Công việc khó khăn nhất khi quyết định mua cổ phiếu là xác định thời điểm nào giá của cổ phiếu được xem là rẻ nhất. Nhiều nhà đầu tư cho rằng, vào lúc mà giá của một cổ phiếu xuống tới mức thất nhất mà nó đã từng đạt tới trước đây, hoặc thấp hơn giá cổ phiếu của các đối thủ cạnh tranh, thì đó chính là thời điểm nên mua với số lượng lớn. Nhưng thông thường, giá cả chỉ phản ánh một cách tương đối giá trị thật của cổ phiếu. Nếu bạn chỉ đánh giá dựa vào yếu tố này mà không đi sâu phân tích giá trị thực của chúng, thì bạn rất dễ bị rơi vào bẫy.

Tại sao lại như vậy? Điều này đã được lịch sử thị trường chứng khoán minh chứng bằng những ví dụ như sau:
Câu chuyện về bong bóng dot-com

Hẳn nhiều người còn nhớ bong bóng dot-com ở Mỹ 7-8 năm về trước. Vào thời điểm đó, Internet phát triển như vũ bão đã khiến nhiều doanh nghiệp nhanh chân ra sức tận dụng thế mạnh của nó cho ra đời hàng loạt các công ty dựa vào Internet để tiến hành công việc kinh doanh của mình. Đó chính là các công ty dotcom. Các doanh nghiệp này cho rằng, Internet sẽ giúp họ xóa bỏ hàng rào ngăn cách giữa nhà sản xuất với người tiêu dùng, không còn phải lo đến các khâu trung gian như phân phối hoặc chi phí bán lẻ. Sự ra đời hàng loạt các công ty dotcom đã khiến cho thị trường chứng khoán Mỹ chao đảo. Tuy thị trường chứng khoán Mỹ đã rất phát triển với hệ thống các quy chế chặt chẽ còn dân Mỹ thì đã quen với thị trường này mấy trăm năm, thế mà hàng chục triệu người vẫn đổ xô vào mua cổ phiếu của các công ty dot-com khiến cho chỉ số Nasdag trong ba năm đã tăng gấp năm lần.

Nhiều công ty chưa hề tạo ra một xu lợi nhuận mà cổ phiếu vẫn được mọi người lùng mua (tức là hệ số giá cổ phiếu trên lợi tức P/E bằng vô cùng chứ không phải 70 hay 100 như một số công ty được đánh giá là có tiềm năng phát triển trong tương lai như hiện nay). Thế rồi bong bóng dot-com vỡ vào tháng 03/2000. Hàng loạt công ty dot-com phá sản, nhiều nhà đầu tư trở nên trắng tay.

Những công ty kinh doanh viễn thông và Internet có uy tín trên thị trường cũng bị vạ lây, mà điển hình là trường hợp của Hãng Nortel Networks Corp. – hãng khổng lồ viễn thông của Canada, nhà cung cấp các thiết bị viễn thông lớn thứ ba trên thế giới. Khi diễn ra cuộc khủng hoảng này, giá cổ phiếu của Nortel Network đã giảm từ 800 đô-la xuống chỉ còn 200 đô-la. Nhiều nhà đầu tư cho rằng một cổ phiếu có giá bằng 25% giá ở thời điểm cao nhất của nó, sẽ là một vụ làm ăn lớn, chắc sẽ đem lại nhiều lợi nhuận. Nhưng sự thật, họ đã lầm. Cái giá 800 đô-la/cổ phiếu của Nortel Networks thời điểm trước khủng hoảng là một cái giá vượt quá giá trị thực của nó rất nhiều lần. Và khi nó xuống còn 200 đô-la/cổ phiếu, đấy cũng chưa phải là giá trị thực của nó.

Vì vậy, khi bạn nhìn thấy giá cổ phiếu xuống thấp hơn với đỉnh điểm của nó nhiều lần, cũng đừng vội vàng đầu tư, vì rất có thể đó là sự đầu tư thiếu khôn ngoan.

