« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »

June 30, 2005

Google sued by 'click-fraud' opportunist

'Fails to protect its customers'

GOOGLE COULD soon find itself in the dock, after a company that makes online marketing tools filed a lawsuit against the darlings of Wall Street this week.

Click Defense Inc says Google fails to protect its advertisers - of which Click Defense is one- from what it calls 'click fraud'.

It says competitors engage in the practice of clicking on Google ads knowing full well that the advertiser has to cough up real wonga to the searching and advertisng company for every click it generates.

Click Defense chief, Scott Boyenger, says his company has logged click fraud rates of as high as 38 percent.

The company also happens to make software that guards against this sort of thing.

A Google spokesman told Reuters the company believes the suit to be "without merit" and will contest it vigourously.

Click Defense hasn't yet repsonded to our request for a comment.

By INQUIRER staff: Thursday 30 June 2005, 15:18
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24308

Posted by Hans A. Koch at 03:18 PM | Comments (0)

Interview over Click Fraud

Wired Magazine Asked Me For An Interview, Over Click Fraud at Google

Good. Let me email you questions to start, and I’ll follow up with a phone call.

1. What’s your name?

Larry Wingo, I started advertising with Google in October, 2004.

2. Profession?

I’m a real estate broker

Does your company have a website we can link to?

I’m not looking for customers for this interview.

3. Phone # (switchboard and direct line) and work address.

4. What does your company do specifically. What types of clients do you have?

I’m in real estate finance, only. My ads with Google-the-Goliath were for the most difficult type of real estate loans, ‘hard money’ loans.

5. What exactly was your relationship to Google?

I was one of their stoolies. I placed my trust in their advertising program and found out why advertisers can’t trust the Goliath, Google. They use a checkbox, which is checked by default and without adequate explanation to clients, like me. Then they turn your account over to a pack of thieves who trick people into clicking on your ads. The crooks make money and the Goliath makes money and everyone is wearing a smile, except the stoolie. We pick up the tab. I’m not alone. I found Ameriquest’s ads on the porno site too. I even took a picture of it and saved it on my computer. I’m going to use it for evidence, when I find someone doing a ‘CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT’ against the Google Goliath. If we can’t bring them down, maybe we can tarnish their reputation enough to make investors skiddish about the ‘bubble bursting’. Everyone on Wallstreets says the profits and stock’s value don’t jive and there’s going to be a ‘Day of Reckoning’. I want to be part of it.

You paid for search ads?

I allowed Google to use boxes, checked by default, which is deceptive and dishonest, to start with, no explanations to tell me that crooked programmers could use redirects to trick clicks and force me to pay the bill. My ad costs quadrupled and the calls dropped to zero. I knew something was up, so I started digging. Fortunately, I have an unusual name and I was able to gather a lot of evidence that they were dupping me. I reported it to Google and since they own the search engine that produced all the evidence, all the evidence vanished! Poof! But I was one step ahead of them. I saved it on my computer and today, it’s on a disk, so they can’t get to it. Cha! Cha! Cha!

Someone was spamming your company name?

Spamming???? I never used the word ‘spamming’. What does spamming mean to you? This is a lot more harmful than mere spam. They stole money, right out of my account. I’m sure I’m not the only one. I may be one of the few who discovered it and reported it to them, but remember, they’re making money too. What if the police got paid, every time there’s a home burglary? Would home breakins increase? Of course they would! Duhhhhhhhhh!!! If the police profit, when crimes are committed, police will look the other way too! No surprise that Google can’t catch them. With all their brilliance, they can’t catch clever programmers. I don’t buy it. The crooks are affiliated with Google. That makes Google corrupt and a co-conspirator. The first contribution that Google made was the default checkboxes on AdSense. That sets up anyone who is unsuspecting to take it in the shorts, when the crooks get ahold of that URL.

I’m not clear exactly what your beef with Google is. Please explain clearly, step by step.

