Click FraudThere’s an interesting change underway with those nice people at Google.

It seems an element of ‘Glasnost’ or openness has spread through Google land. They’ve started releasing information related to their system that until now, was strictly under wraps.

One of these areas is Click Fraud.

This is good news because probably the biggest reason people avoid Pay per Click (PPC) Advertising is the fear of Click Fraud.

Click Fraud refers to people, maybe competitors, constantly clicking on your ads. The implication being that you’re paying for visitors who are never going to purchase from you.

I’ve been saying for some time that people should chill out about Click Fraud. 99% of the time it’s definitely a case of ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ On the rare occasions when there is significant Click Fraud, Google have been fairly good about detecting it and compensating you.

Think about it like this. The subject of Click Fraud has probably been the biggest source of negative publicity that Google has faced (or at least it was until they decided to invest their hard earned pennies into YouTube.) Click Fraud, or the fear of it is a significant threat to Google. It’s no surprise therefore that they have invested both money and some of their best talent in tackling it.

Until now, Google would not say how they were tackling it and were reluctant to give figures for click fraud.

Google’s Three Stage Attack

Google have revealed that they have a three stage process for fighting Click Fraud:

1 Automated filters

The first stage is an automated one. Google has a complex algorithm for detecting click fraud. It looks for patterns and it immediately filters out clicks that look like fraud. So these clicks will never even make it to being registered on your AdWords account.

Google will not go into detail on the algorithm for obvious reason. But they’re happy to give the example of double clicking. If someone clicks on your ad twice in a short period of time, it will only count for one click when charging you.

The interesting thing about Google’s revelations, is that (according to their figures) the vast majority – over 90% – of invalid clicks are detected at this automated stage.

We can probably rest assured that if your main competitor down the street is sitting in their home or office clicking on your ad 100 times, they are discovered at this early stage in the process.

2 Offline Analysis

This is a combination of computers and people analysing information that is highlighted by the system looking for unusual click behaviour.

This accounts for a much smaller proportion of detected invalid clicks than the automated filters – less than 10%.

3 Investigations

Google has a ‘Click Quality Team’ that investigates every complaint of Click Fraud. If you suspect fraud on your account, contact Google and they’ll look into it.

The company reports that most of the Click Fraud they find as a result of such complaints has already been filtered out by the Automated Filters. In fact, the undetected fraud they detect accounts for 0.02% of all clicks.

Google are making a big deal about this 0.02%. What they are basically saying is, “you shouldn’t worry about Click Fraud that’s detected by our system because that doesn’t really count. You should only be concerned about undetected Click Fraud and it turns out that this only stands at 0.02%.”

So to summarise, Google has revealed that less than 10% of all clicks are invalid. Virtually all of these are picked up by their system (and you’re not charged for them) Only 0.02% get through. 

‘Click Fraud’ or ‘Invalid Clicks’

Google makes another interesting point. Not all of that 10% mentioned above is Click Fraud. Google prefers to refer to it as ‘Invalid Clicks.’

The company is making the point that they can’t always tell when an ‘Invalid Click’ is ‘Click Fraud’ but if in doubt, they’re giving you the benefit of the doubt and not charging you for it.

Here’s how Google describe it, in their own words:

“Because it is difficult to definitively determine the “intent” of a click in many cases, the number of invalid clicks that we filter also include those filtered for reasons separate from fraudulent intent. Cases of provable click fraud attempts constitute a small minority of the clicks we mark as invalid. There are many greyer cases of possible click fraud attempts (but without clear scientific “proof”), for which we still choose not to charge advertisers. For example, we have an automated rule which filters out the second click of all double clicks as a matter of policy. We mark this kind of activity as invalid simply to optimize advertiser ROI. Those clicks are included in our “activity” metric and are also a good reason we use the term “invalid” clicks instead of fraud. This combined approach is the essence of click fraud management: the goal is to cast the net of invalid clicks sufficiently wide in order to have a high degree of confidence that actual malicious behavior is effectively filtered out. By proactively filtering clicks worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars every year, we are able to provide very effective protection against attempted click fraud.”

Summary – and What this means for You

Google claims that less than 10% of all clicks are invalid. You’re not charged for them and only a tiny fraction go un-detected.

Even taking into account Google’s positive spin on the situation, I would agree with the basic message, which is that Click Fraud needs careful attention pay – but should certainly not stop you engaging in Pay per Click Advertising.

Check your own Invalid Click Figures.

Google also lets you run reports on your AdWords accounts where you can see your Invalid Clicks for yourself.

Here’s how you do it: 

Log in to your AdWords account. Click on the Reports tab and then on the Create Report link. For ‘Report Type,’ click on the radio button next to Campaign Performance or Account Performance. Choose your ‘View’ from among the available options (note that hourly views are not available for invalid clicks reporting). Select the ‘Date Range’ for your report by using the time span. Data for invalid clicks reporting is available from January 1, 2006 onwards. For Campaign Performance reports, select which campaigns to include by choosing the radio button for All campaigns or the radio button for Manually select from a list ( to hand-pick your campaigns for inclusion). Within ‘Advanced Settings,’ click Add or Remove Columns. Check the column option boxes for Invalid Clicks (for the number of invalid clicks filtered during the reporting period), and / or for Invalid Clicks Rate (for the percentage of clicks filtered out of your total clicks during the reporting period). Select any other data you want included in this report by clicking the appropriate boxes and adding filters if desired. Note that reports with data for invalid clicks can’t include data for ad distribution. Enter a unique Report Name and check the box to save your settings as a template if you want to re-use them in the future. For ‘Templates, Scheduling and Email,’ schedule your report to run at regular intervals if you want it automatically generated; provide an email address for delivery if desired; and then choose your preferred report delivery format (.csv, .csv for Excel, .tsv, .xml, or .html). Click Create Report.

www.clearstart.biz

Click fraud occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script, or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating an improper charge per click. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud whether they like it or not.

Use of a computer to commit this type of internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example as covered by Penal code 502 in California and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the United Kingdom. There have been arrests relating to click fraud with regard to malicious clicking in order to deplete a competitor’s advertising budget.

Different types of click fraud:
Basic clicker cheat

This is a noob. This guy knows almost nothing about web technology or network architecture. He clicks on his ads every time he has chance. It can be a few clicks to hundreds of clicks daily. Most likely he doesn’t even read the AdSense Program Policies and Terms and Conditions.

