<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: When Click Fraud Attacks! Is the Threat Real Enough to Fight Back?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adotas.com/2006/03/when-click-fraud-attacks-is-the-threat-real-enough-to-fight-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/03/when-click-fraud-attacks-is-the-threat-real-enough-to-fight-back/</link>
	<description>Where Interactive Advertising Begins</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:07:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: CPCcurmudgeon</title>
		<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/03/when-click-fraud-attacks-is-the-threat-real-enough-to-fight-back/#comment-8184</link>
		<dc:creator>CPCcurmudgeon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2006 22:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adotas.com/2006/03/when-click-fraud-attacks-is-the-threat-real-enough-to-fight-back/#comment-8184</guid>
		<description>IMO, CPC is itself the problem, as is CPM, CPA, etc.  At this stage of
Internet protocol and architecture development, it is too easy to
manufacture clicks, impressions, etc. that can fall under the radar of
any click analysis technology.  I have always wondered why Google, as
talented as their engineers are, didn&#039;t realize this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IMO, CPC is itself the problem, as is CPM, CPA, etc.  At this stage of<br />
Internet protocol and architecture development, it is too easy to<br />
manufacture clicks, impressions, etc. that can fall under the radar of<br />
any click analysis technology.  I have always wondered why Google, as<br />
talented as their engineers are, didn&#8217;t realize this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Blackburn</title>
		<link>http://www.adotas.com/2006/03/when-click-fraud-attacks-is-the-threat-real-enough-to-fight-back/#comment-683</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Blackburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adotas.com/2006/03/when-click-fraud-attacks-is-the-threat-real-enough-to-fight-back/#comment-683</guid>
		<description>Click fraud has become a huge problem for companies playing in the PPC and SEM space. Google just happens to be the most visible, especially since they are forking over $90 million USD for the current click fraud problems to go away. The problem is they won&#039;t go away. Click fraud is a problem for Yahoo too, and everyone else in the PPC/SEM space.

Now there is technology available to stem the click fraud tide but, as a colleague of mine expressed recently, if Google turns on the ValidClick switch, their revenues drop by 36% and everyone says &quot;hey, what happened here&quot;. Then Google has to answer why they didn&#039;t prevent the fraud sooner, not to mention the obvious loss of revenue.

We need to look to the next generation of PPC networks to make this problem go away. The newer networks are getting wise and filtering out click fraud from the ground up using tools like ValidClick. But Google has a slipery slope to navigate.

ValidClick appears to be the only technology that filters out click fraud in the click stream itelf.  So fraudulent clicks never actually make it through, but are sent to the site host instead.  

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Google case but in the long-term they will have to fix the problem or they will be a victim of their own success.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Click fraud has become a huge problem for companies playing in the PPC and SEM space. Google just happens to be the most visible, especially since they are forking over $90 million USD for the current click fraud problems to go away. The problem is they won&#8217;t go away. Click fraud is a problem for Yahoo too, and everyone else in the PPC/SEM space.</p>
<p>Now there is technology available to stem the click fraud tide but, as a colleague of mine expressed recently, if Google turns on the ValidClick switch, their revenues drop by 36% and everyone says &#8220;hey, what happened here&#8221;. Then Google has to answer why they didn&#8217;t prevent the fraud sooner, not to mention the obvious loss of revenue.</p>
<p>We need to look to the next generation of PPC networks to make this problem go away. The newer networks are getting wise and filtering out click fraud from the ground up using tools like ValidClick. But Google has a slipery slope to navigate.</p>
<p>ValidClick appears to be the only technology that filters out click fraud in the click stream itelf.  So fraudulent clicks never actually make it through, but are sent to the site host instead.  </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what happens with the Google case but in the long-term they will have to fix the problem or they will be a victim of their own success.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

