I just stumbled on a very good article by Donna Bogatin on the ZDnet site I felt was timely and definitely worth sharing. In the article she rebutes claims made by Google that the click fraud rate sites in the single digits at roughly 2%. She quotes Google point-man Shuman Ghosemajumder and his definition of a fraudulant click:
According to Google, its advertisers are charged for “valid clicks,” but not for “invalid clicks.” A straightforward analysis of Google’s accounting for clicks, therefore, ought to start with definitions: What is the definition of a “valid click” and what is the definition of an “invalid click.”
Clarity is difficult to come by, however, as Google often publicly defines the two terms simply in relation to each other.
I asked Google for the definition of an “invalid click.” Google’s base response: “Any click Google doesn’t charge for.” A “valid click,” in Google’s view, therefore, is one that Google charges for.
Hmmmmmmmm. This reminds me more of a conversation with my kids than a real justification. In my world it goes something like this:
Me – OK bud, time to clean your room.
Kid – But I don’t want to clean my room.
Me – Well you have to.
Kid – But why? It’s my room.
Me – Because it’s a mess and I don’t want to look at it.
Kid – Then don’t go in there. You don’t have to.
Me – Alright how’s this: because I said so.
Not the most intelligent arguement I can make but sometime your kids catch you off guard. I don’t have to feel so bad about my lack of brilliant counter-point as I’m dealing with cleaning a room, Google is dealing with billions of dollars of advertising revenue.
You can read Donna’s full article here.
SEO news blog post by Dave Davies, CEO @ 4:23 pm