Thậm chí, khi một cổ phiếu có giá trị tương đối trên thị trường bỗng nhiên sụt giá nhanh chóng, cũng chưa chắc là sự đầu tư tốt nếu như viễn cảnh của nó ảm đạm. Hãy lấy Hãng Novastar Financial – một hãng tài trợ nợ địa ốc lớn tại Mỹ làm ví dụ. Giá cổ phiếu của hãng này hiện nay dường như không đắt như cuối năm 2006. Nhưng nếu bạn phân tích thị trường thì sẽ thấy, từ đó đến nay, thị trường địa ốc ở Mỹ đang tiếp tục chịu tổn thất và sụt giảm nghiêm trọng, vì vậy vay tiền bằng cách thế chấp nhà sẽ ngày càng khó khăn khăn. Do đó, đương nhiên việc kinh doanh các món nợ thế chấp đang trong chiều hướng đi xuống, nên mặc dù giá cổ phiếu của Novastas Financial có giảm đi nhiều lần, nó rõ ràng không phải là một giá hời để bạn đầu tư.

Giá cổ phiếu hai đối thủ cạnh tranh, một cao một thấp, bạn quyết định đầu tư vào đâu?

Một trong số những sai lầm hay mắc phải là bạn cho rằng giá của một cổ phiếu là rẻ khi nó thấp hơn nhiều lần so giá cổ phiếu của các với đối thủ cạnh tranh. Trở lại thời kỳ đầu năm 2000, Nokia và Motorola là hai đối thủ kình địch trên thị trường điện thoại di động và giá cổ phiếu không chênh nhau mấy. Khi giá của một cổ phiếu của Nokia xuống thấp hơn giá một cổ phiếu của Motorola, nhiều nhà đầu tư đã quyết định đầu tư vào Nokia. Rất tiếc, ở thời điểm đó, giá của cả hai cổ phiếu này đều được nâng cao lên so với giá trị thực rất nhiều lần. Và các nhà đầu tư đã có một cái nhìn thiển cận khi mua cổ phiếu của Nokia.

Hoặc bạn có thể xem xét ví dụ xảy ra gần đây nhất của hãng truyền thông và Internet Yahoo Inc. và đối thủ cạnh tranh lớn nhất của nó là Google. Vào tháng 1/2006, Yahoo! có chỉ số P/E (hệ số giữa thị giá một cổ phiếu trên thu nhập của nó) vào khoảng trên dưới 30, trong khi chỉ số P/E của Google lớn gấp gần ba lần. Mà như chúng ta đã biết, ý nghĩa đầu tiên của chỉ số này là biểu hiện số tiền mà nhà đầu tư bỏ ra để thu được một đồng lợi nhuận từ cổ phiếu đó. P/E = 30 có nghĩa nếu nhà đầu tư bỏ ra 30 đồng thì sẽ nhận được một đồng lợi nhuận.

Như vậy, thông thường nhiều người sẽ cho rằng hiển nhiên Yahoo có giá cổ phiếu hời hơn? Nhưng thực tế, không phải như vậy. P/E thường phản ánh kỳ vọng của thị trường về sự tăng trưởng của cổ phiếu hơn là kết quả làm ăn thực của công ty. Người ta so sánh P/E của các công ty cùng ngành; nếu chỉ số P/E của một công ty cao hơn mức bình quân, có nghĩa thị trường kỳ vọng công ty này sẽ ăn nên làm ra trong thời gian tới nhiều hơn so với mức kỳ vọng vào các công ty khác.

Quay trở lại với ví dụ của Yahoo và Google, Google đã chứng minh sự tăng trưởng lớn mạnh của nó, khi giá cổ phiếu của nó hiện tăng hơn 10% so với giá tháng 1/2006, trong khi đó, giá cổ phiếu của Yahoo lại giảm 20%.

Như vậy, có thể thấy, khi bạn muốn trở thành một nhà đầu tư giá trị thành công, bạn phải có cái nhìn tổng thể và đầu óc phân tích thị trường sắc bén. Bạn không chỉ nhìn vào giá tương đối của cổ phiếu trên thị trường, mà cần phải đánh giá các cơ hội tăng trưởng lợi nhuận, cũng như vị trí cạnh tranh của công ty trên thị trường. Bởi vì, suy cho cùng, mục tiêu mà bạn muốn đạt được chính là sự đầu tư an toàn, không những bảo toàn được vốn, mà vốn đó phải được sinh sôi, nảy nở. Một cổ phiếu có giá quá cao so với giá trị thực của nó, mặc dù trên thực tế, nó đang giảm giá, là một sự đầu tư không mang lại lợi nhuận.