Proxy clicker cheat

She knows a thing or two about cookies and IP address. Or she doesn’t know, but somehow guessed that if she use the things called anonymizer, Google will not be able to trace her, because her identity is hidden. She may use anonymizer / proxy websites or specialized anonymous software like tor (The Onion Router).

Multiple computer clicker cheat

He knows that somehow Google will detect if the clicks are originated from his own computer. So he will try to even out origin of the clicks. He will recruit his friends, family members, relatives, neighbors, his cats, and his dogs on single mission: to click on the ads. He will also click on the AdSense ads when he is using the library computers, or his office workstation.

Software clicker cheat

Graduate to the next step is buyers of clickbots / click-bots. These are specialized robot software to click on AdSense ads. It will browse around your websites, clicking on the ads every few minutes. The more advanced ones will cloak the IP address too, so the website seems to be very popular worldwide. To cover the track, this clickbots will browse around the advertisers sites too while continuing its “click quest”.

Paid-clickers cheat

If you don’t like automated things, there is always other option for you. Just pay $50 dollars a month to the professional AdSense clickers. These are groups of highly specialized Internet surfers with office in the dark rooms in street corners of India, Pakistan, and China, helping AdSense account owner to earn good amounts of money ? before the AdSense account is disabled, that is. They will browse around your websites, clicking on the ads every few minutes. Because they use human eyes, they know which ads worth more. And to be more convincing they can click a link or two, or sign up free offers / newsletters on the advertiser sites.

Click-rings cheat

Network is power. So says many business gurus. Instead of taking things to their own hand, this people realize that they can join hands with those with similar goals and distribute AdSense clicks among themselves, the so called AdSense click-rings. Joining this click-ring network means that your website address will be made known to members, who will regularly browse the website and click on your AdSense ads. In exchange, you will also browse other members’ sites and click on their AdSense ads. The medium used varies. Some click-ring groups use mail-list for communications. Some are using bulletin boards/forum, Yahoo groups, or Usenet. IRC is another popular way. Slightly more complicated is specialized AdSense exchange software for collecting member’s website address and displaying others’ websites for clicking.

Other medium cheat

I have tens of thousands email address on my newsletter subscriber list. If I include AdSense ads on my newsletters, with 5% CTR, I can get a thousand clicks per one email. Not bad. Or I can pay someone to write some useful/nice/funny/cute toolbars or firefox extensions or screensavers that people can download and use for free, and display my AdSense ads there.

Visitor cheat

Simply putting “Visit out sponsors” or “Check out the ads above” on your website is cheating. This might not be very clear-cut cheat to some. But Google AdSense program policies has stated clearly, the only text allowed are “Advertisements” or “Sponsored List”

Spam cheat

This is the highest level all click-frauds, the Maestro of Fraudsters. She spams millions of emails regularly, offering to “satisfy your inner needs if you can help me check on the links on my website”. Of course, email is not the only way. What IRC and instant messaging (IM) are for, after all. She will look for unsuspecting victims, offering something too-good-to-be-true “if only they will visit the website and click on the links”.

From 9/21 Cyber Report

Internet Turns 40! On September 2, 1969 the first two ARPAnet computers were linked and began exchanging meaningless data.  This evolved to the Internet and the ultimate exchange of meaningless data — Twitter.  Today there are nearly 1.7 billion Internet users representing 1 in 4 people on the planet — that’s a lot of birthday cards.  More Info:  Internet by the Numbers 2008; World Internet Usage Stats and the Village Voice’s humorous  Top 10 Internet Achievements.

 US Control Over Domain Name System to End Sept. 30
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce delegated management of the global domain name system to a newly formed entity – the  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  The US-ICANN agreement expires on September 30th, after which ICANN will be independent entity.  ICANN and and EU states welcome this move since the Internet has evolved from a Defense Department project to a highway of global commerce (and some international organizations are eager to step into the US role), but there is a push in Congress to establish a permanent relationship with ICANN.   More Info:  “Threats to Internet Oversight Mount as Key Protection Expires”  Circle ID; “Its Congress v. ICANN in the battle for Internet Authority;” Betanews  and Congressional Research Service’s 2005 Background Paper on ICANN.

Survey: 95% Clicks Were Fraudulent

A survey released by Seattle based Mpire reports that half of all ad impressions and 95 percent of clicks in online buys were fraudulent.  One analyst said that click fraud is “the dirty little secret of the online ad industry that no one wants to talk about.” More Info:   Online Media Daily article.  

International Briefing The French government has passed a 3 strikes law that would cut off internet access to users who repeatedly violated copyright laws (a prior version was rejected by French courts).

While there is some push to amend the US law banning online gaming, the European Court of Justice held that member states may ban online gambling for crime control purposes – thwarting efforts to liberalize the EU market.

China, however, has announced that starting December 31st every piece of music on Chinese hosted websites (including foreign songs which would have to be translated) would need to be approved by the Ministry of Culture.   Unacceptable music includes songs that “endangers national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity”; harms “national honor”; incites ethnic hatred or discrimination; advances evil cults and superstition; promotes obscenity, gambling or violence; or  goes against public morality or cultural traditions.

ILC Begins Third Year

The Internet Law Center enters its third year this month with offices on both coasts and a broad range of clients in 11 states and 4 countries.  We will be launching a rebranded version of our award winning newsletter (formerly known as Monday Memo) sometime in October.  We may experiment with different looks along the way, so any feedback is appreciated.

Provided by CommunityDNS, the information in this post consists of news items in the security-based Internet community.

Still No Internet Or SMS Allowed In China’s Muslim Region

Four months after ethnic riots killed 200 people in China’s Muslim region, access to the Internet remains blocked. Important anniversaries were the reason for the continued block, however the last of the important anniversaries is over.

Some companies have had to relocate employees outside the region so they could continue their business of selling products online.

While one marketing manager believes the Internet should come back in about a month, the Chinese government has given little sign as to when restrictions will be lifted, however will do so gradually as the province stabilizes.

Click here for more information.

Zurich Insurance admits big data loss

Personal account details were lost on more than 500,000 customers last year, admits Zurich Insurance. Those, whose information was compromised, were 51,000 people from the UK, 550,000 from South Africa and 40,000 from Botswana.

In August, 2008, the data was backed up on tape and sent to the organization’s South African storage center when the tape was lost.

Click here for more information.

