February 20, 2005
Sean's email raises some important issues and omissions on my part.
Although most of our email was supportive of my recent article titled "The New Google Toolbar: Just say NO!" which I suggest you open in a new window, Sean does present an interesting argument and properly points out some omissions in my original entry.
The email:
"Your recent rant on the Google toolbar prompted me to install it. After trying it out, I get the impression that you didn't.
When I went to a page containing an address the "AutoLink" button in the toolbar changed to "Look For Map". The page didn't change at all. I had to click on the autolink button to change the address to a hyperlink to Google maps. Same went for an ISBN. And as I moved my mouse over the hyperlink, the hand changed to a different icon, and a tooltip telling me this was a Google AutoLink was attached.
You can also turn it off if you want, or set it to use Yahoo! maps or MapQuest rather than Google Maps. Granted, I don't see an option to change the book provider from Amazon to something else, maybe we'll see it in another version.
Comparing this toolbar to the likes of Gator is outright irresponsible.
Sean
--
Sean A. Walberg - http://www.ertw.com (Permission granted for use)
Our response:
Sean,
Thank you for the email. You have raised some interesting issues which I should have documented in the original entry. Of course I installed the Toolbar and tested same before I wrote my article.
The original fair use extraction clearly stated: "...and click the AutoLink button" which changes it's name as you note to help focus the users attention on the button. You are certainly correct that a user of this Toolbar may in fact change the default site from Google to other sites such as Yahoo or MapQuest. Actually, Google uses the same flawed argument when they state:
"Google, the world's most widely used search engine, denied that the AutoLink feature is an attempt to control which destinations Web surfers visit. People can already choose between several map services, including Yahoo and MapQuest, and choices for book retailers may be added in the future, a company representative said on Friday." Source
Both your statement and that of Google miss the real issue, which I failed to properly state in my original entry. In Google's case, it's a flawed attempt to justify the functionality of the Toolbar.
The REAL ISSUE that matters
Regardless of the fact that the link (and Tooltip display) points to Google, Yahoo, MapQuest, Amazon, or any other site on planet earth, the fact remains that the content of the Publisher's site has been altered by a surfer who clicks the AutoLink button while using the Toolbar, which Google provides. The content of the Publishers site is altered without their prior approval and the Publisher does not share in any revenue generated by the hijacking of a visitor to another site. The Publishers looses revenue via this hijacking procedure. Please permit me to explain this another way:
Sally and Jim build a Web site. They use the revenue from the site to support their family. It's taken them years of hard work and dedication to generate revenue. They also pay money to advertise the site so new visitors continue to arrive and purchase their product or service. They may also use Affiliate programs to generate revenue. These Publishers are the only ones who have the authority to determine exactly how their site displays in a browser and exactly which links they have chosen to insert which earn them revenue. They are protected from hijacking/alteration and the unfair loss of revenue by the Toolbar hijacking users via the following federal Laws:
The DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998) is designed to protect the content of Web sites and prevent others from unilaterally altering the content of a third parties site. If the site has also obtained a Trademark then this introduces another serious legal issue. A Trademark is designed to protect the owner of the site from folks who see fit to create confusion in the marketplace, steal images/content, and unfairly profit from the Trademark holders hard work by hijacking traffic. These same two issue are central to the numerous law suits which Gator/Claria/Kazaa and other Spyware players have been involved with as defendants. In some cases the courts have sided with the Web Site owners as I documented in this article and in other cases the courts have sided with technology and the Publisher lost the case. Given the fact that the same two legal issues are involved in these cases, I think it's fair to paint Google as a member of the Gator/Claria/Kazaa club, even though the courts have moved in two different directions and the Toolbar is not Spyware/Adware.
Final thoughts
A few years ago, Microsoft tried a somewhat similar thing with its Smart Tags feature and fortunately for Web Publishers, subsequently removed it because of adverse publicity, Publisher outrage, and Copyright/Trademark concerns. I'm the first to admit that the legal principals involved in this issue have not been universally interpreted by the courts and the fact remains that I'm not an attorney. Thus, I have chosen to call Google an enabler: they provide the Toolbar and I respectfully consider the actions of Google to be morally and ethically reprehensible.
