.

      WTF??!! Why is she working like a dog, night and day, for $60 a month? She could make more money selling Herbalife shit. Clearly, this Ballard woman is lying, too--and the reporter doesn't bother to question it.

      It's almost a given that both of these people are seriously under-reporting their income, cheating on taxes, etc. And you can bet that both of them are pushing WAAAY more click-fraud than they claim.
      • WTF??!! Why is she working like a dog, night and day, for $60 a month? She could make more money selling Herbalife shit. Clearly, this Ballard woman is lying, too--and the reporter doesn't bother to question it. It's almost a given that both of these people are seriously under-reporting their income, cheating on taxes, etc. And you can bet that both of them are pushing WAAAY more click-fraud than they claim.

        If you were making only $600 a month (who could survive on that) wouldn't you try to make more mon

        • Yeah--living on disability is a shitty, shitty life. It's barely enough to get by in a trailer park, let alone at a decent standard of living. But that doesn't mean she's not a liar.

          1) There are ways, even on disability, to supplement your income. She could be watching children for familiy and neighbors, she could be doing low-end web design, dog-sitting, flower arrangements--there are literally a million little, tiny ways to supplement your income when you have shitloads of free time because you're stu
          • There are ways, even on disability, to supplement your income. She could be watching children for familiy and neighbors, she could be doing low-end web design, dog-sitting, flower arrangements--there are literally a million little, tiny ways to supplement your income when you have shitloads of free time because you're stuck at home on disability.

            Making any amount of money, even by babysitting, is supposed to be reported and wil endanger your disability check.

            She IS making more than $60/month from click

            • There are ways, even on disability, to supplement your income. She could be watching children for familiy and neighbors, she could be doing low-end web design, dog-sitting, flower arrangements--there are literally a million little, tiny ways to supplement your income when you have shitloads of free time because you're stuck at home on disability.

              Making any amount of money, even by babysitting, is supposed to be reported and wil endanger your disability check.


              You missed the point of this, entirely. I'm sayi
              • You missed the point of this, entirely. I'm saying that IF YOU ARE GOING TO SUPPLEMENT DISABILITY by making up to $85/month, why would you work at a $2 per day job in order to make your $60? Why not work at a $2/hour job, like dog sitting, or a $10/hour job, like babysitting kids for the nieghbors? That way, you could work for one week, make the maximum $85 allowed, and then spend the rest of the month reading or hanging out with your mom. WHY DO THE EXTRA WORK IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?

                Uh, I thought we establi

              • IF YOU ARE GOING TO SUPPLEMENT DISABILITY by making up to $85/month, why would you work at a $2 per day job in order to make your $60? Why not work at a $2/hour job, like dog sitting, or a $10/hour job, like babysitting kids for the nieghbors? That way, you could work for one week, make the maximum $85 allowed, and then spend the rest of the month reading or hanging out with your mom. WHY DO THE EXTRA WORK IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?

                Because apparently she enjoys her $2 a day "job" and either can't or won't do

            • by jrockway (229604) *
              > If you couldn't, and the only way to get more was illegal, would you do it?

              Well, probably not.

              But I don't understand what's illegal about clicking ads. You can only click an ad if you want to buy something? You can only click certain links once?
              • > If you couldn't, and the only way to get more was illegal, would you do it?

                Well, probably not.

                You wouldn't? What would you do? Just stop eating, let them foreclose your house and take your kids to an orphanage? If you can't live on what you have, and there's a way to make more, you'd do it because you'd have to.

                But I don't understand what's illegal about clicking ads. You can only click an ad if you want to buy something? You can only click certain links once?

                One of the people in the article is

                • You wouldn't? What would you do? Just stop eating, let them foreclose your house and take your kids to an orphanage? If you can't live on what you have, and there's a way to make more, you'd do it because you'd have to.

                  Where does this stop, then? Is it OK to shoplify a couple extra bags of rice and cans of soup from the supermarket, if you get that desperate? How about just holding up a liquor store or gas station, or robbing a bank, or mugging someone on the sidewalk to take their wallet?

                  The point is, if
                  • The point is, if the law is wrong, CHANGE THE LAW. It's just crazy to justify people breaking laws because it fits their circumstances.
                    If someone is starving, then they do not have time to wait for the law to change. If they can find a way to get food without hurting anyone else, then that is what they should do. Would you rather have people starve in the streets or working under the table? I kinda think it's obvious.
              • But I don't understand what's illegal about clicking ads.