Operation Eagle Claw nets 18 Nigerian spammers

Determined to remove the country from the list of countries producing the most fraudulent e-mails, Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. “Eagle Claw”, the operation dedicated for cleaning up Nigeria’s cyber image, should be 100% operational within 6 months. To date, however, the operation has identified and shut down 800 fraudulent web sites/e-mail addresses as well as arrested members from 18 syndicates identified with e-mail scams. When running at full operation, and working closely with Microsoft, Eagle Claw should take down fraudulent e-mails at a rate of 5,000 per month.

Click here for more information.

Fed’s Security Spending On A Roll: Over 8 Percent Growth Over Next Five Years

With a 300% increase in attacks on US federal networks and systems over the last 5 years, tightening federal security regulations and President Obama’s emphasis on security, the budget for IT security spending will jump from $7.9 “m”illion to $11.7 “b”illion in 2014.

Click here for more information.

Botnet click fraud at record high

Cyber criminals, wishing to profit from click fraud, are turning to botnets to generate the fraudulent clicks. In the 3rd quarter of 2009 42.6% of fraudulent clicks were generated by computer bots.

The increase in botnet use comes at a time when the overall amount of click fraud has dropped; from 16% in Q3 of 2008 to 14.1% last quarter. This signifies the manual form of click fraud has decreased by even a larger margin, thus pointing to the fact that botnets are playing the larger roll in click fraud.

The two most known botnets, Gumblar and Bahama Botnet, place malware on infected computers that will result in PCs returning altered Google results. In other words, if users click on an ad they are, instead, redirected to a site with little to know content. The revenue generated by clicking on the ad is therefore sent to the owner of the fraudulent site instead of the legitimate presenter of the ad.

Click here for more information.

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rule Making

In a unanimous vote the five-member, bi-partisan commission, voted in favor of the rule-making process. This does not mean they agree on the “how” and “to what degree” the Internet should be “open and free” versus “regulated”.

This “rule-making” process opens the door for the formal acceptance of comments on Net neutrality. The comment period will close January 14, with March 14 being the date on which reply comments can be accepted.

One of the republicans that make up the five-member commission disagrees that the FCC has the legal authority to regulate network management of the Internet as proposed.

Click here for more information.

Most professional live chat software feature sets include live visitor monitoring. It usually allows website operators to see who is browsing their website at a given moment, such information as IP address, Host Name, GEO location, referer, footsteps(visited pages) and computer specific is provided for each browsing visitor real-time! This could be very valuable. We will not go into details and specific case studies on live visitor monitoring feature of Live Chat software.

I do, however, would like to tell you a little story which you might find interesting.

I have published a new website for my new business and went ahead and listed it in Yahoo! Directory, it’s $299.00 per year but well worth it if you’d like to get your business noticed quickly. The day Yahoo! Directory listed my site in the “new” section i received an interesting call:

“Hello, my name is Peter “, i purposely did not use any real names in this post, ” i would like to offer you a great pay per click program, only 10 cents per click! Have you heard about Red Z ?”

“No, i have not”

“RedZ.com?”

“No, sorry”

“Well, we are a revolutionary search engine, with patent pending technology and millions of search queries served daily. We can offer you one of the top 3 spots on RedZ.com for 10 cents per click! How does that sound?”

 ”It sounds too good to be true” – i responded.

“What is your main search term?”

I provided a very competitive, about $7.oo per click on Google AdWords search term i was interested in

“Good news we have one spot available!” – said Peter – “Can you please go to RedZ.com and search for your search term?”

I did. One of my competitors’ site came up first, it looked slick, sort of like WIndows Vista running programs scroller, showing website front pages as thumbnails.

“Looks good” said I. It did look good, and for 10 cents i was willing to try. I provided my credit card and it was charged $500.00 for 5000 clicks from people searching RedZ.com for the term i purchased the clicks for.

I was spending a lot more on Google, about $1000-$2000 monthly for 200-400 clicks, so it was a no brainer type of a deal.

Next morning i have been emailed login details to login to RedZ.com and see my click stats. To my absolute surprise RedZ (redzee)  reported 150 clicks sent in the last 12 hours! What! How! Amazing! I am rich! Bye bye competitors! I won! I will buy all my search terms i am competing for on Google from RedZ and will buy a house in Maui in 10 months! Gotta call my wife and tell her to quit her job!

A thousand pleasing thoughts went through my mind…

I logged in to my business’ back-end with anticipation of at least 5 orders (2-3% conversion i could definitely live with). To my surprise there were no orders. Hmmm… Maybe a glitch?

I went ahead and logged in to my LiveHelpNow (livehelpnow.net) panel, it is customer service software i use, it provides live visitor monitoring. LiveHelpNow reported 150 referrals from RedZ.com, so RedZ panel reporting the correct number of clicks, what is wrong then!??? I started investigating further and LiveHelpNow showed that each visitor referred by RedZ visited front page of my website and immediately left. 100% bounce rate from RedZ visitors…what an upset, that was exactly what i was afraid of. Always trust your first instinct, what appears to be too good to be true, is probably not true. What a scam! I was pissed.

I called up Peter from RedZ and requested a full refund.

“What’s wrong? Why?” – asked Peter

“Well, RedZ sent 150 robots buddy” – said i – “100% bounce rate. You are buying your traffic!”

“I don’t understand…” – said Peter – ” what makes you think that!?”

“Please go to LiveHelpNow.net and log in” – i said and gave Peter my username and password – “Do you see how it shows every visitor referred from RedZ.com?”

“Yes”

“Can you tell me how many pages each of them visited of my website?”

“1″

“Which means the traffic redz is sending bounces 100%, correct?”

“Yes, but maybe this software does not report it correctly”

I asked Peter to go to RedZ.com, type the term i purchased and go to my site, browse a couple of pages and then see what LiveHelpNow panel reports.

He did that and to his surprise every move he made on my site was recorded and reported by LiveHelpNow software.

Next day i got full refund from RedZ.

This is how Live Chat Software detects click fraud and how it saved me $500!

What would Google do if there were a national ad click day–where everyone everywhere clicked on as many online ads as they could that day? Heck, we could even have an international ad click day…that would really mess things up. In fact, why stop with just one day? Let’s make it an ad click week, or month. Would advertisers have to pay for all those clicks or would Google’s “technology” be able to decipher which ones were legit? What about people with Adsense on their blogs? Would those bloggers just get screwed out of those commissions?

