Click fraud thread

[Suzanne]

I am shaking my head here. Do the site owners here running these ads not question the type of advertising they are sending on their sites? Cause if someone sent me an ad going to a landing page with CPC ads and set up rules of one link per day it would sure set off big warning signs to me of Click Fraud.

I guess since I was around when the big deal with Search fraud and Click fraud was going around it always makes me suspicious to see any terms such as this put on an ad. If it were a click per site I could understand but asking members to click one link only on the site smells of fraud to me.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.. it is a duck. Wagdoll is right.

No one here said owners in this thread were dishonest but questioning if the advertiser who was requesting this could be committing fraud.

Perhaps some who have run the ad don't care, like the money it generates, or doesn't really understand click fraud, but the points being brought up here sure sound like click fraud.

Now on the Signing up on other sites .. How do you know if they are? Are you all sharing information or are your affiliate programs providing you with info? This is borderline privacy issues sharing info.. ya think?

[harmless316]

Usually the directions if there are any just say click a link on the landing
page but I myself have yet to see any saying more than one can't be clicked.
In fact I did get curious more than once about something I was looking at
and clicked on to yet another page for more info. After all the members are
supposed to be looking for something of interest to them are they not?

[Suzanne]

Originally Posted by harmless316

Usually the directions if there are any just say click a link on the landing
page but I myself have yet to see any saying more than one can't be clicked.
In fact I did get curious more than once about something I was looking at
and clicked on to yet another page for more info. After all the members are
supposed to be looking for something of interest to them are they not?

But just like search ads why would anyone need directions for looking for something you are interested in? Does google give directions on how to use it?

The whole issue is this is just like when search advertisers (affiliates) decided they would demand that they get valid searches or they wouldn't come back.

The whole deal was the search engines sold traffic to the lower tier search engines who then had affiliates which the affiliates then became the advertisers on sites demanding searches be done, when the search engines said that incentive sites were not allowed but the lower tier sites to make a profit turned a blind eye until they started losing feeds for bad traffic so they then imposed restrictions to profit of not allowing more then three searches.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Edited to add:

Some of those affiliates then became lower tier search engine owners buying up scripts so they could make all the profit and sending their own ads and demanding to the sites that the members search or they wouldn't buy anymore ads.

Members then decided they would search for that penny although the search engine was getting a while heck of a lot more.. Then no one seemed to remember the top search engine which took the money from the unsuspecting advertiser who thought he was getting quality traffic, but instead he was getting bots, people clicking for a penny and all of a sudden the 100s of dollars he spent on quality advertising went down the toilet cause he thought he was getting non incentive traffic.

But who cares the members would say I am searching for something, but most of the lower tier search engines had nothing but sex, drugs, and porn to search for but oh yeah they were still looking for something for that almighty penny

[mlev]

Originally Posted by Suzanne

...
I guess since I was around when the big deal with Search fraud and Click fraud was going around it always makes me suspicious to see any terms such as this put on an ad. If it were a click per site I could understand but asking members to click one link only on the site smells of fraud to me.
....

Wow Suzanne, I personally would not like to re-explain everything.
I think these were the last threads I really spent time a while back.

It bears a different name, has been dressed up differently, but at the end, only reason to have to control the flow, is "protectionism" of a new racket.

[bellestraker]

If most of the links members were clicking on were for sex,drugs or porno sites then I'm sorry but I really do not care much if they lost money.

[Suzanne]

That was only to the lower tier feeds I was referring to. Many of the larger search engines had redirected traffic sent to them.

Question Belle.. Whether it was porn etc. Do you think it right that sites accept advertisers which are committing fraud? Because the members then become part of the fraud and the owners by clicking on the ads and accepting them.

Edited to add:

And by saying you don't care then since it was etc etc. It would be the same as saying it was ok that guy was robbed because he was a porn star or gambler or?

[bellestraker]

Originally Posted by Suzanne

That was only to the lower tier feeds I was referring to. Many of the larger search engines had redirected traffic sent to them.

Question Belle.. Whether it was porn etc. Do you think it right that sites accept advertisers which are committing fraud? Because the members then become part of the fraud and the owners by clicking on the ads and accepting them.

Edited to add:

And by saying you don't care then since it was etc etc. It would be the same as saying it was ok that guy was robbed because he was a porn star or gambler or?

No I'm not saying its OK to rob them if they are porn stars. What I am saying is Many years ago I stopped trying to impose my beliefs, morals or general will on others. ( be they porn stars or head of the PTA. ( who may be one and the same aye )

IF it is fraud then report it to the proper authorities and let them deal with it.Back in the day I recall everyone and their dog reporting search sites and no one gave a damn so who were we protecting.