                We're not talking about ads, bub. We're talking about breaking laws related to disability insurance, and possibly tax evasion. Read the whole post, next time.
        • by boingo82 (932244)
          Moreover, if earning $85 completely removed the $600 from the equation, wouldn't you earn "$60"?
          You know, with finger quotes around it?
      • She claims her take amounts to only about $60 a month, noting that if she made more than $85, the government would reduce her $601 monthly disability check.

        My dad suffered a brain aneurysm and stroke in 1998 leaving his left arm 99% paralyzed (he can move the shoulder a matter of a couple degrees but that's it for the entire arm and hand) and his left leg paralyzed enough that he can't walk on his own. Further, there are documented short term memory problems, confusion, confabulation, etc. We still had
    • by geekoid (135745)
      because 7000 dollars a month is a lot of money.
  • by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:12PM (#16163140) Homepage Journal
    If I am working on one of my websites, and I see an ad that I am interested in, I click it. But google doesn't credit me for my own clicks. Not that it matters much, maybe a total of 5 or 10 clicks over the last year, but they have the anti-click-fraud engine turned up so high, that once I log into google or my own website from an ip address, it almost certainly nullifies my ability to click on an ad and still get paid.
    • by hords (619030) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:28PM (#16163239)
      If I am working on one of my websites, and I see an ad that I am interested in, I click it.

      Be careful with that. Clicking on your own ads is a quick way to get your google account disabled. It's not worth the risk when some people have had trouble getting google to turn it back on again. They probably let people get away with it to a point because an accidental click can happen here and there, but it is against their TOS to click on your own ads.

      The other mistake a lot of people make is telling others to click on their ads to support their site. Big no-no.
      • If you browse the various web master forums, you'll find lots of stories of people being banned from Google Adsense for click-fraud. Just to be safe, I never click the ads on my sites. Anything that I find interesting, will get visits by me entering the URL manually.

        True, I'm probably being a bit paranoid. But it's not like I have any power in my advertising relationship with Google.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by hords (619030)
          I do know two people that have had their google accounts cancelled. One for clicking on their own ads, and one because all the visitors were in the same IP range (it was a college teacher's page for his students.) Both amazingly got google to turn them back on, but I wouldn't risk it myself.
  • You learn to keep it simple stupid when it comes to the business model.
  • No it's not! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wfberg (24378) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:20PM (#16163190)
    "It's not that much different from someone coming up and taking money out of your wallet," says David Struck.

    No it's not. It's completely different. It's more like handing out free samples, and to your horror finding that there are people who will just take any crap they get for free, even if they're not interested. It's like sending out mail order catalogues to people who just need something to put under a table leg to stabalize it. In fact, it's completely like, oh, let's say, paying a TV network based on pulled-out-of-ass Nielsen ratings, only to find out people go to the toilet during a commercial break! Who would've thought?

    , MostChoice e-mailed Google to point out 316 clicks it received in June from ZapMeta.com, a little-known search site. MostChoice paid an average of $4.56 a click, or roughly $1,500 for the batch.

    There's your problem right there. $4.56 per click?! What are ya, nuts?
    • Not unheard of. Some drug that was getting sued had a record of around $32 per click.
    • by mackil (668039)
      That really isn't that unusual, depending on the item your selling.

      At my place of employment, we sell high priced bath items. More often than not our Overture (now Yahoo) price per click is around 3 to 4 dollars, especially during the holiday season. Since the product's profit margin is typically high, the price-per-click is pretty reasonable. Especially since those kind of clicks usually generate sales (unless they are fraudulent of course).
  • by msimm (580077) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:26PM (#16163221) Homepage
    Make up your mind. The article seems a little confused about the subject matter. Domain parking is slimy, but assuming you're not paying kids from India to click your ads its perfectly legit. Granted, you'll here all sorts of whining CTR boards when google improves their system (again) to weed out content-free sites that have in the past made some people a good deal of money.

    Click fraud is click fraud. When someone or something fraudulently clicks on advertisements to inflate the website publishers CTR and ideally stuff his pockets full of cash. This is somewhat more then slimy or immoral and is something to be legitimately upset about because it hurts advertisers *and* legitimate website publishers (who are competing in a diluted marketplace because of these automated 'clickbots').

    PPC is down no matter how you look at it. Marketers, typically, jumped the gun on this new fangled advertising and spent boatloads of money 'targeting' their clientele without even having to research. Surprise. Not everyone is trustworthy. Right now google uses a blacklisting system. It is a thorny issue. If I wanted to blacklist my competitor whats to stop ME from hiring a security specialist in Croatia or Texas to start an artificial click campaign on their behalf?