Bên cạnh đó, một vấn đề nữa mà bạn cần lưu ý là khi đánh giá chỉ số P/E để quyết định mua cổ phiếu. Tại các thị trường đã phát triển, theo số liệu thống kê về chỉ số P/E, hệ số này từ 8-15 là bình thường, nếu hệ số này lớn hơn 20, thì công ty đang được đánh giá rất tốt và người đầu tư trông đợi trong tương lai, mức thu nhập trên một cổ phiếu của công ty sẽ tăng nhanh. Trường hợp công ty có hệ số P/E thấp có thể là do thị trường không đánh giá cao hoặc chưa hiểu biết nhiều về công ty đó.

Khi tất cả các cổ phiếu trên thị trường đều có giá quá cao so với giá trị thực của của nó, thì phần bong bóng sẽ vượt quá phần thực và nhất định có ngày nổ tung, gây ra sự khủng hoảng thị trường như đã từng xảy ra ở các nước phát triển.

Vân Anh (Dịch từ Motley Fool và tham khảo một số thông tin trên mạng)

Is it an another DOT-COM bubble or is it the circle I am in?

Innovations that I come across are either two-dot-o or social-xxx or human-interface or some vague high tech terminology! Entrepreneurship? its again the same thing with references to using twitter, building prototypes, number of registered users, online marketing…

Even though I carefully avoid these references, I am getting sick of these things! Either I am in a wrong circle or it is a sign for another bubble. Third option is, only high-tech industry guys make such a loud noise especially over internet!

Of course they say that every year.  Let’s hope the 4th try is the charm, huh?  Really, really hope.  I’ve been working here for a lot of the company’s history, it’s a cool place, the technology is fun – but I really want to play for the winning team.

Kerajinan kata adalah profesi yang apabila ditekuni dengan keuletan dan dedikasi tinggi maka hasilnya pasti luar biasa.
contohnya :

• Jogger
• Dagadu

keduanya (kategori pengusaha kaos) merupakan pengrajin kata-kata yang cukup mengsinpirasi bagi anak-anak muda yang kreatif,
lalu
dengan adanya media blog dan web 2.0 ini maka seharusnya telah lahir pengusaha-pengusaha baru di bidang pengrajin kata-kata yang berbasis web 2.o

.
Pengrajin kata-kata yang lain, selain menempelkan kata-kata di kaos layaknya dagadu / joger, bisa berbentuk : Tulisan di Buku yang disebut : Pengarang.
Pengarang best seller hakikatnya adalah pengarajinkata (baca:pengolah kata)
.
dan media blog ini salah satu sarana ilyasafsoh memulai karier sebagai pengrajin kata-kata
keseriusan sebagai Pengrajin kata-kata terlihat dari beragamnya tulisan dan konsistennya ilyasafsoh meramu hal-hal baru dengan kaitan-kaitan dan keterhubungan yang luar biasa.
.
>

Pengrajin kata yang lain disebut Motivator

• seperti Pak Mario Teguh,
• Andri Wongso, Tung Dw,
• dan segera menyusul ilyasafsoh

.

.

Kerajinan kata-kata dalam skala lebih kecil yang tanpa merek dan tanpa ijin adalah

• pembuatan stiker,
• Tempelan-tempelan,
• Spanduk
• Poster

——————————

sementara,
Pengrajin kata yang telah berumur lama dan sangat komersial berbentuk :

• Koran
• Majalah
• Tabloid
• Harian Sore, Harian pagi
  dalam profesi mereka apalagi yang dijual jika bukan olahan kata-kata per kata.

jadi :

Kemampuan mengolah kata, bisa menjadikan Anda kaya raya, raya kaya, kaya raya kaya, kaya kaya,

Ciri yang membedakan pengrajin kata yang sukses dengan yang gagal adalah kepiawaiannya : memberikan nilai , inspirasi , motivasi yang mebuat perbedaan lebih baik dalam kehidupan

• baik kehidupan secara pribadi
• atau kehidupan secara Massal

ILYAS AFSOH | 088 1296 3105 | Blog pengrajin kata-kata | ilyasafsoh.com

“Audition Day”

November 5th, 2009

I think that 30 Rock would be far funnier if it wasn’t so annoying.