If Publishers don't voice their concern and objection to the new Toolbar, the hijacking door is left wide open for Google to continue to add new features which inflict additional damage on hard working and dedicated Publishers. Will Google decide to implement AdWords advertisers inside the functionality of the AutoLink feature of the Toolbar? Will Google find itself in court for these actions just like the Gator/Claria/Kazaa crowd. These are real concerns of many hard working Publishers.
Thanks again for your email and pointing out areas of concern and facts which I failed to properly document.
This article is a response to my original entry titled: "The New Google Toolbar: Just say NO!"
Posted by Steve_S
February 19, 2005
The New Google Toolbar: Just say NO!
In their quest for revenue, the new Google Toolbar permits them to join and embrace a tainted group of "enablers". A collection of individuals/Companies which lack any semblance of ethics and in some cases violate Federal and or state legislation.
The nuts and bolts
A few days ago the Premiere SE in the world and a publicly traded firm who espouses "Do no evil", released Beta 3 of their Toolbar. This Toolbar includes an "AutoLink" feature which effectively paints Google as the premiere "enabler" on planet earth. Google unilaterally enables the alteration of a third parties web site for monetary gain.
A more detailed description
"When Web surfers install the toolbar in their Microsoft Internet Explorer Web browser and click the AutoLink button, Web pages with street addresses suddenly sprout links to Google's map service by default. Book publishers' ISBN numbers trigger links to Amazon.com, potentially luring shoppers away from competing book sellers such as BarnesandNoble.com. Vehicle ID licenses spawn links to Carfax.com, while package tracking numbers connect automatically to shippers' Web sites." Source: CNET News
Stand up and fight back
I suggest that you write Google along with all the major media authors and voice your objection to this deplorable behavior.
Here is an email which I have sent:
Hello xxxxx,
(Reference the article by name and URL)
(Insert a thank you and compliment)
The release of this Toolbar has permanently tarnished Google's image for the following reasons:
1. They are an "enabler". A legal principal which has already been litigated in the following areas: P2P, Gator/Claria/Kazaa, Spamware, and other seedy sectors. Google has joined a tainted group which lacks any semblance of ethics and in some cases violates Federal and or state legislation.
2. Call me "old fashioned" but I still expect the premier SE in the world, a publicly traded firm which preaches "do no evil", whose other statements and actions support and defend IP on the web, not to unilaterally enable the alteration of a third parties web site for monetary gain.
At a minimum, I consider the release of this Toolbar morally and ethically reprehensible.
(Close respectfully and insert your name and Web Site URL)
Continued with additional facts and comments in this article.
Posted by Steve_S
February 17, 2005
Gator, Claria, Vista Marketing Services, and BehaviorLink.com: Some new names but the same old Spyware Parent
One of the primary strategies that some Company's use to rehabilitate their tarnished image is to change their name and form new divisions which are still owned and controlled by the same old Spyware parent company. This strategy sometimes works, so I think it's important to document exactly who a Publisher/Webmaster, Network or Advertiser may decide to do business with.
The name game history
Gator is a privately held firm which was formed about six years ago. They distribute Spyware. Many folks first heard about Gator in 2002 when they were sued in federal court by a gaggle of irate publishers which included The Washington Post Co., the New York Times Co., Dow Jones & Co., Tribune Interactive, Gannett Co., Knight Ridder Digital, Condenet and American City Business Journals Inc. The essence of this suit was the assertion that Gator sells ads on their Web sites without authorization and pockets the proceeds. Gator does not share any revenue with the damaged sites. This legal procedure describes Gator this way: "Gator Corp. is essentially a parasite that free rides on the hard work and investment' of the publishers"
This case was settled privately and as part of the settlement, Gator stopped their morally and ethically reprehensible behavior against the plaintiffs. Having said this, they continue to do this same procedure and or related tricks today under a new Corporate name.
About one year ago Gator changed their name but not their procedures to "Claria Corporation" They are still involved with the following products using the very same Spyware and theft like procedures:
GAIN Publishing®
Kazaa
ScreenScenesTM
WebSecureAlertSM
DashBarSM
Weatherscope®
Gator® eWallet
Date Manager
Precision TimeSM
SearchScout
The Claria Corporation recently saw fit to revise their EULA for Kazaa: "At 5,936 words, the license stretches to 63 on-screen pages as presented by the current Kazaa installer (bundling with Gator). (See screen-shots of the Gator license as presented in June 2004, then requiring 56 on-screen pages.)"
"Here are some notable sections of the license: "You agree that you will not use, or encourage others to use, any unauthorized means for the removal of the GAIN AdServer, or any GAIN-Supported Software from a computer."
"Gator proceeds to list the "authorized means" for removing Gator -- prominently failing to authorize use of popular tools, such as Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Web Sweeper, which millions of users count on to remove unwanted software from their PCs."
"About four thousand words through its license, Gator demands: "Any use of a packet sniffer or other device to intercept or access communications between GP and the GAIN AdServer is strictly prohibited." Source
Talk about CYA! While Gator/Claria appears to have the authority to create an EULA any way they wish, it's apparent to me that the primary goal of this new EULA is not to properly inform a potential user with clear and easy to read terms but rather to confuse them and attempt to limit a consumers rights to install other properly licensed software on their Windows machine. In my 20 or more years of working with software, I have never seen such a long and confusing EULA and I have never seen another company attempt to limit my rights to purchase/license other software.
Finally, if we are to believe the PR spin of Gator/Claria that they are so squeaky clean and embrace the world with their moral high ground and legal compliance, why are they so paranoid about others folks using a sniffer to see exactly what they are doing. What are they hiding? What tricks do they plan to perform which they don't want others discovering?
About a week ago Gator/Claria announced the formation of a new affiliate network called BehaviorLink.com and a marketing division named Vista Marketing Services. The PR releases indicate that Gator/Claria intends to spend over 100 Million dollars to purchase ROS inventory from Webmasters/Publishers and other networks. That's a ton of money to spend and certainly believable since Gator/Gain is a darling of the VC crowd and has already received over 58 million in VC funding according to this article. Additionally, Gator/Claria continues to generate buckets of cash profits as in millions of dollars from their operations and has a huge amount of data on it's 40 million plus users. Finally, their planed IPO and it's infusion of cash also supports this business plan.
Please join the BehaviorLink.com Affiliate Program
NOT! You can expect to see lot's of these pitches in the not to distant future. Networks and or Advertisers can expect a solicitation form Vista Marketing Services. A significant number of these folks won't have a clue of exactly who they are dealing with. Trust me, I've observed this fact for over 6 years.
My suggestion for a response:
BehaviorLink.com (or Vista Marketing Services) is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Gator Corporation. Remember Gator? In a 2002 legal case they were described as: "Gator Corp. is essentially a parasite that free rides on the hard work and investment' of the publishers"
They install Spyware and changed their name to Claria Corporation. Perhaps some of these products which are still distributed by Gator will jog your memory:
GAIN Publishing®
Kazaa
ScreenScenesTM
WebSecureAlertSM
DashBarSM
Weatherscope®
Gator® eWallet
Date Manager
Precision TimeSM
SearchScout
BehaviorLink.com (or Vista Marketing Services) uses a cookie to deliver what they describe as behavioral targeting across multiple member sites. They share this revenue with the members of their network. While I can certainly respect your right to do business with anyone you wish, my own view is rather easy to understand:
Regardless of the monetary reward, I don't do business with any firm who is currently actively involved and or associated with the distribution of Spyware and or stealing revenue from other sites via pops and overlays which users of many of their products see. I consider all these actions, the Company, related parties, and all their divisions morally and ethically reprehensible.
Final thoughts
Yes I'm twisting my words a little in my suggested response. I always prefer to call them Gator since more folks remember that name and it's distribution of Spyware and theft. I also don't get involved in the legality of the issue since I'm not an attorney and many of the pending Spyware laws leave huge holes in them for Gator and it's ilk to exploit. I am also very polite and civil when I engage folks in a discussion. Never resort to attacks, trolling, insults, baiting, hacking, or any other related techniques in an effort to win the argument and convince folks not to do business with Gator, Claria, Vista Marketing Services, and BehaviorLink.com.
Posted by Steve_S
February 14, 2005
Microsoft, eBay (PayPal) and Visa form The Phish Report Network (PRN)
In what amounts to a feeble and self serving PR move, these giants have banded together in an effort to rehabilitate their tarnished image, caused by the dramatic increase in Phishing.
What is the The Phish Report Network (PRN)?
"The Phish Report Network enables companies to reduce online identity theft by safeguarding consumers from phishing attacks. As the first worldwide anti-phishing aggregation service, the Phish Report Network provides subscribers with a mechanism for staging a united defense against phishing."
How does PRN work?
"The Phish Report Network is comprised of Senders and Receivers. Any company being victimized by phishing attacks, such as a financial services or e-commerce company, can subscribe to the Phish Report Network as a Sender and begin immediately and securely reporting confirmed phishing sites to a central database operated by WholeSecurity.
Other companies, such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), spam blockers, security companies, and hosting companies, can join the Phish Report Network as Receivers. Subscribing as a Receiver provides access to the database of known phishing sites submitted by the Senders. Using this information, Receivers can effectively protect consumers by blocking known phishing sites in various software, email, and browser services. Additionally, real-time notifications of new phishing sites are available to Receivers to ensure up-to-the-minute protection against the latest attacks" Source
Nice try but NOT!
While I certainly support the education of surfers about the dangers of Phishing and even if we assume that the member sites will regularly update their sites with current data on Phishing attacks, PRN is not an effective device to significantly reduce Phishing. I'm also amused by the use of "defense" in the first paragraph of their mission statement.
First of all, surfers rarely go to the "real site" to see if the email they received is legitimate. They normally just click the link inside the email, submit their data, and the result is ID theft.
The first solution. SUE!
Next, haven't we learned anything from the battle against Spam? Thinking in terms of defensive actions is an exercise in futility. What should have happened first, is a series of legal procedures across multiple countries, accompanied by restraining orders to shut down the Phishing sites. These procedures are the only way to significantly reduce ID theft.
For an example of exactly what I'm talking about please take note of the numerous law suits filed in a short period of time by Microsoft and Pfizer. Microsoft sues for violations of the Federal CAN-SPAM law and at the same time Pfizer sues for violations of it's trademark on Viagra. These parallel lawsuits are an effective way to reduce abuse. You force the fraudsters to defend themselves across numerous courts, incur large legal bills, and let due process run it's course. Use this exact same principal against Phishing and you will reduce this ID theft.
My advice for you has not changed
Trash all emails which contain requests to click a link and visit a site to submit your confidential data. I don't care who the email appears to be from. Don't do business with firms who use email in this manner. Don't waste your time visiting sites for alerts and or installing ToolBars in your browser which attempt to notify you of a fraudsters Phishing site. If you wish to visit a site like PayPal then first launch a blank browser session and carefully type the URL into your browser. Look for the Padlock and double check the URL once you arrive.
Posted by Steve_S
February 12, 2005
Buying a Web Site: Tips to prevent fraud from "confused"
Every few weeks we publish some email we receive along with our response. We generally redact the senders name and email address to protect their privacy. This email provides an excellent question and some valuable tips to prevent fraud and half truths in the purchase of a Web Site.
Email received:
I've looked at a bunch of Web sites to purchase but I'm uncomfortable with them. Can you offer any additional tips?
Our response:
Hello confused,
We could probably fill a dozen ebooks with tips to prevent fraud and the abuse of buyers. Here are a few:
1. We never send payments via Western Union. Period. That's always a red flag and the sign of fraud. This includes auctions. You have no recourse if you pay via Western Union. We examined numerous sales and auctions and this trait always occurred. Use an escrow Company like www. escrow.com to protect yourself.
2. Many sales include verbiage like "...fastclick, adsense, realmedia approved.." or something like "includes FastClick account" Sometimes these statements hint and other times they are more pronounced. In all cases the statement is not true and we consider it a Red Flag. For example: the AdSence Policies state:
"Account Transferability
AdSense accounts are not transferable, assignable or resalable in connection with the sale of your site or otherwise. For example, when a site changes ownership or management, the prior owner or manager must cancel the AdSense account for the site, and the new owner or manager may sign up for a new AdSense account in his or her own name." Source
The Fastclick procedure:
"I wanted to jump in here and mention a few things. First, we do allow transfers for sites that have been sold. You may not switch your payment profile to the new owner, the new owner must create a new Fastclick account or add the site to their existing account. Please keep in mind that the site is still subject to our publisher agreement. Fastclick.com reserves the right to refuse service to any new or existing Publisher, in its sole discretion, with or without cause.
If you have sold a site and the new owner would like to continue to use Fastclick you must send an email to publish@fastclick.com and CC the new owner stating that you would like to have the site removed from your account.
Regards,
Matt Oettinger
Media Account Manager
Fastclick.com, Inc." Source
What can happen to a buyer? The seller gives you the Admin data to log into the affiliate program which also violates the TOS. You log in and change the Payee/Ownership of the account to your own. BINGO! Not so fast dude! No can do. The affiliate program suspends the account and earnings drop to zero or they require you to reapply. If you reapply then the next series of questions are: Does the site still comply? Is the affiliate program still interested in the type of site you just purchased?
What can happen to a seller? You fail to notify the Affiliate program of the sale so you may loose all your earnings. The sale should include terms and a requirement that the seller will notify all Affiliate programs of the sale and that the buyer will reapply.
3. Why are you purchasing a site which is cheating? Forums are full of these types of deals. The buyer needs to carefully examine the site in question and insure that every Affiliate Program running on the site or which has ever produced revenue complies with the letter and intent of the Affiliate programs rules.
4. When you first see a sale, immediately run a Whois search and make note of the owner. If the seller is not the same owner as displayed in the Whois database leave and do not purchase the site. If the owner changes in Whois during the sale, you have a red flag. Audit the sale by sending an email to the address displayed in the Whois database and require a response from this email. If it bounces or you do not receive a response, leave and do not purchase the site. You would be surprised at the huge number of fraudsters trying to sell sites which they do not own.
Final thoughts
We realize we haven't covered all the issues but hopefully have provided you with what we believe to be some of the key areas of fraud in the sale of sites. Don't hesitate to drop me an email if you have other questions. I'm pretty busy but will do my best to try and help. Thanks so much for the great question.
Posted by Steve_S
February 08, 2005
Spamware: The story of US corporate greed, turning a blind eye, and a lack of ethics
Together, MCI Worldcom, Download.com, and SWREG make millions of dollars from knowingly participating/enabling the sale and or distribution of Spamware which is used to send millions of Spam emails, every hour of every day.
What is Spamware?
Software that enables the sending of spam. Slime bags install this software on their Windows machines. Next, the software takes control of remote computers. This enables spammers to use these remote computers which are infected and sometimes called "zombies," as proxy servers to send millions of Spam emails without the computer owners' knowledge. Many viruses like versions of the Sobig, Sober and MyDoom are used to turn remote computers into zombies. This can even let a spammer evade spam blacklists. Their are currently over 300 sites which sell Spamware. In other cases, Spamware uses tricks with proxy servers to send Spam. MCI, Download.com, and SWREG are aware of this action, participate in it's distribution, and together they earn millions of dollars from Spam.
Enabler Number 1
MCI Worldcom (a US Corp) leads the pack and currently hosts (retail or wholesale) 188 sites devoted to either sending Spam or selling the tools that permit others to do this. Click here to read all the details.
What the MCI enabler says
Timothy Vogel, who heads MCI's legal team for technology issues, told the Washington Post that "MCI is only the wholesale provider of the web space used by Send Safe. He told the paper that MCI would take action if it had evidence that the Send-Safe company was spamming which "would violate MCI policy". But merely advertising its product is a form of speech that should not be censored,..." Source
Sorry, we think this flawed explanation and attempt to wrap the American Flag around your excuse is simply a demonstration of greed and an effort to continue to reap millions of dollars from your actions. We aren't the only ones who think this. Read this:
"MCI Worldcom's official position on the issue is that MCI can't stop their spam gangs selling proxy hijacking spamware from MCI's network as that would be 'censoring' the distribution and sale of illegal proxy hijacking software."
"MCI is the only American, and indeed only Western network, where this spam support activity is "not against our policy". Spamhaus maintains that MCI's 'protected speech' excuses for servicing known spam gangs and proxy spamware distribution sites are dishonest and nonsensical in the face of the Internet's spam epidemic." Source
Enabler Number 2
The largest distributor/author of Spamware is Send Safe (send-safe.com). Send Safe is a stealth proxy hijacking tool. This site is of course hosted by MCI and they are acutely aware of this fact but refuse to shut the site site down. Matter of fact, Spammers/Spam Gangs of all flavors love MCI since they refuse to take action and use a flawed argument to continue to profit from from this deplorable act.
Enabler Number 3
The send-safe.com site uses SWREG (swreg.org) as their credit card gateway to process credit card orders for this Spam tool. This company earns a commission from each sale. I find this action deplorable.
Enabler Number 4
Download.com is also aware that they are distributing Spamware. For example, a Spamware tool called LegalSender 1.60g has been distributed by Download.com since 2002. Click here to read the description. Sorry, this is not an isolated incidence, they also profit and distribute the following Spamware: StealthMail Master, Easy Mass Mailer, Speed Send Mailer, Advanced Mass Sender, and Mass eMailer.
Conclusions
If you are a regular reader, you noticed that we have documented legal action against Spammers as well as the CAN-SPAM federal law. While these actions will help, they don't represent an effective solution. Today, about 70% of all email is Spam. Unfortunately, we expect this to continue to increase this year and beyond unless additional measures are taken. Our hope and prayer is that large ISPs like AOL or MSN will sue MCI Worldcom in federal court and prevail. Shut down MCI and make them stop. Make MCI pay millions of dollars for the Spam damage which they actively and knowingly participate in. This would also result in the shut down of the Spam gangs sites. Next, SWREG needs to also find themselves in federal court along side Download.com.
Naturally, this legal attack must continue against other US based criminals who are either directly or indirectly enaged in this deplorable behavior.
Posted by Steve_S
February 02, 2005
AdWords Impression Spam will cost you a bundle
We discovered the increasing use of this procedure by AdWords fraudsters. We expect it to continue to increase and cost AdWords advertisers significant amounts of additional money and time. Since Google is getting better at detecting "click fraud" from your competition and everyone else, the AdWords slime bags have turned to impression spam in alarming numbers, which will ruin your Campaign and business model.
Impression spam defined
An AdWords fraudster will toggle Off his own PPC adverts, then repeatedly query Google to bring up the results page which will display your PPC advert. By making sure that your advert is displayed many times but not clicked, the activity causes your CTR (click-through rate) to fall rapidly and dramatically and this results in Google disabling your Campaign. Since Google ranks the AdWords ads according to a formula comprised of both click-through rate and bid price, the fraudster succeeds in obtaining the same or better positioning for his own advert for a lower bid-price (once they toggle their ad back On), since your click-through rate has been artificially reduced.
How we discovered this issue
Special thanks to Major,(USMC) Richard E. Leino of WebsiteMaven.com who posted about this serious issue and brought it to our attention. Major Leino says:
"I benefit greatly from Google AdWords sponsored ads in Google.com and their search network. The problem I have is that they've also caused me untold amounts of frustration and money due to their inability to correct fraudulent "impression" attacks when they occur."
"If you have a great CTR over time, your ad can maintain a dominant first page position for far less than a new advertiser is charged. It takes a great deal of money and patience to remain in a top position and there are many competitors who will try and knock you off by either fraudulently clicking on your ad or causing thousands of bogus impressions to send your CTR through the floor."
"...whenever impression fraud occurs, Google recognizes it is a problem but will not "credit your account" to reverse the damage done by bogus impressions. Your ad tanks and then you have to increase your max CPC to get 1st page ad status until your ad gets in a strong enough position where you can lower your CPC again and remain in the same position. Google apologizes profusely for the problem but does nothing to help me rehabilitate my ad or save me the money. Translation - Google knows I've been attacked but now I have to spend hundreds of extra dollars to keep my ad in place."
"Case in point, just yesterday my ad received 45,000 impressions in a 5 hour period. My CTR is typically 1% and it tanked to .1% and my ad was put in a slowed state. Advertising for months, 45,000 impressions represented over 12% of all impressions and they occured in a 5 hour period! Google apologizes but says they can do nothing to remove the impressions from my Ad Group and now, after months and thousands of dollars on a good keyword, I'm sent to the bottom of the pile based on 5 hours of impressions."