I got screwed! Google allows their affiliates to rewrite my ads, offering loans that I don’t make. The crooks redirect clicks so that viewers are tricked into clicking on my ad. I’m not a programmer. I don’t know how they did it, but when I do a search for hard money and I see a URL, click on it and look at where I am, it’s not a match. The URL I was supposed to get isn’t where I am. That’s crooked! That’s a redirect! Somebody has to pay for that click and for me, I was offering up to $4 a click. If Google give 80% to the crook, then the crook has a huge incentive to try to get $3.20 one million times a day. Wouldn’t you, if you had no ethics? Why should Google catch them? Google is making money too. Everybody wins and the customer is unaware. The customer might notice that his bills are quadruple and there aren’t any calls, but what do you do, quit advertising? Most people are not too good on the computer. They’re never figure it out. That’s why I have to speak out. I got it! I discovered the corruption and I want to expose them. I already called Ameriquest and informed them. I got a call from a Google thug who didn’t threaten me directly, but he let me know that I was cutting into his game and that I better stop. He tried to persuade me that it was Overture who did this to Ameriquest. But I directed him to the web page and showed him the ‘Google Search’ at the bottom of the page. Then I hung up on him.

Start with when all this started and provide details. Walk me through the whole thing.

What do I have to do, take you there? Google wiped out as much evidence as they could. There’s big money here. Like Charles Ponzi, they don’t want the bubble to burst, just yet. They want to make some money, first.

6. Tell me about your interactions with Google. Again, step by step: explain. What did you and the Google operator talk about?

You call companies today and what do you get? Recorded messages about how important your call is to them, but nobody ever picks up the phone. When I put my account on ‘Pause’ I got an email from someone, but when I replied, I got an autosponder. What kind of service is that? Most of the time, they send out automatic replies that have absolutely nothing to do with your email. It’s written by an algorithm and it isn’t AI. It isn’t even an intelligent response. I got very bad service from Google and I had to stop telling people what a great company it is, because it no longer is useful to me, except as a search engine, perhaps. The lambs go into the slaughterhouse and you know what happens to them there. If you don’t know a lot about what Google is doing, you’re going to get screwed. If you complain, they get rid of you, like eBay does.

OK, that’s a start.

And thanks. Look forward to reading what you have to say.

Now, let me ask you a few questions. What is your affiliation with Google? Why are you concerned? Do you have Google ads on your websites? Are you collecting information to hand to Google, in their defense? Do you have any affiliation with any law firm representing Google on any suit?

Larry Wingo
310 530-1555

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:54:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Wired: feedback: Story: Click Fraud: Problem and Paranoia
From: "Adam L. Penenberg" Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
To: "Larry Wingo"
Good. Let me email you questions to start, and I’ll follow up with a phone call.

1. What’s your name?

2. Profession? Does your company have a website we can link to?

3. Phone # (switchboard and direct line) and work address.

4. What does your company do specifically. What types of clients do you have?

5. What exactly was your relationship to Google? You paid for search ads? Someone was spamming your company name? I’m not clear exactly what your beef with Google is. Please explain clearly, step by step. Start with when all this started and provide details. Walk me through the whole thing.

6. Tell me about your interactions with Google. Again, step by step: explain. What did you and the Google operator talk about?

OK, that’s a start.

And thanks. Look forward to reading what you have to say.

On 7/22/05 5:43 PM, "Larry Wingo" wrote:

Yes!

"Adam L. Penenberg" wrote:

Would you be willing to do an interview with me about your Google
experience? I think it would make a good column for me and provide a public
service. What do you think?
--a

On 7/19/05 7:51 PM, "Larry Wingo" wrote:

> I'm looking for a new search engine to run ads on, because in my opinion,
> Google is now run by a bunch of crooks. The service is absolutely terrible,
> in every category. I just got off the phone with Heather W. Several times,
> I complained that her voice was cutting out. You would think that Google
> could afford better equipment for their representatives. On June 20th, I
> spoke to Heather. She didn't give me her last name, but gave me a number to
> call. Like so many companies, Google uses an automated system. The recording
> asks for the last name of the person youâ€Å¡re trying to reach. If Google
> representatives don't give their last names, how can anyone reach them? Is
> this the plan? Less work that way? Sure seems like it. The result is poor
> service.
>
> I'm in finance and I work with some very wealthy clients. I don't need bad
> publicity, bu my ad campain was dragged through the mud, when their affiliates
> tricked people into clicking on my link, by offerring loan programs that I
> don't offer and my ads were even shown on porno sites. That's all I need is
> to have one of my $40 million clients discover that I'm advertising on porno
> sites. So I complained to Google and all those links disappeared, but I kept
> the evidence on my computer and I can substantiate my claims, concretely. If
> you're suing Google, in a class action lawsuit, I'd like to participate.
>
> I complained to my credit card company and they reversed the charge, for one
> month only, but I was overcharged over a period of a few months. During that
> time, my bill quadrupled and I wasnâ€Å¡t getting any calls. That's why I got
> suspicious and started checking into it. I found porno sites, featuring my
> ads, along with Countrywide, Ameriquest and others. The Ameriquest ad was
> adjacent to "Anal Sex". Imagine that! At the bottom of the page, "Google
> Search". That proves to me that it's a Google affliliate, not an Overture
> affiliate, as some Google people have claimed. I called Citifinancial and
> others to inform them. Some responded by raising complaints, as I did, but
> the ads are still there, today. Some have been removed also, like
> http://sexgirlspics.com
> If you click on this link, you'll find it's gone. So is this one...
> www.granny-sex-tgp.com/
> The perpetrators have moved on, like charletons in the old west, selling snake
> oil, who would just set up shop in another small town. The computer
> programmers who fool their viewers into clicking on our ads will obtain
> another domain and be right back in business, tomorrow. Do you think Google
> is going to crack down on them if theyâ€Å¡re making money from the fraud? Not if
> you know about human motivation, greed and if you "follow the money".
>
> Most small advertisers want to reach prospective customers from a small radius
> and for me, that circle is about 120 miles, but the IP address locates AOL
> customers, who live in California, with Texas or Virginia. That's because of
> a rotary system. A user doesn't know where it will appear they are located.
> When I used a radius, I received few clicks, so I paid extra to advertise
> nationally. Then my clickthrough ratio suffered. There is a lot wrong with
> the Google system and it's not all about crooks running the "medicine show".
> Some of it is incompetence and normal "growing pains".
>
> When you're given a phone number by a Google representative and the options
> given don't allow you to reach the rep, something's wrong. When I complained,
> the Google rep who heard my complaint said heâ€Å¡d do something about it. I
> asked if I can have Heather's last name and he refused. He said that nobody
> gives their last name. I asked, Then why does the telepone message ask the
> caller to punch in the first letters of the last name? Are you aware of that?
> I asked Heather if she ever thought of calling herself and going through the
> system she put me and her other customers through. She hasnâ€Å¡t. She added
> that she hasn't had any complaints. I said, "No wonder! Your customers can't
> reach you. Did you ever wonder why no one calls you back?"
>
> So, with my ads rewritten and my good name dragged through the mud with
> association with porno sites and no way to complain to Google that results in
> anything, but an autosponder, I went to my credit card company and made my
> complaint there. American Express was truly American and they expressed my
> ire with a chargeback. Ah hah! The good guys won, right? No. Google
> promptly cancelled my ads! They give me bad service and if I don't like it,
> they simply cancel my account and cut me off from the world of search engine
> advertising. This kind of power reminds me of the days when Bill Gates
> controlled the world and if you said anything publically about him, he could
> crush you and your entire company would suffer the consequences.
>
> The people at Google don't care about their customers. If they did, they'd be
> more responsive to legitimate complaints about their systems. It used to be a
> great company, but I'm predicting that there will be a sharp decline in the
> stock's value.
>
> Join me in a class action lawsuit against them!
>
> Larry Wingo of Torrance, California
> 310 530-1555
>
> Sites I had to exclude...
>
> Edit existing excluded sites for Campaign #1
> select all Showing 1-20 of 20 sites.
> crazyfinder.com
> newestsearch.com
> www.801zerodown.com
> www.granny-sex-tgp.com/
> freshsearch.net
> page-private-mortgage-investor.html
> www.again2002.co.kr
> www.onlineloan411.com
> hard-money.fastfind.me.uk/
> search.ezanga.com
> www.fast-search-engine.com
> www.pingposh.com
> hard.money.loan.hippo.info
> sexgirlspics.com
> www.fhamortgage-203kloans.net
> www.rightonblog.net/
> ms-directory.org
> tomatosearch.com
> www.gp32.co.kr
> www.search2find.net

