- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I started a thread about this on winneronline – it could use some additional input.
I’m not very techinically literate in this department so can someone explain how and what kind of “robot” are used to generate fraud clicks?
There are two types of common click fraud; the first is what’s been discussed as PTR programs, where an affiliate of the PPC search engines organizes a member base and pays them to click their links, and the other is automated bots. Your question is about the bots, so…
Click bots are pretty simple little programs designed to follow paid links without being spotted. They usually run behind proxy servers and rotate spoofed user_agents to avoid detection, but they can still be spotted.
Below are some log entries from a non-casino site I run (please do not visit the referring site and start clicking, you’ll only be costing an honest site owner money and supporting the thieves). I’ve blacked out my IP, highlighted the remote IP in blue and the user_agent in red and disabled the link to the referrer.
The remote IP represents the visitor’s host and the red, what software is requesting the page (usually their browser). This bot is running through a proxy, so the remote IP changes. It is also using a series of user_agents to appear more human.
I spotted this one because the visitor didn’t request any files other than the source code. A real web browser would read the source and then request all of the files referred to, including images, style sheets javascript files, etc. Most of these bots don’t…
I’m still waiting to hear back from the PPC as to whether this particular marketing partner (and the list of about 10 others I sent) gets the boot. I’m not holding my breath.
2004-09-21 01:00:24 164.100.17.17 – xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /index.php adid=27578 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.1) forsearch.net/?qq=credit+and+debt+counseling
2004-09-21 04:23:14 209.7.107.31 – xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /index.php adid=27578 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.1;+MyIE2) forsearch.net/?qq=consumer+debt+consolidation
2004-09-21 08:36:13 24.6.221.243 – xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /index.php adid=27578 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.1) forsearch.net/?qq=credit+card+debt+consolidate
2004-09-21 12:18:39 80.121.233.206 – xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /index.php adid=27578 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+98)+Opera+7.23++[fr] forsearch.net/?qq=credit+card+debt+consolidate
I hope this helps.
The free market will solve this problem very quickly.
Enough click fraud will reduce the number of people who advertise with this method very quickly because they’ll see bad results. Cost per click will go down.
To see this in action, compare the average CPC at 7search and at Xuppa for the keyword “online casino”.
Everyone needs to monitor their ROI using any particular PPC engine very closely. Fraud PPC engines, and engines that encourage and support PPC fraud, will go out of business quickly.
I second that.
I wish that were true, but the problem seems to be growing. Every PPC engine has fraud. The best have the least, but the worst are still in business with no signs of stopping.
It’s true that Google and Overture, who are better about fraud detection, get the big money clicks, but the others are still making money, bringing on more traffic sources and more uninformed advertisers every day. I’d love to see some of the engines floating belly up, but it hasn’t happened yet, and it’s been happening for years.
excellent post Sparrow for those of us that are unknowledgable in this area.
But now that you’ve shown us what to look for to spot a fraud by bot … what will it look like if it was a real person?
Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.1;+MyIE2
and then it would also have something like …. +Java script + images + blah + blah
ran out of examples there at the end, but you get the idea.
so then would it be incorrect to say that probably the best way to spot these bots is that they would be most likely to not ever ask for image files because they are usually the bigger files and would slow down the process thus the reason they don’t ask for them?
my backwards way of spotting bots was if all the traffic would not show any time spent on my site; or that nobody clicked thru to another page.
But in the end its like Randy said; if I didn’t get some decent players out of the campaign then I’d simply not advertise there anymore.
Thanks, bb1webs!
Sorry to have not covered the real person angle. Down below a ways is a visitor clicking from one of the threads on theis board. All of that junk below is to load just one page.
The first GET request is for the source (index.htm), the second is for a stylesheet, the rest images. It takes all of those requests to display one page.
Many bots don’t request all the other files because they can’t read the HTML. They aren’t programmed to. All the bot owner needs to do to get credit for the click is request the URL, not download the page.
This method works to spot some bots, but others are programmed to actually control a browser session. I don’t have any easy method of spotting those guys, sorry.
2004-09-23 19:51:07 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /index.htm – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) casinoaffiliateprograms.com/bb/showthread.php?threadid=3514&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
2004-09-23 19:51:07 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /casino.css – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:08 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/casino_spacer.gif – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:08 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/casino_logo1.gif – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322)plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:08 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/ap-search-go-btn.gif – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:08 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/ap-search-logo-126×32.gif – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:09 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/heart.jpg – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:09 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/under_the_black_flag.gif – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:09 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/club.jpg – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:09 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/diamond.jpg – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
2004-09-23 19:51:09 12.32.89.121 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 80 GET /images/spade.jpg – 200 Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+6.0;+Windows+NT+5.0;+.NET+CLR+1.0.3705;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322) plundercove.com/
Hey Everyone,
If all ppc advertisers would agree to boycott for a set period of time it could make a change for the better. Right now I have depleted all my ppc funds and would be willing to join a boycott if other top advertisers follow.
We Must Take A Stand!
To all the good friends here at CAP :bigsmile:
:cheers:
Please don’t misconstrue this post as a defense of click fraud–hell, I hate it too. But as long as WE stay smart about the money we’re spending and the return we’re getting, then the sky isn’t falling.
If you completely eliminated click fraud at all the PPC engines, your PPC prices would skyrocket. Not that it would matter, because your cost of acquiring a customer through that engine would remain roughly the same.
A PPC engine is a market. The clicks that are being sold are given a value through an auction method. This value, over time, will take into account the number of fraudulent clicks. This is why the #1 result for “online casino” on Xuppa is only 17 cents per click, why it’s $1.54 on Goclick, why it’s $5.10 on 7search, and why it’s £7.99 (which is roughly equivalent to $14 or so USD)on Overture UK.
The cost of acquiring the customer is going to be roughly the same in each case. (There are always discrepancies in markets of any kind, that’s why we have arbitrage. Any affiliate doing a PPC campaign is doing arbitrage anyway–buying advertising for less than it’s worth and reselling it to their affiliate partner. If they’re profitable anyway.)
Here’s how the math might work, for example:
At Xuppa, it might take me 1000 clicks to get a single player. At 17 cents per click, I’ve paid $170 to acquire the player.
At Goclick though, it might only take me 110 clicks to get a single player. At $1.54 per click, that player cost me $169.40.
At 7search, I might be able to get a player from every 34 clicks. At $5.10 per click, that player cost me $173.40.
And at Overture UK, I might be able to get 1 player for every 12 clicks. At $14 a click, that’s $168.
The examples I made up are completely fabricated for illustrative purposes (except for the PPC cost for the keyword, which I looked up). And I’m sure there are greater discrepancies in player acquisition costs than in this example, because all markets are imperfect. If these markets were perfect, then we couldn’t make a profit on a PPC engine, because all the advertising being sold would be sold at a price exactly equal to the commissions we’d receive from the affiliate programs.
But my point is that even if there were 0 fraud, you’d still need to watch your player acquisition cost vs customer value extremely closely in order to make a profit.
And luckily we have a forum and a community for new webmasters so they can be warned about the PPC’s that are completely not profitable at all. (Because frankly Xuppa never sent me a single player after over 2000 clicks when I tested them.)
Excuse me for involving myself in your discussion, but after reading this thread I am disgusted by this whole business.
I’ve written an email to the CEO of GoClick, and received a reply, to which I’ve responded. No reply back to that yet, but I’ll post what I have below.
Right here, I have a question.
Here is a sample from my logs:
Quote:84.90.19.237 – – [22/Sep/2004:21:40:03 -0400] “GET /CBLASTERS.htm HTTP/1.1” 200 2689 “-” “Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)”
84.90.19.237 – – [22/Sep/2004:21:40:08 -0400] “GET /CBLASTERS.htm HTTP/1.1” 200 2689 “-” “Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)”
84.90.19.237 – – [22/Sep/2004:21:40:12 -0400] “GET /CBLASTERS.htm HTTP/1.1” 200 2689 “-” “Same IP, and the times are 5-7 seconds apart. There are gifs on the page that were not showing as downloading. Is this an example of a “bot”?
Okay, here are the emails between myself and GoClick:
Quote:From me
Original Message
From: Elizabeth
To: bizdev@goclick.com ; marketing@goclick.com
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:12 PM
Subject: My outrage and disgust about my ad dollars!!Hi,
Regarding these threads, I can’t see spending any more cash until I can be assured my money is going for legitimate clicks and viewers.
Since GoClick is at the top of the list, that means NOT!!
This behavior is making me more furious the more I read. And if you’re legit, it should do the same to you.
http://www.supertop100.com:81/ppc/r0.shtml
http://www.warriorforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=24928
http://www.marketingcynic.com/ppcfraud/
http://www.createasite4u.com/ptr.php?r=
http://www.createyourgetpaid.com/
http://cashcrusader.myecom.net/
Regards,
ElizabethFrom GoClick
Hi Elizabeth —
I understand your concern — our job is to keep this poor quality traffic out of your feed, which is our top goal. If you are not happy, we are not happy.
Bottom line, if our quality were to be dragged down by having poor quality traffic as you read about in these threads, we would not have advertisers. If advertisers don’t make more money than they spend with us, they don’t return… which means we don’t make money.
We have been in business nearly 4 years and have over 24,000 advertisers. We would not be here if we were involved in these traffic quality situations described below.
-John
From me again
Hi John,
Thank you for your response.
For those of you who make a living at this, no doubt you have been aware of this all along. However, I have not known about any of this until recently.
Since hearing and reading about this fraud perpetrated on advertisers, I have been doing a lot of reading, and I am truly horrified by what I am seeing. Millions and millions of dollars going for clicks that generate nothing to the one footing the bill.
I’m sure you don’t mean to deny there is a problem here, and I’d really like to know what steps you take to give the advertiser some assurance that money spent is not going to these thieves.
Thanks,
ElizabethI, personally, got the impression I was being patted on the head or something. Maybe I just was misreading, or just took what he said the wrong way.
Elizabeth
I dont think you took it the wrong way. Goclick clearly ignored your concerns. If this was news to him and he had your best interest in heart he would immediately terminate the accounts of the affiliates involved in this. There is no way that he cant be aware of it, especially considering you gave him evidence.
GoClick is one of the engines I see a lot in PTR mails – also they have higher bids than many, so they get gathered in on CWS pages (those places you can look for the highest bids to click on).
I shall spare you the forum posting about how thrilled a member was yesterday to find a $3 keyword to click on several times to make more money for the programme.
Gak.
Bottom line, if our quality were to be dragged down by having poor quality traffic as you read about in these threads, we would not have advertisers.
Thats a bullshit sweep you and everyone else under the rug canned response! I have always thought my goclick traffic was crap – furthermore it wasnt until last week that I first learned to what extent their affiliate programs screw the advertisers “us” over!
Like antoine said – if he actually had any concern for what was going on he would take immediate action. Hell they (ppcs) are probably running some of those PTR sites!
I think Ill write them as well – if we all strart expressing our disgust maybe something will be done ??
I agree all ppc advertisers should take time to write the ppcs they use or used. Recently I spoke on the phone with my Findwhat rep about fraud and she was in denial. There has always been fraud clicks from the ppcs, but this fraud has been on the increase over the past year. I am still not running my ppc advertising campaigns for the time being. At this time I feel I am saving alot of money, while others continue to give theirs away. Am, I saying I will never use ppcs again? no! I still feel if the major ppc advertisers would join together just once and boycott it would open the ppc owners eyes. As long as some webmasters that bid top 10 continue, the ppcs will continue to give the same lame answers as they have Ametuer and myself. The ppcs will continue to do business as they do now. This fraud make the ppcs lots more money than they would normally make with just legitiment traffic resources. If you have a bad employee that does not produce for your company you would fire them after a couple of warnings. In my opinion we need to send a signal that is load and clear. Money talks!