IF as you want us to believe it is comparable to robbing someone why was no one charged.?Could it be because people were throwing words like criminal,thief,immoral around and made the entire situation into a ruddy joke.


I thought the main concern over this issue was the advertiser being ripped off.....So if its the advertiser asking people to check one site from the landing page then who is being ripped off?

I assume they are hoping if people click on one more page they may sign up for a credit card,take a loan or decide to clean their colon.


I have to wonder if people realize the "end advertisers" who we seem concerned about "protecting" are mega companies---most of them financial giants like Bank of America, Schwab, FreeCreditReport.com, Visa, Mastercard, etc., etc.

No, I am not saying because they are huge companies that its OK to rip them off. What I am saying is I do not believe for one minute that these companies do not know what they are spending their advertising dollars on.

Can you imagine that they don't understand about the nature of this "click traffic" and where it comes from and that many of the end users are looking at their sites and possibly nothing more? It's not like any of these guys are Joe the plumber down the street who's paying $3 per lead, hoping that someone will hire him to come and fix their leaky faucet, eh?

I understand trying to protect a small business who may have no idea that PTC sites exist but as I said....I don't for one minute believe these advertisers do not know the type of traffic they are getting and IMO they must be doing well enough to make it feasible or they would pull the plug.

I even understand being upset by a PO who demands you click certain links under threat of deleting your account but I haven't seen that done here. What I have seen is PO's saying the affiliates want people to click the second link and if you don't do that the affiliates are not going to pay......Your choice.


If my boss subs a contract to me and says the contractor wants me to tie a pink bow at the end of an outfall line....I have a choice...Do it or don't but why would I expect him to pay me if I'm not doing what is asked.

On the other hand if my boss said he was going to delete me or withhold past earnings that's a whole different ball game but I haven't seen that here.
Have a good one

Belle

[Suzanne]

Originally Posted by bellestraker

I thought the main concern over this issue was the advertiser being ripped off.....So if its the advertiser asking people to check one site from the landing page then who is being ripped off?


I even understand being upset by a PO who demands you click certain links under threat of deleting your account but I haven't seen that done here. What I have seen is PO's saying the affiliates want people to click the second link and if you don't do that the affiliates are not going to pay......Your choice.

Belle

Belle Sorry I snipped your post but here are two things I would like to comment on.

The issue is the "advertiser" the situation is that the person who goes to the PTC, PTR or where ever he gets cheap advertising many times is NOT the advertiser. They are for the small site, but generally they are the "Affiliate" for a program buying adverting to promote their affiliate stuff.

The question I ask and no one answered was Do Program Owners not care that they might be taking adverting that "Their Advertiser" (who is someone elses affiliate) is committing fraud? Or do they feel that it is not their place to check their advertisers advertising?

And if they don't feel they are responsible perhaps they should read this?

Are Advertisers Responsible for Their Site Content?

http://pecomail.com/blog/?p=267

On your second comment, this is exactly how search fraud started. The Advertiser (Again an affiliate of a search engine, advertiser of PTR) said they wanted a click through or they wouldn't come back. It doesn't matter that no one is threatening (YET) ....

This his how search fraud started.

Sites should never have requirements from an advertiser that they have to click through. It should send out a big red flag.

[bellestraker]

Tell me Priestes..Do YOU run checks on YOUR advertisers. Do you know they are all righteous lads and ladies or might some of them be unethical...maybe even criminal.

In my time doing PTR I have found that the largest group of advertisers are also members. I have also found that these combination member/advertisers come from all walks of life. The good, the bad and the ugly.

Some are criminals, some do drugs, some are immoral and unethical so tell me....do you do background checks on them.?

I think not so why should any other PO be faulted for accepting advertisers at face value.I have yet to see any company who does a morality check on their customers.


Why is it any different if the person who runs the ad is an affiliate or Joe Blow running his ptp link.

If we're going to impose our will and police them lets get them all.

Are you willing to demand a criminal check on your advertisers. Are you willing to only accept those with high morals and outstanding ethics and how would you go about doing that.


This paragraph is actually scary to me....Now we should go after them because they "MIGHT" do something.

On your second comment, this is exactly how search fraud started. The Advertiser (Again an affiliate of a search engine, advertiser of PTR) said they wanted a click through or they wouldn't come back. It doesn't matter that no one is threatening (YET) ....

I guess the bottom line for me is I will do my job and I will let the police do theirs.IF there really is anything factual I am sure they can ( and will ) deal with it.