I had a problem with Google and I tried to resolve it, but the bureaucracy there prohibits dissension. Google impedes any contact with them. They don’t volunteer their email address or any phone numbers at all. If you click on ‘Contact Us’, you get the run around.

My web pages have been removed from Google’s web searches, because I complained about their system. I have proof that they allowed my web pages to be advertised on porno sites and I’m not the only advertiser that was advertised there. I found many prominent companies there too. One example is Ameriquest Mortgage. I informed them and Google didn’t like it. I tried to warn others on the internet and Google, who sort of controls the press, zapped my web pages from their search results.

We’ve seen this before. This is what happens when too much power falls into the hands of one entity, like a dictator. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Dictators always try to get control of the press so they don’t have to read anything bad about themselves. Google has too much power, being the preeminent search engine gives them enough power, but add to that the control of the search results and you have tyranny, not unlike the Bill Gates tyranny that Google replaces.

I have some very large clients. The net worth of one investor is $40 million. He is doing business with me. I don’t want my name associated with porno sites. It’s not funny to search my name and find it associated with granny-sex-pictures.com. If this happened to you, I’m sure you’d protest too, if you could. How do you reach them? Google doesn’t allow advertisers to protest, so I contacted my credit card company and explained that Google dragged my reputation through the mud. Google even allowed their affiliates to rewrite my ads and offer loans that I don’t make. This is in violation of California Real Estate law and American Express reversed the charges for that month. Google responded by cutting off my ads. They gave me an ultimatum. Pay them for trashing my name and putting my license at risk or lose the account. I stood on principal and forfeited the account. Now, I’m taking my protest to the internet. The only thing is, they control the press there!

Don’t let this happen to you. If they drag your name through the mud and put your license at risk, just pay them, because it doesn’t pay to stand up against the Goliath Google.

Larry Wingo
310 530-1555

Yeah, I may pay them too keep them quiet, but they are charging me and I have never used them. This is the second time they have charged my credit card and I had the past one cancelled because of them and they found me again. So I am gettting charged over $800 for NOTHING and have to fight with my credit card company AGAIN and they may wonder why I want the charges from the same company taken off my bill as I had never even heard of them before they billed me. For what I can tell this is a complete scam and will lock people in no matter if they ever contacted them or not. I for one am interested in finding all that have been screwed by them and getting our rights back.

For being such a large business productive they seem to be doing things that will bring it to the ground. I for one could care less as long as they stop charging me for NOTHING. I just found out what they did after the second time I have been charged so I know for a fact I did not otherize them to bill my card for one red cent, let alone for $800.

This is my 2 cents which from Google would cost me a cool $1,000,000 probably the way they do business.

Kevin

Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:25:55 GMT
Google Sued For Ignoring Click Fraud

http://www.kbcafe.com/adwords/?guid=20050630082555

Posted by Hans A. Koch at 10:14 AM | Comments (0)

Click fraud lawsuit targets Google

A seller of online marketing tools said Wednesday it sued Google, charging that the Web search giant has failed to protect users of its advertising program from click fraud, costing them at least $5 million.

Click Defense filed its lawsuit, which also seeks class action status, Friday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif.

Click fraud is not "fraud" as defined under the law. Rather, it is an industry term used to describe the deliberate clicking on Web search ads by users with no plans to do business with the advertiser. Rival companies might employ people or machines to do this because the advertiser has to pay the Web search provider for each click.

Users of Google's popular Web search advertising program pay a set amount--varying from pennies to well over $1--for each click, though in rare instances, the payment is as much as $95.

