gregbo (gregbo) wrote,

The blogosphere has been abuzz lately with discussion of Google's release of the methods they use to determine which clicks are "invalid".

There has been other commentary from Matt Cutts and Shuman Ghosemajumder (who was a Sloanie, btw). The latter contains a key admission, something not explicitly stated by Google before (at least from what I've heard and seen):

"So what is our overall "click fraud rate"? As noted in the diagram in the story, it is virtually impossible to know the intent of every click. However, we can do a very effective job using statistical techniques to detect potentially malicious behavior, and the total number of invalid clicks we detect – whether for suspected malicious or non-malicious intent – is in the single digit percentages. So third-party estimates which say that click fraud is 15% or higher appear to clearly be substantial exaggerations."

While this statement is plausible on the surface, it still underscores that the actual amount of click fraud is still unknown, and will continue to be when the determination is made using logs, clickstreams, etc.

  • Ciena interview

    I had an onsite interview at Ciena a couple of weeks ago for a Senior Systems Test position. Long story short — I didn't get the job. I think they…

  • ProtonMail test

    I took a test from 7-9am this morning from ProtonMail, a secure email provider based in Geneva, Switzerland, that has an office in SF. The test was…

  • IBM interview

    I had an interview loop yesterday at the IBM Silicon Valley Lab facility with several people from the Cloud Network Services group. Four engineers…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment