<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Pays out $90 million to settle Click Fraud Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/</link>
	<description>Make Money Online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:34:54 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dharmesh Shah</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236508</link>
		<dc:creator>Dharmesh Shah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236508</guid>
		<description>Google&#039;s policy to terminate publishers withtout proof, evidence or recourse seems heavy-handed.

Though I can understand their need to &quot;protect&quot; advertisers, there nees to be some balance here.  Its like eBay saying:  &quot;we&#039;re going to do everything possible to protect the buyers&quot;.   What about the sellers?

One would think it would be more effective to improve their technical algorithms for detecting click-fraud (and removing incentive to publishers to use fraud to increase revenues) instead of seemingly arbritrary terminations of many, many publisher accounts on mere suspicion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google&#8217;s policy to terminate publishers withtout proof, evidence or recourse seems heavy-handed.</p>
<p>Though I can understand their need to &#8220;protect&#8221; advertisers, there nees to be some balance here.  Its like eBay saying:  &#8220;we&#8217;re going to do everything possible to protect the buyers&#8221;.   What about the sellers?</p>
<p>One would think it would be more effective to improve their technical algorithms for detecting click-fraud (and removing incentive to publishers to use fraud to increase revenues) instead of seemingly arbritrary terminations of many, many publisher accounts on mere suspicion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MLMForums.net &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Adsense Click Fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236502</link>
		<dc:creator>MLMForums.net &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Adsense Click Fraud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236502</guid>
		<description>[...] Check out this post at Problogger.net and you will understand what I am talking about.     Posted by omnipend Filed in Announcements       Possibly related: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Check out this post at Problogger.net and you will understand what I am talking about.     Posted by omnipend Filed in Announcements       Possibly related: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom sherman</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236494</link>
		<dc:creator>tom sherman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236494</guid>
		<description>p.s. from the &lt;a href=&quot;http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/update-lanes-gifts-v-google.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google Blog entry on this&lt;/a&gt;, it&#039;s same old &lt;strong&gt;&quot;just trust us on this one&quot;&lt;/strong&gt; CRAP.  I don&#039;t trust Google one bit.  If you believe their &quot;Don&#039;t Be Evil&quot; slogan, you&#039;re hopelessly naive.

&lt;blockquote&gt;We have said for some time that we believe we manage the problem of invalid clicks very well. We have a large team of expert engineers and analysts devoted to it. By far, most invalid clicks are caught by our automatic filters and discarded *before* they reach an advertiser’s bill. And for the clicks that are not caught in advance, advertisers can notify Google and ask for reimbursement. We investigate those clicks, and if we determine they were invalid, we reimburse advertisers for them. We will continue to do that, and believe that this settlement is further proof of our willingness to work together with advertisers to reimburse invalid clicks.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Like I said, just trust &#039;em.  They&#039;ve got super-secret methods that eliminate click fraud perfectly.  That&#039;s why they only had to pay out $90 mil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>p.s. from the <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/update-lanes-gifts-v-google.html" rel="nofollow">Google Blog entry on this</a>, it&#8217;s same old <strong>&#8220;just trust us on this one&#8221;</strong> CRAP.  I don&#8217;t trust Google one bit.  If you believe their &#8220;Don&#8217;t Be Evil&#8221; slogan, you&#8217;re hopelessly naive.</p>
<blockquote><p>We have said for some time that we believe we manage the problem of invalid clicks very well. We have a large team of expert engineers and analysts devoted to it. By far, most invalid clicks are caught by our automatic filters and discarded *before* they reach an advertiser’s bill. And for the clicks that are not caught in advance, advertisers can notify Google and ask for reimbursement. We investigate those clicks, and if we determine they were invalid, we reimburse advertisers for them. We will continue to do that, and believe that this settlement is further proof of our willingness to work together with advertisers to reimburse invalid clicks.</p></blockquote>
<p>Like I said, just trust &#8216;em.  They&#8217;ve got super-secret methods that eliminate click fraud perfectly.  That&#8217;s why they only had to pay out $90 mil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom sherman</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236492</link>
		<dc:creator>tom sherman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236492</guid>
		<description>Google&#039;s &quot;defenses&quot; against click fraud are patently laughable.  $90 mil?  Whatever.  Time for them to pay back $500 mil, or a billion, or $5 billion.  It&#039;s only a matter of time before the government -- Google&#039;s true enemy -- steps in and says &quot;Take your &#039;secret&#039; review process and shove it.&quot;  The law will force the cat out of the bag.  And I, for one, will welcome it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google&#8217;s &#8220;defenses&#8221; against click fraud are patently laughable.  $90 mil?  Whatever.  Time for them to pay back $500 mil, or a billion, or $5 billion.  It&#8217;s only a matter of time before the government &#8212; Google&#8217;s true enemy &#8212; steps in and says &#8220;Take your &#8217;secret&#8217; review process and shove it.&#8221;  The law will force the cat out of the bag.  And I, for one, will welcome it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marcel</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236482</link>
		<dc:creator>marcel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236482</guid>
		<description>Maybe it&#039;s time to use a CPM approach for &quot;risky&quot; publishers ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe it&#8217;s time to use a CPM approach for &#8220;risky&#8221; publishers ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaress</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236407</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236407</guid>
		<description>Does anyone know if Google is using a type of filtering service similar to what Chitika uses to filter click fraud?