I’ll be the first to admit Google has a great search tool. But am I alone in thinking that they have gotten too big for their britches? Think about it. If you have Adsense on your website, you cannot even encourage your visitors to patronize your sponsors. What other business in the world tells their customers  NOT to visit or patronize their advertisers? Has Google ever unveiled or published the technology or algorithm they use to decipher legitimate from fraudulent clicks? Why isn’t it posted on their Adsense site? Who is Google to tell a user whether or not a visitor is legitimate or not? Does’t Google owe it to their advertisers on Adwords as well as their Adsense customers to communicate to them how they are getting paid? If I’m an advertiser, I want quality leads–but I also want as many leads or people looking at my product as possible. If  there were more clicks on ads, the cost per click would go down and actually decrease advertising costs. Google doesn’t want costs to advertisers to decrease because then they can’t gouge them as much. Isn’t price gouging in some industries illegal??? Gasoline comes to mind.

Google’s response might be that by publishing their algorithm that determines click fraud, they would be helping their competitors. Actually, they would be helping the industry as a whole and Their Customers! Google doesn’t want to publish that information because then both advertisers and website publishers would see how royally they are getting ripped off.

Google’s real product is their search engine. I don’t have any problem with them not sharing that information. If they did share their search formulas, and perhaps they already have, most people wouldn’t understand it anyway. Besides, there are only a couple other players in the search market anyway. By not sharing how they determine click fraud, they continue to support their own wide profit margins at the expense of advertisers and website publishers. That makes perfect business sense, as long as you support the idea of price gouging. Maybe the government should look in to whether or not there is any anti-trust stuff going on here.

Fortunately, although a bit late, there are other competitors on the pay per click scene that are emerging. Just to name a few: Bidvertiser, advertising.com, blogads, Adbrite, and Videoegg. Unfortunately, many ad networks follow Google’s lead by not disclosing their margins. Let me be more precise here. I am not asking them to disclose margins–simply publish how click fraud is determined. A publisher can merely compare how much they get paid from one network vs. another. However that can be very time consuming, cumbersome, and expensive.

Google, if you want to do your fans and customers a favor, share with everyone how you determine click fraud. I, for one, would like to encourage my visitors to patronize my advertisers. In the meantime, hopefully  some ad network will emerge with fairness and transparency–something that, in my opinion, Google has not done a good job of.

So what do you think? Should Google tell advertisers and publishers how they determine click fraud? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so? Please leave your comments below…

Anchor Intelligence identified a click fraud ring which involved 200,000 different IP addresses; http://j.mp/1mQzaN

The government of China does massive monitoring of Internet usage on its populace. Yet it was apparently unable to detect a massive click fraud ring run out of universities involved at least 1,000 people, 200,000 different IP addresses, and more then $3 million in fraudulent clicks. Right.

What is click fraud? For the uninitiated, this is when a person or computer program clicks on a paid online ad repeatedly when they have no interest in the product or service that’s being offered. This can cause major problems because ultimately this means someone is making you pay too much for your PPC campaigns.

Most advertisers are aware of the click-fraud issue but have not investigated further because of the technical complexities involved. Others are concerned that complaining too loudly will affect their relationships with the powerful search networks.

So what should you do if you think this is happening to you?

Well the good news is that the major search engines take this type of fraud very seriously, and they aggressively police their network to stop this happening. If they find any fraudulent clicks your account should be automatically credited back. However, no system is 100% foolproof and sometimes click fraudsters do get through this screening process.

What to Look For:

• Keep an eye on whether there have been any sudden spikes in click volume with little or no change in conversions.
• An increase in paid ads being clicked on by overseas IP addresses could be a sign of targeted click fraud.
• It doesn’t just have to be overseas IP addresses, keep an eye on any domestic IPs repeatedly clicking on your ads.
• Duplicate clicks from the same IP address could be genuine, especially if you see that these clicks all happened during the same session. Many companies use the same IP address for all their users, so if a company is researching you then this is genuine. Be wary of competitive click fraud though, if you see the same IP address clicking your ads across different sessions and at different times of the day then investigate further.
• If you are using more than one search engine to post your ads, look for a sudden increase in clicks on a specific phrase or keyword across all your accounts (especially if you are using a contextual network). If one account is showing a spike but the other isn’t, then this is a sure sign of fraud.

If you have checked your stats and you suspect click fraud, the first thing you should do is contact your search provider. They will be able to investigate further, and if there has been fraud, they will spot it.

You could also consider turning off your ad network while you investigate further. This is a sure-fire way to stop click fraud, but you will obviously not be generating any sales from these ads!

Provided by CommunityDNS, the information in this post consists of news items in the security-based Internet community.

Carder forum drops offline after hack attack

A group of white hat hackers, called the War Against Cyber Crime, hacked into the Pakistan-based site, Pakbugs.com. Pakbugs provides a forum where hackers and cyber criminals discuss hacking tactics, trade malware, stolen credit card credentials and bank login details. The white hat group found login details and e-mail addresses of the forum’s participants and posted the details online with the hope law enforcement agents would begin investigations on those listed.

Click here for more information.

NYT scareware scam linked to click fraud botnet

A Bahamian-based botnet has been tied to a recent uptick in scareware scams. The botnet was tied to a recent attack on the New York Times website whereby the site was hacked to push ads for Personal Antivirus; a rogue antivirus program. People choosing to purchase Personal Antivirus found their computers infected with a Trojan.

It is strongly believed the botnet is controlled by the same cyber gang that also did the Ukrainian fan club as the IP address for the fan club and the NY Times hack were the same.

The botnet is effective in having its traffic seen as “good traffic” because it alters the interval and breadth of the attacks across its network of infected machines.

First detected as redirecting traffic through 200,000 domains parked in the Bahamas, the botnet is now redirecting traffic through other intermediate sites hosted in the UK, US and the Netherlands.

Click here for more information.

Misdirected Spyware Infects Ohio Hospital

A man wishing to spy on the PC habits of a woman he had had a relationship with. After purchasing a legitimate spyware application he somehow convinced the woman to install the program. However the woman installed the software on her work computer at the Akron Children’s Hospital.

In a 10 day period the man received over 1,000 screen shots that contained detailed information on medical procedures, diagnostic notes and confidential information on 62 of the hospital’s patients. He also was handed e-mail and financial records for four other hospital employees.

Click here for more information.

Waxman Co-Sponsors Net Neutrality Bill

The issue of Net neutrality was raised in the House Thursday. Representative Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee formally signed on a co-sponsor of House bill H.R. 3458. The bill, if passed, would require the FCC to keep an eye on ISPs to prevent them from blocking, interfering with or discriminating against lawful Internet-based applications and devices.

Republicans fear the bill is unnecessary and would be anti-consumer. Waxman feels such a bill would add definition, thus allowing the industry to benefit from clarity, consistency and predictability regarding Net neutrality.

Click here for more information.

One of the knocks against pay-per-click advertising is concern about fraudulent clicks being made on online ads that cost advertisers money and drain their account budgets needlessly. And while Google, Yahoo and various online publishers have long held that their SEM operations can detect patterns of fraud and then credit-adjust advertisers’ accounts accordingly, that hasn’t mollified the skeptics at all.

And now SEM critics have new ammunition in the form of two click fraud reports issued in July by Anchor Intelligence and Click Forensics, two of the industry’s leading traffic auditing and traffic quality management firms. Researchers at both companies have discovered that “scripted” programs that click on ads increased in volume during the second quarter of 2009.

Click Forensics estimates that the overall average click fraud rate was nearly 13% over the quarterly period. According to the firm, this also included an ominous rise in “collusion fraud” on advertising networks. That’s when publishers rotate IP addresses (botnets) to click on ads on their own sites to generate inflated commissions from unprotected ad networks. Many ad networks have difficulty differentiating these attacks from valid clicks.

Based on these results, Click Forensics estimates that the amount of money lost yearly due to click fraud exceeds $4 billion. And while a large chunk of those dollars are presumably reimbursed to advertisers in the form of discounts or rebates, it is impossible to know what portion that amount actually represents because SEM program providers don’t share that information with the outside world.

Anchor Intelligence reported even higher rates of attempted click fraud during the second quarter 2009: nearly 23%.

Where are the nefarious attacks coming from? Richard Sim, Anchor Intelligence’s vice president of product marketing, says, “Vietnam stands out in terms of the fraud as a percentage of all traffic. Nearly one out of every two clicks from Vietnam was registered as click fraud.” That’s nearly double the rate of attempted click fraud found by Anchor Intelligence for the next highest ranked countries – Canada at ~28% and the U.S. at ~26%.

What this says is that click fraud is very much with us, despite all of the best efforts that go into trying to root it out. This should be taken into consideration by advertisers when planning and executing an online advertising program. And it wouldn’t be a bad idea to factor in a 15% or 20% “degradation” factor on all advertising goals and results when evaluating clickthrough rates and calculating ROI.

The good news is that, even with this reduction factor applied, when you compare search engine advertising against alternative forms of promotion, it’s still one of the better buys in the business.

Those who read Ecommerce Junkie regularly know our position on the issue of click fraud. It’s not just a pesky nuisance. It’s a major problem and a tangible threat to the bottom line for anyone involved in online advertising and marketing. And to this day, despite calls for change from many in the industry, it continues to wreck havoc without much resistance.

Now, as if click fraud itself wasn’t a big enough problem, we’ve come across competing data on click fraud rates from two separate “watchdogs”, which leaves us wondering who is really paying attention to the issue and who could be sugar-coating data to make things seem better or worse than they are.

Click Forensics, whose click fraud reporting has been referenced here before, recently unveiled their data on Q2 2009 click fraud rates that indicate a decrease in instances of click fraud—down to 12.7 percent from 13.8 percent earlier this year. Meanwhile, Anchor Intelligence released some of their own data which puts the rate of click fraud so far this year at 22.9 percent in Q2 and 21.7 percent in Q1.

We’d probably be willing to look the other way if the margin of difference in data was a point or two. But when we’re talking about variations of 8 to 10 points, then it becomes clear that something is truly off here.

Click Forensics’ click fraud reporting looks very skeptical especially given the close relationships they have with certain industry giants who, despite their public statements to the contrary, actually benefit from click fraud. It’s tough to buy the 12.7 percent rate issued by Click Forensics when, in the big picture, their data also shows an overall decrease in click fraud over the past 12-18 months (their data for Q2 2008 had click fraud at 16.2 percent, for example).

Simply put, not enough has been done preventatively in the past year to justify a nearly 4 percent decrease in overall click fraud. We’re more likely to subscribe to the data put forth by Anchor Intelligence, a group that works with companies to actually fight click fraud. Their research on the issue also seems to be a bit more comprehensive and in-depth, as they looked at click fraud rates not only in the U.S. but around the globe as well. And frankly, after talking to one e-commerce leader, a click fraud rate in the low 20s seems much more realistic than the numbers Click Forensics is putting out there.

If you’re an online retailer, advertiser or marketer, it is in your best interest to pay close attention to data like this when it is released. However, after tackling the competing information put out by Click Forensics and Anchor Intelligence, we strongly advise that you rely on the latter more than the former. Either way, it’s highly advisable that you diversify your online advertising as much as possible to avoid cost-per-click programs that can be wrought with click fraud. In addition, carefully monitor traffic and analyze click logs on a regular basis to spot the fraud and trends normally employed by botnets.

Got questions or comments on click fraud? Leave them below.

Provided by CommunityDNS, the information in this post consists of news items in the security-based Internet community.

Network Solutions breach exposed 500k card accounts

Details from 573,928 credit card holders were grabbed from a breach to Network Solutions systems. Hackers dropped software onto the system that delivered e-commerce services on behalf of 4,343 merchant websites. The software diverted transactions to a rogue server.

Click here for more information.

Security researchers unpick botnet economics

In a newly released paper, botnets provide cybercrooks with multiple potential sources of income:

• DDoS attacks

• Theft of private information

• Spam

• Phishing

• SEO (Search Engine Optimization) spam

• Click fraud

• Distributing adware

A single botnet is capable of performing all of these activities at the same time.

• A botnet for hire can bring in $50.00 to thousands of dollars for a 24-hour attack.

• Stolen bank account information can yield from $1.00 to $1,500.

• Personal data that can be used to open bank accounts under false names can yield $5.00 to $8.00 for a US citizen, higher for an EU citizen.

• Phishers pay between $1,000 to $2,000 per month for a fast flux botnet.

• Spam costs around $70.00 for a few thousand messages to $1,000 for tens of millions messages.

• Search engine manipulating spam (SEO) costs $300 per month.

• Adware brings in from $0.30 to $1.50 for each program installed. The price is higher in the more affluent US.

Click here for more information.

Feds strike deal on IPv6 testing

The US government is requiring all network and software vendors to enter into a comprehensive product testing program for IPv6 before their products can be sold to the US government. The compliance test is to be run either by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or labs accredited by NIST to perform such tests. Companies will not be allowed to become accredited and test their own products.

Click here for more information.

Aussie ‘Net filtering trial deemed a success despite problems

Five of the nine Australian ISPs reported few problems in testing the government’s filter file. The filter file has been met with controversy that stems from a completely opt-in system by the user to being mandated to be used by all as found in the nation’s cyber security plan, to having ISPs voluntarily using the file with customers choosing not to use the file. Two of the country’s largest ISPs, Telstra and InterNode refused to participate in the test.

Click here for more information.

EU updates mobile rules to boost use of Internet on the move

In a move that could boost the EU’s Internet-accessing mobile phone users from less than 100 million to 500 million, the EU Commission reached agreement on how to free up radio spectrum for new mobile Internet services. Under the GSM Directive the 900 Mhz frequency reserved for GSM phones, such as the Blackberry and the iPhone, will now be able to carry traffic for standard mobile phone handsets. The law, to take affect in October, is also designed to save mobile operators around €1.6 billion in network costs that deal with mobile Internet delivery.

Click here for more information.

By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News

www. news.cnet.com

Internet marketers facing higher advertising fees on search networks are becoming increasingly concerned about a form of online fraud that was thought to have been contained years ago.

The practice, known as “click fraud,” began in the early days of the Internet’s mainstream popularity with programs that automatically surfed Web sites to increase traffic figures. This led companies to develop policing technologies touted as antidotes to the problem. But some marketing executives estimate that up to 20 percent of fees in certain advertising categories continue to be based on nonexistent consumers in today’s search industry.

In one recent example of the problem, law enforcement officials say a California man created a software program that he claimed could let spammers bilk Google out of millions of dollars in fraudulent clicks. Authorities said he was arrested while trying to blackmail Google for $150,000 to hand over the program. He was indicted by a California jury in June.

Matt Parrella, chief of the San Jose branch of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Northern California, said that case was “not unique.” The problem “is certainly not shrinking, and we’re ready to prosecute people,” said Parrella, whose office handled the Google case.

Click fraud is perpetrated in both automated and human ways. The most common method is the use of online robots, or “bots,” programmed to click on advertisers’ links that are displayed on Web sites or listed in search queries. A growing alternative employs low-cost workers who are hired in China, India and other countries to click on text links and other ads. A third form of fraud takes place when employees of companies click on rivals’ ads to deplete their marketing budgets and skew search results.

Although the extent of click fraud is impossible to measure with any certainty, its persistence has exposed a fundamental weakness in the promising business of Internet search marketing. Google’s pending initial public offering has been widely anticipated as a barometer of online advertising and the post-apocalyptic dot-com climate in general.

“It’s hard to tell how big the problem is, but people are looking at it closer and closer as the cost of search advertising goes up,” said John Squire, vice president of business development of Coremetrics, a Web analytics firm. “Click fraud is a fin sticking out of the water: You’re not sure if it’s a great white shark or a dolphin.”

Unlike advertising in traditional media such as billboards and print publications, “cost per click” Internet ads displayed with specific keyword searches have been promoted as a definitive way for companies to gauge their exposure to potential customers. As a result, U.S. sales from advertiser-paid search results are expected to grow 25 percent this year to $3.2 billion, up from $2.5 billion in 2003, according to research firm eMarketer. From 2002 to 2003, the market rose by 175 percent.

As more advertisers have competed for desirable keywords in their industries, the cost for clicks has risen too. On average, advertisers are paying 45 cents per click this year, according to financial analysts, up from 40 cents in 2003 and 30 cents in the second quarter of 2002. In certain sectors, such as travel, legal advice and gaming, the cost can reach several dollars per click.

But marketing executives say click fraud is pervasive among affiliates of search leaders Google, Yahoo-owned Overture Services and FindWhat.com. In a typical affiliation, any Web publisher can become a partner of these large networks by displaying their paid links on a Web page or within its own search results and then share in the profits with every click.

“There’s a fatal flaw in the cost-per-click model because a ton of marketing dollars can be depleted in a fraction of a second,” said Jessie Stricchiola, president of Alchemist Media, a search-engine marketing firm based in Los Angeles that specializes in fraud protection. “Technology is continuing to be developed that can exploit this pricing model at incredibly high volumes.”

Google’s fraud squad
Google declined an interview for this report, citing the mandatory “quiet period” before its initial public offering, which is expected to raise $2.7 billion. But the company said in a statement that it has been “the target of individuals and entities using some of the most advanced spam techniques for years. We have applied what we have learned with search to the click fraud problem and employ a dedicated team and proprietary technology to analyze clicks.”

In recent documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company also acknowledged the problem as a threat to its revenue, of which 95 percent is derived from advertising. Google and other search networks provide refunds to advertisers when click fraud has been discovered.

“If we are unable to stop this fraudulent activity, these refunds may increase,” Google said in its SEC filing. “If we find new evidence of past fraudulent clicks we may have to issue refunds retroactively of amounts previously paid to our Google Network members.”

Google and Overture employ “fraud squads,” or teams of people dedicated to fighting click schemes. But at least two marketing executives say such countermeasures are missing fraudulent clicks that are responsible for between 5 percent and 20 percent of advertising fees paid to all search networks.

Overture spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens refutes that estimate, saying that the numbers likely represent acts of fraud that are ultimately caught. She added that Overture filters most fraudulent clicks with the best antifraud system in the industry, which combines technology and human analysis.

“We take this very seriously; it’s the foundation of what we do,” Stephens said. “If an advertiser has a question about it, we look into all matters.”

Cost-per-click advertising comes in many forms, but it essentially lets marketers gain exposure on a Web site and pay only when people click on their ads. Google and Overture let advertisers bid for placement of paid links, which appear when certain keyword searches are conducted on the networks’ sites or those of third parties that partner with them. Keyword ads can also be distributed according to the content of partners’ sites and displayed on non-search pages. (CNET Networks, which publishes News.com, partners with Google for shared advertising revenue.)

Most advertisers are aware of the click-fraud issue but have not delved into it because of the technical complexities involved. Others are concerned that they could jeopardize their relationships with the powerful search networks if they complain too loudly.

“It is a bigger problem, but folks just don’t want to take the time to track it down because it’s a complex problem,” Coremetrics’ Squire said. Given that some of the largest marketers manage up to 1 million keywords in a campaign, he added, the data can be difficult to crunch.

Danny Sullivan, who runs a quarterly search-industry conference, said many advertisers do not raise their concerns with the ad networks because “they’re afraid that if they complain, it will hurt their free listings.”

Still, more fraud-detection technologies are emerging to help advertisers analyze their campaigns and traffic. Some advertisers and search-engine marketing companies say they are compiling lists of sites that generate a high number of clicks but not sales.

Coremetrics, Urchin and Whosclickingwho.com are just a few that sell technology to examine click rates and sales that result from paid searches. Alchemist Media, which charges flat fees for its consulting services, has detected fraud while acting as an intermediary between search networks and marketers.

In general, Alchemist’s Stricchiola estimates that 10 percent of all search ad clicks could be fraudulent. But she said the rate can reach 20 percent in particular businesses that have been targeted for click fraud.

Roy de Souza, CEO of advertising technology firm Zedo, said his company’s geotracking systems have traced Internet Protocol addresses to detect click operations in China. In describing one common scheme, he said a legitimate site is duplicated under another name, complete with text ads from a search network. A bot would then be trained to click on the ad links that appear on the bogus site, said de Souza, who estimated that click fraud affects 10 percent to 20 percent of today’s search network ads.

Many policing technologies can counter click fraud by analyzing Web traffic logs or surfing behavior. If a page is turned every 1.8 seconds over a period of time, for example, fraud-detecting systems will flag the traffic as suspiciously uniform.

Covert clicks
Human operations can be more difficult to detect because a wide network of people can click on ads from different computers across many regions, without a steady pattern. According to a report in the India Times, residents are being hired to click paid links from home, with the hopes of making between $100 to $200 per month.

In other instances, the source of bogus clicks can be much closer to home.

Joe, the chief executive of an Internet marketing company, enjoys clicking on his rivals’ text ads on Google and Yahoo because his competitor must pay as much as $15 each time he does it. Eventually, such phantom clicks can add up and drain a rival’s budget.

“It’s an entertainment,” said the executive, who asked to keep his name and company anonymous. “Why do you run into a store without dropping a quarter in the meter? You know it’s wrong, but you do it.”

Kevin Lee, chief executive of search marketing firm Did-It, estimates that fraud from such “drive-by” competitive clicks and affiliate scams makes up about 5 percent of the industry’s total sales. Lee concedes that he can only guess at the number, but he does know one thing for sure:

If it gets much higher, he said, “then we should all be getting worried.”

Remember that Tech Crunch article that was getting all the retweet action earlier this week?

It essentially labelled Vietnam as the worst in the world when it came to click fraud.

Well, a strong rebuttal has come from Ho Chi Minh City Internet entrepreneur Simon Christy.

You can read his post here for the full list of what’s wrong with the TC piece.

He finishes with:

No one can deny Vietnam’s hand in e-commerce fraud – and perhaps, that extends to generating click fraud for overseas publishers?? And the sooner this is cleaned up the better for Vietnam. But remember, there are probably a very small number of people causing this trouble for everyone else.

To anyone that doesn’t know. There are 25m regular internet users in Vietnam. There are big, credible publishers and local online services covering all sectors. And a lot of purchasing power. To cut Vietnam off or to cast it with a simple “Vietnam is the worst…” is to overlook one of the fastest growing internet, mobile and consumer markets in the world.

No doubting the most Tweeted Vietnam story of the day – it’s this effort from Tech Crunch.

Entitled “Sure, The U.S. Has A Lot Of Click Fraud, But At Least We’re Not Vietnam” it comes handily illustrated with a picture of what looks like the DVD cover to “Good Morning Vietnam”.  Right, err nice work techie mag design guys.  (Behold my own two minutes worth of effort top right).

Anyway, seeing as it was being retweeted by assorted worldwide geeks I thought I actually better look up what “click fraud” is.

Wiki explains:

Click fraud is a type of Internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad’s link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud.

So with that explained – let’s go back to Tech Crunch:

While the U.S. is pretty bad with an attempted click fraud rate of just over 25%, that pales in comparison to Vietnam, which has an attempted click fraud rate approaching 50%. No other country is even close to them, as Canada is number 2 with a 27.7% attempted click fraud rate, and the U.S. is third.

So there you have it Vietnam is #1. While that probably isn’t “finger clickin’ good” it shows some level of high tech ingenuity, right?

No?

Provided by CommunityDNS, the information in this post consists of news items in the security-based Internet community.

Chinese Security Company Shares Huge Malware Database

KnownSec, a Chinese-based company, has developed a massive database of malware found on Chinese websites. With about ¼ of Chinese websites having a malicious reputation, phishing on the rise in China, password-stealing Trojans being China’s dominant type of malware and China producing the majority of the world’s malware, KnownSec scans nearly 2 million Chinese websites each day.

Click here for more information.

Stealthy click fraud tool exploits 9ball attack

Illustrating just how sophisticated hackers have become with their code, the latest grabs money without creating harm to the casual Internet user. “FFsearcher” is a Trojan that plugs into the Google API that allows webmasters to add a Google-powered search widget to their website. The widget is called “Google Custom Search”. The widget works by serving up search results alongside Google AdSense ads. With each click a visitor to the website makes on any of the ads, the owner of the website receives a small fee.

The trick? Each time a visitor clicks on an ad, the small fee is routed to the hacker and not the owner of the website. No harm comes to the unsuspecting visitor to the site.

Click here for more information.

US Agencies Require Net Neutrality With Broadband Grants

Tasked with the distribution of roughly $7.2 billion dollars for broadband deployment, two US agencies have imposed net-neutrality clauses on grant applicants. In addition, US Vice President Biden announced another $4 billion in loans and grants whereby the grant applicants “not favor any lawful Internet applications or content over others”.

Click here for more information.

Security guard charged with hacking hospital systems

The night-time security guard for a Dallas-based clinic was arrested for having installed malware on hospital systems. Having resigned from his post this person was set to hit the clinic with a massive DDoS attack the day after his last day on the job. He also compromised the HVAC system. Hospital officials now understand why the normal alarms did not go off during intermittent outages of their air conditioning system. This person was also found to have compromised computers used by the Dallas police and NASA.

How was he discovered? A leak to a security researcher from the hacker group. Further research turned up videos on YouTube showing the hacker displaying the HVAC consol and installing malware on one of the clinic’s PCs.

Comment: DDoS attack and manipulating with the air conditioning system that could damage medication? This is a great illustration of what could be done on a much larger scale, such as taking down a country’s power grid.

