Re: PPC Advertising, Click Fraud, and Its Effect on Search Engines

With web-pages, there is *no*way* to estimate how many people see any
> particular ad. *OTHER* than to count how many times it was displayed. > And that is not a "reliable, accurate" number, by any means. What it > is, however, is the "best available" data for estimating.

I realize this, actually. However, this "best available" method of estimation is what is in dispute (otherwise there would be no lawsuits).

Consider a "fleet" of 500,000 "zombie" PCs, scattered across three > continents. > Each machine, _once_a_day_, at a random time, connects to a given > web-page, without anybody in front of the machine. > Now, just _what_ are you going to detect?

I have described many scenarios such as this where there is no reliable way to differentiate them from clickstreams where the users do not find what they are looking for at the advertiser's site, or decide (non-fraudulently) not to buy, or are just window shopping.

I guess I don't understand the general tone of your response. It seems you are agreeing with me that PPC is a poor business model. If you feel that it is superior to, say, paying fixed fees for a certain period of time, I'd like to know why. The advertisers can use information that comes from companies such as Nielsen NetRatings to estimate how many people use a search engine, and what queries they submit to it, to determine a fair bid for an ad buy. Such information is no worse than what is used to determine rates for TV or radio ads.

--gregbo

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As for myself, I cannot really picture 'five hundred thousand zombie computers scattered across three continents'. If so, under whose coordination? A gang of crackers all working in concert to cheat some advertiser's competitor, by running up his advertising bill? Seems sort of improbable to me. PAT]