gregbo (gregbo) wrote,

click fraud up again

According to a recent ClickForensics report, that is. They don't share how they came up with this number (for obvious reasons). I haven't seen a response yet from any of the major search engines; perhaps they're all busy with the proposed M$-Y! acquisition. But they will most likely reiterate that they are filtering out most of these clicks anyway, so advertisers aren't being charged. However, there is the issue of lost revenue from filtered clicks. Some text in a recent Google 10-K filing caused a kerfuffle among investors, as the reduction (filtering) of "accidental clicks" could lead to lost revenue.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about this any more. :) But either way, as the sophistication of online criminals grows, the search engines will have to do something more significant than just filtering clicks they don't think advertisers should be charged for, if they want to maintain their valuations.
Tags: click fraud

  • 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.