Click here for more information.

There was a new Trojan that attacked some 40,000 websites last month. The Trojan takes advantage of Google’s “AdSense for Search” API, which allows Websites to embed Google search results alongside the usual Google AdSense ads. (SecureWorks’ writeup indicates that Yahoo search is targeted too, but the researchers saw no evidence if the malware redirected Yahoo searches.) SecureWorks dubbed the click-fraud as FF Searcher.

지난 16일자 미국 시애틀타임지의 보도에 따르면, Microsoft사가 부정클릭(Click Fraud)를 통해 마이크로소프트가 운영하는 인터넷 검색서비스(Bing)의 검색광고 순위를 조작한 개인들을 상대로 75만불의 손해배상청구소송을 제기했다고 합니다(기사 원문은 여기를 클릭).

인터넷 검색 광고상에 벌어지는 부정클릭은 그 동안 여러 논쟁들을 불러일으켜 왔는데요(관련 포스트는 여기를 클릭), 인터넷 포털이 부정클릭행위자를 상대로 소송을 걸기는 이번이 처음이라고 합니다.  그 동안에는 주로 광고주들이 인터넷 포털을 상대로 손해배상청구소송을 제기해왔었죠.  일각에서는 클릭수에 따라 수수료를 챙기는 포털측이 의도적으로 부정클릭을 묵과하는 것 아니냐는 의혹 제기도 있었습니다.

위 신문기사에 따르면 2009년 1/4분기에 발생한 전체 온라인 광고 클릭 수 중 약 13.8%가 부정클릭이었다고 하네요.  또한 마이크로소프트사는 부정클릭에 따른 광고주들의 손실을 보상해주기 위해 약150만불을 지출해왔다고 합니다.

한편, 얼마 전 우리 대법원은 부정클릭행위자에 대해 컴퓨터등장애업무방해죄의 성립을 인정한 바 있습니다.

“포털사이트 운영회사의 통계집계시스템 서버에 허위의 클릭정보를 전송하여 검색순위 결정 과정에서 위와 같이 전송된 허위의 클릭정보가 실제로 통계에 반영됨으로써 정보처리에 장애가 현실적으로 발생하였다면, 그로 인하여 실제로 검색순위의 변동을 초래하지는 않았다 하더라도 컴퓨터 등 장애 업무방해죄가 성립하는 것이다”

다만, 위 사안에서 대법원이 무엇을 두고 “허위의 클릭정보”라고 표현했는지는 위 판결문만 봐서는 정확히 모르겠더군요.  일반적인 부정클릭, 그러니까 인터넷 이용자가 직접 또는 특정 프로그램을 이용하여 자동적으로 클릭을 반복하는 경우였는지, 아니면 클릭이라는 것 자체가 이루어지지 않았음에도 마치 클릭이 있었던 것과 같은 허위 정보를 생성시키는 경유였는지 말이지요(후자의 경우라면 당연히 허위의 정보에 해당하므로 업무방해죄가 성립함에는 이론이 없을 것입니다).  한편, 얼마 전에는 인터넷 토론방에서 특정 프로그램을 이용하여 자신이 작성한 글의 조회 수를 올린 네티즌들이 경찰에 업무방해 혐의로 입건되기도 했었습니다(관련 기사는 여기를 클릭).

부정클릭 문제(특히, 동기 여하를 불문하고 일단 클릭행위 자체는 있었던 경우)를 바라보면, 과연 그것이 범죄행위인지, 아니면 포털측이 개발한 비즈니스 모델의 내재적 결함 내지 불완전성이 드러난 것에 불과한 것은 아닌지(따라서 부정클릭 행위를  범죄로 보기는 어렵고, 만약 그에 따른 피해가 있다면 이는 불완전한 모델을 제공한 포털측의 민사책임으로 해결되어야 하는 것은 아닌지) 의문이 들 때가 있습니다.  이를테면, 위에서 본 인터넷 토론방 사건의 경우, 포털측은 “조회수를 조작하면 자신들의 신뢰도가 추락한다”는 취지의 입장을 밝혔다고 하는데요, 과연 포털측의 설명대로 ‘조회수’라는 것이 포털의 신뢰도를 담보 내지 측정하기에 충분한 장치가 될 수 있기나 한 것일까요?  조회수가 높다는 것은 그저 많은 사람들이 조회해 보았다는 것이지 조회한 내용의 신뢰도가 높다는 의미는 아니지 않습니까?  만약 포털측의 입장이 진정 “조회수는 글의 신뢰도를 나타내고, 우리는 이를 위한 서비스를 제공한다”는 것이라면, 포털측은 처음부터 실현될 수 없는, 결함이 있는 비즈니스 모델을 내세운 게 아니었나 생각됩니다.  그리고 포털이라는 영리기업이 내세운 불완전한 비즈니스 모델로 인해 적지 않은 네티즌들이 ‘범죄자’로 내몰릴 위험에 처해버린 것은 아닌지 염려됩니다.

한편, 문제가 된 포털측은 경찰 수사가 진행되자 조회수를 기준으로 ‘베스트글’을 선정하는 방식을 없애고, 토론글 추천도 IP(인터넷접속주소) 당 1회로 제한하는 등 운영방식을 일부 개편키로 했다고 합니다.

© 2009 정원일 변호사. All rights reserved. Some copyrights, photos, icons, trademarks, trade dress, or other commercial symbols that appear on this post are the property of the respective owners.

“Facebook advertisers are accusing the social networking company of click fraud rates of between 15% and 100% – charging them for non-existent clicks. The move follows a Microsoft civil lawsuit against alleged click-fraudsters filed last week.

Click fraud is defined as “A type of internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script, or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad’s link.”

Article:

This was something I noticed a while back around the end of May during the French Open tennis tournament held at Paris.

A particular news story was making the rounds when Serena Williams accused her opponent Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez for cheating during their third round match.

On going to Yahoo India news, this is what I found…

Wow…”Serena Williams calls Novak Djokovic a cheat”. A blatant fake headline to get the user to click the link.

Though on checking the story, it does state about who Serena Williams actually accuses of cheating and how Djokovic looses his match…

In the end, it is the user who actually clicked the link expecting something else who got “cheated”.

Is this not a case of ‘click fraud’?. It’s one thing to increase your ad revenue through click ‘hits’, but this is not the way you go about it.

The funny thing is, this is not the first instance of seeing such headlines in Yahoo India news..