    Fortunately for if I considered my ad revenue...well, revenue, I'd go broke. I bleed money. But then its a good cause and my day job puts food on the table. Just keep those clickbots away from me. I can still use that nickle on the dollar! :)
    • Make up your mind. The article seems a little confused about the subject matter. Domain parking is slimy, but assuming you're not paying kids from India to click your ads its perfectly legit.

      That's pretty much what the article is talking about. Except its not necessarily kids from India, but housewives from Indiana. Tens of thousands of people, all over the world (although many of these Paid-to-Read sites only allow people from countries most targeted by advertisers -- the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

    • by slyborg (524607)
      Croatia != Texas.

      Whoever heard of "Croatian Toast"? Or "Croatian Tea"? Or "Croatian BBQ"?
  • by also-rr (980579) on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:27PM (#16163229) Homepage
    Take a look at this graph [revis.co.uk] (the stats used are genuine).

    I have seen the pattern one more than one site, for what it's worth. Amazing really, as a 2:1 ratio of smart to stupid is *way* above my expectation of humanity.
  • What does a legal 'Paid To Read' scheme consist of? Is this just a wishful thinking exersize? "Oh, nobody gets hurt and I get to make some money clicking on stuff so it's fine."
  • by SisyphusShrugged (728028) <me AT igerard DOT com> on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:34PM (#16163269) Homepage
    Just postulating here, but given the behaviour of some of the spyware and viruses I have seen, I am wondering if maybe this is related to the increase in fradulent clicks.

    A recent virus I saw would redirect most traffic to those domain parking sites, and pseudo-search engines that (with names like, searchmastertoyou115.com) seem to be nothing more than a method for fradulent click through payments.

    Has anyone else seen this sort of thing?
  • by kcbrown (7426) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:40PM (#16163309)

    The only reason it's an issue at all is that advertisers insist on measuring the wrong thing: the number of clicks on an ad. I suppose that's an improvement over measuring "impressions", but it's not much of one.

    At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not an ad generates additional purchases of the service or product in question over and beyond what it would be without the ad.

    So clickthroughs isn't what they should be measuring. Instead, they should be measuring actual purchases that occur as a result of the ad. It's kinda hard to fake a purchase.

    But they're lazy. They'd rather measure the wrong thing easily than measure the right thing with difficulty.

    Until they get their heads out of their asses, they'll continue to have these problems.

    • by wombert (858309)
      They're measuring the number of clicks because that's how they're being charged. If they were paying a flat fee for placing an ad, they wouldn't care so much about how many uninterested people clicked on it and would measure the effectiveness of the ad based on increased sales (though they might scratch their heads at a high click-through rate with low conversion). When they're paying for every visitor that clicks, they aren't so thrilled about the cost of people who click on it to earn themselves some ad r
    • by ePhil_One (634771)
      So clickthroughs isn't what they should be measuring. Instead, they should be measuring actual purchases that occur as a result of the ad. It's kinda hard to fake a purchase.

      So you recommend advertisers place ads on your site, then they tell you how many of the people you sent to them actually bought something. And when they promise to give you the real numbers and track it accurately, etc, you are going to trust them not to under-report those numbers? Click thru is the only mutually verifiable statistic

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not an ad generates additional purchases of the service or product in question over and beyond what it would be without the ad.

      Actually, name/brand recognition is one of the big reasons companies advertise.

      That's why soooo much money is spent on getting the same advertisement in front of your face multiple times. On Tv, you're lucky if you see the same commercials only a couple of times during an hour long program.

      I guess it's a question of wh

    • That would work great for people selling incredibly high prices items that you aren't likely to buy after one surf to a web site, such as a car.

      They'd never make any money.

      Or if you don't actually sell anything on your website, but want people to be aware of your product(s).

    • So clickthroughs isn't what they should be measuring. Instead, they should be measuring actual purchases that occur as a result of the ad. It's kinda hard to fake a purchase.

      Makes sense. Of course, at present there's no way for Google to know when you receive a purchase. But in the future, that won't be the case, because of Google's payment system.

      We could get to the point where you get a big discount on your ads if you accept Google payments to pay for them, and you only get charged when ad clicks turn int
  • by volsung (378) <stan@mtrr.org> on Friday September 22, 2006 @04:43PM (#16163331)
    I have to agree with some of the comments in the linked article. Even with 10-15% click fraud, the marketing impact of Internet ads is far more measurable than the traditional media. What percentage of the time are people paying attention to the barrage of TV, radio and print ads we are exposed to every day? How do you know? Just look at the description (in the article) of the statistics that the owner of MostChoice has compiled about people clicking on his ads! Location, how long they looked at the site, whether they became a customer, etc, etc. Being able to measure your marketing has its advantages too, even if you have to deal with click fraud. (The mute button and the bathroom break have not destroyed TV ads yet.)

    What this really about is companies have paid for advertising assuming near 100% valid clicks, and upon discovering that they in fact only get 85% valid clicks, feel they have paid too much. The natural result, then, is going to be a 15% drop in the cost per click, both to ad purchasers, and in payout to affiliate websites which display them. Or maybe a segmented price scheme, where sites more likely to experience useless clicks will cost less per ad. The people setting up bogus ad-filled sites will see their revenue drop proportionate with their "success" at attracting bogus clicks.

    Don't get me wrong. The more effective Google and Yahoo can be at eliminating fraudlent clicks, the better. But there is going to be some point of diminishing return when deciding what is a bogus click is not worth the effort, and you will just have to lower the price or risk losing ad-business.
  • One of the easiest ways to set up a sites with ads that your "paid to read" gang clicks on is to establish a nest of splogs and automatically populate them with plagiarized content from real blogs. We think that companies like Google and Yahoo can benefit from better automatic splog detection (e.g., http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/tag/splog/ [umbc.edu]). It might be possible to test this hypothesis by analyzing the frequency of splogs as a source of clicks for an advertiser. If anyone whould like to share their data we might
  • by Avatar8 (748465) on Friday September 22, 2006 @05:02PM (#16163434)
    "The click fraud and bad sites are driving people away,"

    Hmmm Couldn't be those pop-up, pop-under and pop-in ads interrupting normal internet activity that are making consumers mad at advertisers now could it? OVER advertising is driving people away. It shows up at movies, so people rent movies or pay for on demand. Ads are added to videos and VOD. Bastards! It shows up on TV, so people record TV and skip it. Now there's talk of no-skip advertising on DVR's. Complete bastards! They're all over the radio so you have to keep switching stations or get an iPod or satellite radio. Then, of course, there's ALWAYS telemarketers regardless of how many no-call lists you're on or what service you pay the phone company to keep your name and number unlisted. Complete freaking bastards!!

    They didn't respond to requests for comment, and most of the sites disappeared in late summer, after MostChoice challenged Yahoo about them.
    Extremely suspicious that Yahoo and Google may be funding these parked websites to multiply their ad hits.

    Yahoo says it scans its network for PTR activity, but declines to describe its methods.
    "Oh, yeah, if it's not one of the parked websites we fund... I mean... uh..."

    "...it is going to scare away the further development of the Internet as an advertising medium.
    OMG! The internet has some purpose besides advertising? How the hell did this happen?

    I just hope that whenever internet2 becomes accessible that advertising is forbidden.

  • Moralist Scum? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday September 22, 2006 @06:20PM (#16163817) Homepage
    He refrains from more PTR activity, he claims, because it's no good for advertisers, no good for Google, no good for Yahoo.

    Ahh yes, this reminds me of my days as a mercenary for hire. See, I was a moralist hitman. I flatly refused to stab people to death. If someone asked, I'd tell them, "Look, I shoot them - 2 to the body, one to the head - or the deal's off. Stabbing people to death is bad for business."

    Say Kiss, if you're reading this; do the world a favor and step in front of a bus when you get a chance. Your ad sites are not content, they are pollution.
  • The only time I've *ever* clicked on a web banner intentionally, it was a flash banner, and the darn thing didn't work anyway. And that was..once. In the last ...14 years. I just don't see who is clicking this crap in the first place.
  • Is it true? I don't believe it. Maybe its just a competitors attack against Yahoo and Google.

    Try to imagine, what advertiser will do if they heard about this news. Of course they will think twice before they put their money for advertisement

    if he can make $70000 per month without being detected, then show me. I'm also wonder.
  • Click fraud serves those motherfuckers right, for turning an interesting communication medium filled with real communities, into a wasteland of advertising and commercial interests. Most of the advertisers on the internet use fraud (or at least lies and exaggeration) in their own advertising. How can they call foul when someone uses fraud against them?

This screen intentionally left blank.

Working...