This likely seems like a derogatory statement, but it’s really not: I thought “Audition Day” was the most enjoyable episode of the season yet, but yet I wouldn’t necessarily say it was that great, which reflects on both the quality of the season so far and the reality of this type of episode. It’s effectively a grab bag of comedy, as by the end of the episode you have plenty of jokes that you remember fondly, and callbacks to previous episodes that make you reminisce, and even some new jokes that really connect. However, while you’re happy with what you’ve received in those arenas, there’s also a bunch of other crap that didn’t connect comically, and that served only to promote business networking tools.

When there’s no real central premise to hold an episode like this one together, you’re left feeling like something was missing even as you gush over the genius of Brian Williams, which is pretty much where I stand with 30 Rock right now. I laughed, I commented on its cleverness, and yet still in the end I can’t help but be annoyed with elements of the episode that didn’t quite work. It’s particularly frustrating in that I actually think “Audition Day” was a pretty solid and funny episode, but there’s just something about the show that’s taking a shotgun approach to comedy that I’m just not responding well to.

At least we’ll always have Moonvest.

What worked in this episode was that, for the most part, everything was operating on the same level in terms of the episode’s central theme: the show is hiring a new cast member, and Liz and Pete are trying to convince Jack that it was his idea all along to hire the individual who they prefer. This leads to Tracy and Jenna turning paranoid, which leads to a zanier audition section than expected, which has a bedbug-riddled Jack in a different mood than the Hornberger Method could have predicted. As everything tumbled out of control, it felt like the episode itself was in control of how it tumbled out of control (if that makes any sense). As such, the overall storylines weren’t as much the issue as were the fact that every character basically became a joke machine in the process.

The effectiveness of those jokes were largely dependent on who was delivering them. The episode had a number of strong Liz lines, such as her mother sending her articles indicating the high value placed on older virgins in Mexico, and even Jenna (since she had an even crazier foil in Tracy) had a number of zingers both in relation to her occasional sanity (acknowledging being used to ground Kim Cattrall in auditions) and her relative ignorance (No, Devail is not the opposite of Prevail). And perhaps strongest of all was the greatness of Jack Donaghy’s crusade against bed bugs, as he learned how normal people live by taking the subway and having to appeal to them as if he were homeless. The product integration within his storyline was shameless and distracting (especially when the show does tongue-in-cheek NBC promotion every week as a joke), but when it actually turned into Jack experiencing something he had never experienced before (although not directly in Kenneth’s shoes, considering he only wears the one pair and sleeps in them) it was clever and enjoyable. That subway speech was great not only because of how Baldwin delivered it, but because Moonvest was one of the people slowly crawling away from him on the train, and that just cracked me up.

I like it when the show does just that, which it did some more later on. I enjoyed the janitor playing a character of an old janitor who gets fed up an stabs people, and I enjoyed Liz’s admonished “YOU ALSO TOLD ME TO BE A ROBOT” as Jack’s newfound common man experience makes him a changed judge. And while there were a number of cheap jokes amidst the auditions, Kathy Geiss as Susan Boyle was cute and I’ll never not love someone talking like Christopher Walker. But yet, there were also a lot of stinkers in that audition sequence, like the writers’ bits (none of which were laugh-worthy) or the fact that we were robbed of seeing Dot Com do Chekhov, or the throwaway joke about Kathy Geiss taking off her underpants. Those jokes aren’t hitting, nor are they necessary, but yet the show seems to insist on having them be present. I don’t know if it’s an issue of overstuffed scripts, or that these character pairings are just too fruitful for their own good, but the show could cut its bad jokes and still have enough material for 20 solid minutes of television comedy.

This is still a show that does many things well, such as the genius of Brian Williams or something as small as Liz knowing exactly why Kenneth would have let Jenna see the audition list for the new cast member (Luggage Store Jenna). But there was a time when I would have said the show could do anything well, such as a bit of shameless product integration. They might have been able to turn bed bugs into a fun little B-Story, but the skill to take it all and bring it together seems to have eluded them thus far this season. “Audition Day” wasn’t a tremendous effort, but it was the first time that I was more frustrated by the show’s failure than annoyed by its lack of quality, which is an emotional leap in the right direction if not a substantial one.