For the past couple of days, I have been noticing no clickthroughs on my ads during the day, but yet when I click on the &quot;yesterday&quot; stats section of Adsense the following day, I see clickthroughs and revenue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone know if Google is using a type of filtering service similar to what Chitika uses to filter click fraud?</p>
<p>For the past couple of days, I have been noticing no clickthroughs on my ads during the day, but yet when I click on the &#8220;yesterday&#8221; stats section of Adsense the following day, I see clickthroughs and revenue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236400</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236400</guid>
		<description>Interesting, this explains it. Google canceled my adsense account a few weeks ago with no explanation, other then that they detected click fraud. Yet I was making an average of 33 cents a day. So I was a bit stunned and really pissed off. 

Then I thought about it, I use Gmail. I’m sure once or twice, jokingly I told some friends how the ads worked or told them to click on them.

When I sent a very upset email they stated that “they don’t reveal the review process” in any case, I feel a bit frustrated because I spent a lot of time understanding my ads. In any case I think this post explains their current extreme nature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, this explains it. Google canceled my adsense account a few weeks ago with no explanation, other then that they detected click fraud. Yet I was making an average of 33 cents a day. So I was a bit stunned and really pissed off. </p>
<p>Then I thought about it, I use Gmail. I’m sure once or twice, jokingly I told some friends how the ads worked or told them to click on them.</p>
<p>When I sent a very upset email they stated that “they don’t reveal the review process” in any case, I feel a bit frustrated because I spent a lot of time understanding my ads. In any case I think this post explains their current extreme nature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Khurrum</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236360</link>
		<dc:creator>Khurrum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:55:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236360</guid>
		<description>If someone suspects that there has been a click fraud for $1 then google will put in $1 into their adwords account.

&quot;The $90 million would involve legal fees and credits -- rather than any cash payments -- to all advertisers who apply to be part of the class settlement, once the judge certifies the agreement, Google spokesman Steve Langdon said.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If someone suspects that there has been a click fraud for $1 then google will put in $1 into their adwords account.</p>
<p>&#8220;The $90 million would involve legal fees and credits &#8212; rather than any cash payments &#8212; to all advertisers who apply to be part of the class settlement, once the judge certifies the agreement, Google spokesman Steve Langdon said.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: InternetSalsa</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/03/09/google-pays-out-90-million-to-settle-click-fraud-case/comment-page-1/#comment-236342</link>
		<dc:creator>InternetSalsa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/?p=2321#comment-236342</guid>
		<description>Yes, was redaing the news at yahoo as well.
I knew it was coming.

Google is now getting tight with all of its products including Blogger/blogspot.

They have been checking for spams and frauds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, was redaing the news at yahoo as well.<br />
I knew it was coming.</p>
<p>Google is now getting tight with all of its products including Blogger/blogspot.</p>
<p>They have been checking for spams and frauds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