Other comments by AdWords advertisers
"The real problem with this is that I spend a lot of time and energies getting to an optimal position, and developing a great CTR which helps keep me there. This impression spamming is destroying history on the keyword in Google, requiring me to start over in a new ad group or new camapign. Further, it seems Google takes a while to start serving the ad 100% of the time once I do re-start. This time it knocked me and all of my affiliates off of the keyword for about 24 hours, and it took another 3-4 days to right-size the campaign. When you're talking gross sales of $15k+ per day on this keyword, it really hurts."
"I've run into what appears to be impression spamming on a paricular keyword. The keyword can roll along nicely at 5,000 impressions per day, then one day it skyrockets to 30,000 or more. The kicker is, there are no more clicks, so it all appears to be some script that pings Google on that keyword relentlessly. So my CTR drops through the floor, and Google disables it."
Source and the Google Search for this issue
Google knows about the issue but does nothing but apologize
They call it "impression spam" and say this:
"How do you prevent click and page impression spam?
Any method used to artificially and generate clicks or page impressions is strictly prohibited. Google monitors clicks on Google ads to prevent abuse of the Google AdSense program. Google's proprietary technology analyzes clicks to determine whether they fit a pattern of use intended to artificially drive up an advertiser's clicks or a publisher's earnings. Clicks deemed by us to be invalid should not be included in your earnings.
These prohibited methods include but are not limited to: repeated manual clicks, using robots, automated clicking tools, or other deceptive software. Please note that clicking on your own ads for any reason is prohibited, to avoid potential inflation of advertiser costs. All clicks must be generated as the result of a user clicking on the ads. We therefore require that Web pages do not include incentives of any kind for users to click on ads. This includes encouraging users to click on the ads or to visit the advertisers' sites as well as labeling the ads with text other than "sponsored links" or "advertisements."
Please be assured that there is no need for test clicks in order to verify the validity of the ads. Our AdWords specialists review ads to verify that the destination URLs of the ads are working and lead to a valid website."
Source - Please let me very clear. They mention impression spam a few times but have absolutely nothing to say about detecting it, correcting these fraudulent impressions via a "make good", or any disciplinary action that they will take against the AdWords fraudsters.
Why should AdSense affiliates care about this fraud?
Impression spam is fraud and has the real potential to unfairly deplete advertiser revenue via increased costs to advertise. If advertiser leave the AdWords program, your sites will display fewer keywords and your earnings will drop. Have you ever wondered why all of a sudden your site displays fewer keywords and or PSA adverts and your revenue drops or fluctuates wildly? A significant portion of this may be directly attributed to impression spam which eliminates the keywords. Some of you also use AdWords, so you are easy targets for your competition to eliminate your keywords by artificially lowering your CTR.
Only Google can fix this issue
We refuse to believe that the premiere SE in the world and the most talented group of coders can't devise a solution which eliminates the additional costs and time to AdWords advertisers. Frankly, many other networks have devised related solutions to eliminate fraud so Google needs to get serious about this issue and stop turning a "blind eye". A simplified solution for Google: repeated query's for the same keywords in a given period of time should trigger an automatic procedure by Google which ignores/fails to count the display of the advert. Yes, we are aware of the release of the new AdSence API, but it does nothing to address this issue. Next, Google needs to sue these AdWords fraudsters and insure that their site contains suitable verbiage indicating exactly what they won't tolerate and exactly what they will do.
Unfortunately, I'm not very optimistic that Google will implement corrective action. Why? They currently occupy the dominant position in the space so they apparently prefer to think short term. Naturally, this will change as Yahoo/Overture and Microsoft continue to gain market share and advertisers in larger numbers. This will cause a significant exit of advertisers from AdWords to these other SE and then the competitive forces of the marketplace will force everyone to treat advertisers in a fair and equitable manner.
Advice for AdWords advertisers
1. Assume that you will be abused via impression spam and click fraud.
2. When computing your ROI projections, use an additional figure of 25% for impression spam and click fraud costs.
3. Carefully examine your AdWords stats on the Google site and look for "traffic spikes" Many of the advertisers I contacted were not even aware of this serious issue until we examined the traffic spikes and the resultant suspension of the Campaign. You need to perform this audit on a weekly basis.
4. Read Internet News on a regular basis for additional advertising options via other companies.
5. Send your complaints, stats and thoughts to Google via the AdWords Contact Us form.
Posted by Steve_S