[Suzanne]

Where did I say a site should do background checks on their advertisers? I ask if they were checking the content their advertisers were placing on their sites and if they cared what was being advertised?

My point is that the ads being sent out that are mentioned in this thread is outright fraud and should have flagged big warnings to the site owners.

And yes I do check ads that come in and reject many that do not conform. It has nothing to do with ethics. It has to do with protecting the members and the site.

I don't allow affiliate pages or PTP pages because I got tired of babysitting other peoples sites who ran garbage. You are welcome to go over the whole list on my site of what I do or do not allow for advertising.

The ads being discussed here would never have been allowed on my site.

I was only asking if it is that Owners are so desperate for ads on their site they don't question at least what they are running.

[bellestraker]

Originally Posted by Suzanne

Where did I say a site should do background checks on their advertisers? I ask if they were checking the content their advertisers were placing on their sites and if they cared what was being advertised?

My point is that the ads being sent out that are mentioned in this thread is outright fraud and should have flagged big warnings to the site owners.

And yes I do check ads that come in and reject many that do not conform. It has nothing to do with ethics. It has to do with protecting the members and the site.

I don't allow affiliate pages or PTP pages because I got tired of babysitting other peoples sites who ran garbage. You are welcome to go over the whole list on my site of what I do or do not allow for advertising.

The ads being discussed here would never have been allowed on my site.

I was only asking if it is that Owners are so desperate for ads on their site they don't question at least what they are running.

Asking a question ? or taking a cheap shot at other PO's. Your post is full of what YOU do ( or dont do) and if it works for you thats great but I guess I missed the memo saying your site had been set up as the industry standard and everyone must follow suit..

I am not going to keep going around in circles with you.This is exactly what happened with searches. People started saying they were unethical and immoral but when no one got excited about that...people began to use words like criminal, fraud and threatening members could go to jail. ( which was not true THEN and is not true NOW )

If you believe this is fraud then I suggest you contact the Police fraud department. I am willing to bet once it is explained TRUTHFULLY....that the ad itself is OK but the "fraud" comes about when they ask you to click a second link.....you will be thanked for your complaint and it will be filed under G.

If you disagree that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but throwing words like fraud around IMO is an attention getter and a way to make it sound more than it is.


Have a good one...

[Suzanne]

Originally Posted by bellestraker

[/b]


Asking a question ? or taking a cheap shot at other PO's. Your post is full of what YOU do ( or dont do) and if it works for you thats great but I guess I missed the memo saying your site had been set up as the industry standard and everyone must follow suit..

I am not going to keep going around in circles with you.This is exactly what happened with searches. People started saying they were unethical and immoral but when no one got excited about that...people began to use words like criminal, fraud and threatening members could go to jail. ( which was not true THEN and is not true NOW )

If you believe this is fraud then I suggest you contact the Police fraud department. I am willing to bet once it is explained TRUTHFULLY....that the ad itself is OK but the "fraud" comes about when they ask you to click a second link.....you will be thanked for your complaint and it will be filed under G.

If you disagree that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but throwing words like fraud around IMO is an attention getter and a way to make it sound more than it is.


Have a good one...

Belle you were the one who ask if I did backgrounds checks on my advertisers. I only answered so not sure how this became about me.

The thread was discussed because there was a question on whether a landing page with an advertiser requesting that they click links was appropriate.

I ask a few questions which had nothing to do with morals it had to do with what is against most CPC sites policies.

I don't know of one CPC company that allows an affiliate to ask for clicks on their ads.

I went further to explain much of this sounded like when search fraud was occurring. There was no throwing words around cause someone didn't get their way. There were big magazines and newspapers who wrote about the search fraud that was going on.

So they must have published articles cause some of us didn't like the way things were?

I am not going to post again as I see it is the same old. No one wants to discuss what might hurt their cash cow. And if it is something that hurts that then it couldnt be wrong...

[wagdoll]

Originally Posted by bellestraker

No I'm not saying its OK to rob them if they are porn stars. What I am saying is Many years ago I stopped trying to impose my beliefs, morals or general will on others. ( be they porn stars or head of the PTA. ( who may be one and the same aye )

IF it is fraud then report it to the proper authorities and let them deal with it.Back in the day I recall everyone and their dog reporting search sites and no one gave a damn so who were we protecting.

IF as you want us to believe it is comparable to robbing someone why was no one charged.?Could it be because people were throwing words like criminal,thief,immoral around and made the entire situation into a ruddy joke.