Cultural Observations

• It had nothing to do with the episode, but watching Scott Adsit turn a horizontal wheel in order to indicate the opening of a flood gate made me crack up far more than it should have.
• I don’t know why the show tried to make a “character is insensitive about Katrina and confuses it with something less tragic” joke when Dennis’ Superdome joke was already brilliant – don’t try to improve on perfection, show, you’ll fail every time.
• Horse in pantsuits: another point for Stone Mountain.
• Having Jaden actually turn out to be evil got us the fun joke about Liz admitting that she only doubted Jenna because she was never right, but it went a bit over the top with the genitalia photos and the like.
• Silly Liz: you forgot the robot! Did Robin Sparkles teach you nothing?

Sungguh indah dan nyaman rasanya, kalau punya blog yang bertitle “.com” (baca = dot com). Hehhhm Mantaaaap Niaaan.. Kapan ya saya punya dana tambahan untuk membeli domain hostingan sendiri untuk blog ini. boro-boro untuk beli & memperpanjang domain pribadi, wong uang saku saya selalu habis terkuras buat beli kopi sama makan di warteg langganan. hehe.. Maklumlah saya hanya seorang mahasiswa rantau yang setiap bulannya masih mengharapkan BLT (Bantuan Langsung Tunai) dari orangtua tercinta.

Walaupun saya belum bisa berdikari (berdiri diatas kaki sendiri) sepenuhnya, tapi rasa ingin memiliki self hosted blog sangat menggelora, dan bikin badan panas dingin tiap malam. Kadang-kadang suka ngiri juga nih kalau liat temen-temen blogger yang ID blognya sudah simple, ga lagi menginduk ke penyedia layanan blog gratis. Kayanya keren az.

Buat sobat-sobat yang punya mimpi yang sama kya saya, ayo kita sama-sama wujudkan mimpi itu. jangan menyerah untuk meraih apa yang kita mau. Asalkan jalan yang kita tempuh itu halal dan tidak merugikan orang lain.

Untuk meningkatkan semangat, cobalah dengarkan lagu “jangan menyerah” nya dmasiv (karena sayapun demikian), lalu ikutilah undian berhadiah dari Launching Problogkator ini. kenapa eh kenapa kamu harus mengikuti undian ini?? karena eh karena dengan mengikuti undian ini, kamu akan mendapatkan domain dot com tanpa perlu mengeluarkan biaya sepeserpun untuk membeli dan memperpanjang domain yang kamu / kita idam-idamkan selama ini. 

Untuk kalian yang berminat, undian ini menyediakan hadiah sebagai berikut :

1. Juara Pertama : Mendapatkan satu buah blog dot com berbasis wordpress dari Problogkator untuk jangka waktu 5 tahun kedepan. soal Biaya pembelian domain, perpanjangan domain, dan hosting di BlueHost selama 5 tahun ditanggung oleh ProblogKator.  bila dihitung-hitung, Hadiah ini senilai $ 150 (yaitu $ 30 x 5 tahun).

2. Juara Kedua (Runner Up) : Dapet satu buah blog dot com berbasis wordpress dari Problogkator untuk 3 tahun kedepan. kalau dihitung, Hadiah ini senilai $ 90.

3. Juara Ketiga : Meraih satu buah blog dot com berbasis wordpress dari Problogkator selama 2 tahun. Hadiah ini senilai $ 60. mantep kaaaan??

Bila kalian ikut sebuah lomba, pasti ada aturan mainya doonk.. naaah persyaratan  undian dari Problogkator ini adalah sebagai berikut :

1. Buat sebuah postingan mengenai undian berhadiah ini di blog Kamu.

2. Judul dari postingan, terserah anda. tapi ingat!! kita ini tinggal dinegara hukum, janganlah judul dan postingan itu mengandung pornografi dan bersifat SARA.

3. Postingan minimal 100 kata.

4. Backlink ke blog Blogdolar.com & Problogkator !

Yoosh.. jelaskan?? ayo bikin tulisan ringan seperti ini di blog kalian…!

Batas akhir Pendaftaran tanggal 5 Desember 2009 pukul 00:00 wita. Pemenang akan diinformasikan di postingan Blogodolar pada tanggal 6 Desember 2009.

Ayo semangat kawan..!!

Bila sudah menulis, segera daftarkan artikel kalian di Blogodolar.

Blogger Panutan atau Teladan buat Blogger, hemmm…. rasanya sedikit berbeda ketika menuliskan ini, tapi baiklah. Panutan yang bagaimana? Karena sudah cukup sering bloger-bloger lain bertanya , ” Mas Ilyas Kapan Migrasi ke dot com ? “. wah, ilyas afsoh tidak bisa jawab.

*
*
*
Blogger Panutan merupakan Blogger yang segala kiprahnya dicontoh oleh blogger lain,
Mesipun yang dilakukannya hanya iseng, namun sangat berdampak.

Untuk mengetahui dampak dari perilaku seorang blogger, maka perhatikan hasil akhir, kira-kira apa yang akan dihasilkan dari tindakan tersebut.
+
+
=
+

” Maka jadilah kamu, blogger-blogger yang menyeru kepada kebaikan, yang mencegah kerusakan, dan jawablah blogger-blogger lain yang menebar kerusakan dengan jawaban yang bijaksana,”

>

ILYAS AFSOH | 088 1296 3105 | 031 610 56 456 | @ Fotographer begin |

Blogged it happening before, but didn’t get a chance to go back and get photos of the finished thing for a while. Nice big mural down in the Bearpit (St James Barton Roundabout for those abroad), proving that there might yet be hope for brightening up one of the most run down parts of the centre.

Really nice work, fits in with all the wildflowers that were planted down there a couple of years back, apparently by the council surprisingly. They’ve gone over a bit now, but should look even better next summer.

Bit of detail on the bees…

…and on the other side. Spot Stokes Croft in there.

And the credits, some names you may recognise, and perhaps not expect to be doing this sort of stuff.

Nice work. Hope it’s just the start of doing something to brighten that place up and encourage people to use it more, rather than just trying to design out people congregating there (check the individual metal seats next time you’re there. They look absurd).

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.

The Anatomy of Online Clicks Scam

“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.”

By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News

My inbox is cluttered with junk.
Some I signed up for.
Others I didn’t.
But I hold onto them all equally.

No, I have never in my life
presented a coupon to cashier,
but you never know…
one of these days…
Well, there’s a first time for everything, right?

I’ve got folders I never move messages to.
I’ve got forwards I never will open.
And before I know it,
I avoid email altogether,
afraid of the number attached to my inbox.

Each time I’m forced to check it,
the volume overwhelms me
and I descend into a fit
of panic
and self-hatred.

Once in a blue moon,
I muster the courage
to begin checking and
choosing and
moving and
deleting.

But there never is enough time
to get it down to zero.
So it builds up again,
exponentially growing,
until it’s as hopeless as can be.

And then I create:
a New Me!

S-H-oh-two-nine-nine-nine
@GodPleaseGetItRightThisTime
dot com.

New Boyz – Skinny Jeans and a Mic

[Featured Artists: Tyga, Ray J, O.N.E., D&D & Kydd-SB]

These guys always reminded me of The Pack and The Cool Kids. It looks like they realized this too with shout outs to The Pack in ‘Bunz‘ and The Cool Kids in ‘Colorz‘. Here are a couple of my fav tracks from “Skinny Jeans and a Mic” by the New Boyz that I haven’t already posted (‘Update‘ & ‘MP3s!‘):

New Boyz – Cashmere

New Boyz – One Night

New Boyz – Dot Com

New Boyz – Skinny Jeans and a Mic

[Featured Artists: Tyga, Ray J, O.N.E., D&D & Kydd-SB]

These guys always reminded me of The Pack and The Cool Kids. It looks like they realized this too with shout outs to The Pack in ‘Bunz‘ and The Cool Kids in ‘Colorz‘. Here are a couple of my fav tracks from “Skinny Jeans and a Mic” by the New Boyz that I haven’t already posted (‘Update‘ & ‘MP3s!‘):

New Boyz – Cashmere

New Boyz – One Night

New Boyz – Dot Com

reCAPTCHA

Compania reCAPTCHA a fost achiziţionată de cei de la Google. reCAPTCHA este un furnizor de servicii anti-spam. Pe viitor îi va ajuta pe cei de la Google la anumite proiecte gen Google Books.

Ca să vă fac să înţelegeţi ce e CAPTCHA am să vă dau un exemplu. Intraţi pe Yahoo de exemplu şi vă faceţi o adresă de e-mail. Completaţi toate datele, iar la sfârşit vă cere să tastaţi literele/cifrele dintr-o imagine. Aceea este CAPTCHA şi este folosită pentru a împiedica spam-ul cu ajutorul boţilor. Pretty clever!

Every once in a while when I’m online I write an intriguing idea or concept followed by .com in Safari’s address line. (The keyboard inspired domain of, asdf.com actually does exists!)  Yesterday I thought, what does life.com look like? I pressed return and there appeared a flash slideshow with the most recent news photos. To the right was a list of the most popular photo albums. Amongst the list was, ‘Adolf Hitler: Up Close.’ What followed was a collect of Hilter pictures that turned into a 10 minute history lesson. From there I looked at photos from Woodstock and then Supermodels of the 80’s. The easy to navigate site kept my attention for 30 minutes (impressive for my attention span) as  I strolled through almost a century’s worth of photos. LIFE.com gave me a glipse into some of our country’s milestones with nothing more than a simple photo. The site contains moments of the past yet thankfully reflects the usability and design of today. It is a powerful combination that earned LIFE.com a highly regarded position in my bookmark list. The original magazine, LIFE made it its final run in 2007 however it’s work lives on.

This is disgusting.

DISGUSTING.

I originally saw the video posted on RollingStone.Com with the headline “Kurt Cobain’s ‘Guitar Hero 5′ Nightmare: Live Through This.” I don’t really have any words.

What do you think? Offensive? Just part of a game? Talk back to us in the comments section or at popculturevultures (at) gmail (dot) com

Last night I saw this completely tripped out documentary called We Live In Public, check out the site, but do it during off hours ’cause it looks like their sever is crashing (ironically). Too many hits! That could be the subtitle of this Orwellian film about a time in the late 90’s, yes back when I was living in NYC as a 18-year old activist kid, in fact going to some of these parties, but having no idea what it was all about, this Internet mogul, dot-comer, Josh Harris was throwing crazy art projects parties and doing psychological and social experiments on people by way of Internet reality tv.

One might even venture to say that he created reality TV, but did it on the internet, before The Real World NYC, before Big Brother and before it morphed into the present day manifestation of completely scripted, un-real, reality TV shows like The Bachelor and The Real Housewives of NYC.

This guy actually did an experiment called “Quiet” in 1999, in which he housed 150 people for 30 days in an underground bunker, pimped out as a “Pod Hotel.” He dressed them in orange jail-chic jumpsuits and required them to sign their commitment to being filmed 24 hours a day, in every possible position, including showering, having sex, going to the bathroom, eating, fighting, and obliterating themselves with drugs and alcohol if they should chose to do so.

Everything was provided free of charge, free food, booze, what have you, but they would have no rights to the video that was taken of them and they wouldn’t be allowed to leave, once they committed to the project.  Where this begins to get even more grotesque, is that the underground, lower Manhattan, created-world, was complete with a shooting range, large collection of guns and an interrogation chamber. This M.O.D. style interview room, was where people would go to confess all of their psychological and historical messes. Think the “confession room” on The Real World crossed with Guantanomo Bay. This was sick shit. But the most fascinating part is that the people involved were all volunteers, many of whom were artists, friends, part of a larger social scene. It was meant to be fun.

In a way I suspect it was fun, the simulation of freedom, followed by a realization of the fundamental trap. Something like the philosophy of re-living pain in a safer-feeling environment, in order to exorcise the trauma. It reminds me of RENT crossed with Lord of the Flies. This was an experiment with human guinea pigs and it had an aim. The film, and the Quiet project itself records this fascistic, capitalist, gold-rush project of exploitation, an attempt to rush down the slope into internet addiction, and total lack of privacy.

As a prediction it proves to be quite true, our lives have changed enormously as a result of the Internet. In 1999, I didn’t own a phone didn’t really know how to use the computer and everything operated on this slower delivery system called word-of-mouth. I remember the New York of that time being a really vibrant place, but I  have doubted whether that’s true. It could just be me glorifying a left past. This film seems to corroborate my memory though. Perhaps since facebook, and myspace, blogs and online-newspapers have taken over our lives, we know about infinitely more things, yet there is less passionate and exciting fun to be had out there. New York does feel flat.

Beyond asking some very frightening moral questions, this film lovingly reminds us our city past.