I thought the main concern over this issue was the advertiser being ripped off.....So if its the advertiser asking people to check one site from the landing page then who is being ripped off?

I assume they are hoping if people click on one more page they may sign up for a credit card,take a loan or decide to clean their colon.


I have to wonder if people realize the "end advertisers" who we seem concerned about "protecting" are mega companies---most of them financial giants like Bank of America, Schwab, FreeCreditReport.com, Visa, Mastercard, etc., etc.

No, I am not saying because they are huge companies that its OK to rip them off. What I am saying is I do not believe for one minute that these companies do not know what they are spending their advertising dollars on.

Can you imagine that they don't understand about the nature of this "click traffic" and where it comes from and that many of the end users are looking at their sites and possibly nothing more? It's not like any of these guys are Joe the plumber down the street who's paying $3 per lead, hoping that someone will hire him to come and fix their leaky faucet, eh?

I understand trying to protect a small business who may have no idea that PTC sites exist but as I said....I don't for one minute believe these advertisers do not know the type of traffic they are getting and IMO they must be doing well enough to make it feasible or they would pull the plug.

I even understand being upset by a PO who demands you click certain links under threat of deleting your account but I haven't seen that done here. What I have seen is PO's saying the affiliates want people to click the second link and if you don't do that the affiliates are not going to pay......Your choice.


If my boss subs a contract to me and says the contractor wants me to tie a pink bow at the end of an outfall line....I have a choice...Do it or don't but why would I expect him to pay me if I'm not doing what is asked.

On the other hand if my boss said he was going to delete me or withhold past earnings that's a whole different ball game but I haven't seen that here.
Have a good one

Belle

Maybe you can explain something to me. You had a bit of a snipe at someone in this topic as they'd been accused of cheating a PTC site. Isn't that somewhat pushing your morals onto other people? I mean if they had really frauded the site shouldn't the site have reported this to the authorities? What is the difference???

All the stuff about which advertiser is being cheated has been explained. It's definitely not just porn sites or whatever who are being cheated with click fraud and CPC fraud and if it was, why are all these PTC and PTR sites sending ads that lead to porn and all those *immoral* things?

As soon as this landing page owner says "Click a link" they've broken the rules that go with CPC advertising and ripped off the true advertiser. I don't think they give 2 billionths of a cent if the advertiser is advertising pornography or photography, they just want the money and they are willing to cut corners and cheat to ensure they get the most money from it that they can.

In your employment comparison, if you were working for a boss who told you to go and put your hand in someone else's pocket and the boss will pay you per pocket you successfully pick, you'd do it, right? Cos that's your job. And if anyone came along and said "you know, I'm gonna cheat the boss and lie that I picked the pocket and still demand my cut off the boss!" Well clearly they'd be cheating the boss, so we could complain about this. But we couldn't complain about the boss when someone doesn't cheat him and he successfully cheats someone else - I don't get it?

This type of fraud, when innocent people are used to do the action is not as clearcut as pickpocketing - or I should say not as obvious. But it's not really that much different, it's just a lot easier to use innocent people to complete the 'action' when all they need to do is click a link and clicking a link can't hurt anyone! And no, before rumours spread, I am not calling clickers/searchers pickpockets! I *will* compare the people behind these operations to the boss of the pickpocketing op though. They know they are doing something wrong, they know they are breaking the rules every bit as much as your common or garden cheat-bot user (and some of those can't work out why it's cheating because the link got clicked, didn't it?).

What I don't understand is, at what point do we start to differentiate between these two examples? Do we all agree that the pickpocket boss is doing something *bad*? Forget his band of pickpockets, take them out of the picture for a moment, just concentrate on what the boss is doing and see the similarity to these click fraud things and then explain to me why it's ok for one to have morals in one instance, and not in the other?

How hard are we going to work to say it's acceptable to have the pickpocket boss turn up at your temping agency looking for workers and not send him packing? How hard are we going to work to say he'd obviously only expect his workers to pick pockets of drug dealers and he'd try hard to not affect honest people, and if you walk down that area of town late at night then what else can you expect, you should really be proactive at protecting yourself by not going there or you're kinda asking for it. I can't see anyone going that far. But that's what I see them doing for the click fraud, and that's what I don't get.

I have seen some of these POs being very outspoken on fraud, and yet Fraud came to them, offered them a few bucks and they did whatever he wanted. And I was really disappointed to see that from those people Not just disappointed, but they obviously knew what was going on and they didn't want it discussed, they just wanted to explain why it was ok to help Fraud out - he allows this, he pays for this, if we're good to him he'll come back with more ads/money