Click fraud can run up thousands of dollars in advertiser costs or benefit a Web site operator that gets a cut of advertising revenue from Internet search providers.

"We believe the suit is without merit and we will defend ourselves against it vigorously," a Google spokesman said.

Google, which had first-quarter net revenue of $1.3 billion, makes virtually all of its money from search ads.

The company, whose stock earlier this week briefly topped $300 after debuting at $85 in August, has previously said that click fraud is not material to its results and that it has technology and teams working to prevent it.

Google and its top rival, Yahoo, have declined to say what percentage of clicks would fall under click fraud. The figure most cited by independent firms that track the practice is around 20 percent.

Scott Boyenger, chief executive of Colorado-based Click Defense, said in an e-mail that his company's tracking system has detected click fraud rates of as high as 38 percent. The company sells software to prevent click fraud.

Google and Yahoo, which is not named in the lawsuit, let advertisers set per-click pricing by allowing them to bid on key words that launch ads when Web users enter matching search queries.

For example, when Web users type "laptop computer" into Google.com, they will see search results as well as a section of ads from laptop makers or sellers.

Google has said it credits advertisers who have fallen prey to click fraud, but Click Defense charges that the company has not done enough to warn advertisers about the risks it presents or to protect them against it.

Click Defense, which advertises on Google.com, is among a new crop of companies that aim to help identify and stop click fraud. Its rivals include Alchemist Media and ClickDetective.

Digital marketing companies aQuantive and DoubleClick also have units that help advertisers tackle click fraud.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5769677.html
Published on ZDNet News: June 30, 2005, 5:52 AM PT

Posted by Hans A. Koch at 05:52 AM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2005

Paid Search Engine is Flawed

Consider this:

5-20% of clicks are believed to be fraudulent

I read this recently in an article about paid search engine listing - you know the ones, the “Google Ads” that every other site (mine included ...hey, I’ve earned $41.26 this year so far!) now has plastered on their pages...

If you are prepared to accept that possibly one-in-five clicks (remember, you pay for each click) are fake then go for it.

But if you’re like me, you might just realise that what was once a good marketing avenue is slowly degrading away to ruin. Unless, of course, Google can prove to us all that they have the “click fraud” problem under control.

June 24th, 2005
http://www.homeofficevoice.com/2005/06/24/paid-search-engine-is-flawed/

Posted by Hans A. Koch at 09:08 AM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2005

VBW Targeted! - Banned from Ad Sense

Yes, we were maliciously targeted. Someone nearly caused my Google Adsense Account to be permanently banned.

We were in fact banned by adsense. But I'll get to that a little later.

On Saturday, June 11th, I saw my adsense clicks more then double. As I looked further, all of the increase was here on VBW, but the traffic hadn't increased substantially. This trend continued and on Sunday I emailed the Ad Sense Support Team alerting them to what I was seeing.

This trend continued, with my overall clicks 3 times the normal rate during the next few days. I had not heard back from Google, so I sent another email on Thursday.

Then - It happened. I got this email on Sunday:

It has come to our attention that invalid clicks have been generated on the ads on your web pages. We have therefore disabled your Google Adsense account. Please understand that this step was taken in an effort to protect the interest of the Ad Words advertisers.

A publisher's site may not have invalid clicks on any ad(s), including
but not limited to clicks generated by a publisher on his own web
pages, clicks generated through the use of robots, automated clicking
tools, or any other deceptive software.

Practices such as these are in violation of the Google Adsense Terms
and Conditions and program polices, which can be viewed at:

https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?hl=en_US
https://www.google.com/adsense/policies?hl=en_US

Publishers disabled for invalid click activity are not allowed further
participation in Adsense and do not receive any further payment. The
earnings on your account will be properly returned to the affected
advertisers.

Sincerely,

The Google Adsense Team

For the record, I have clicked my own ad once in all the time I have been running adsense ads. That was completely by accident, months ago. I emailed them right away with my confession. I have never asked anyone to click my ads either.

Naturally, I was quite upset. I wont reveal what I earn via adsense but its a big part of my income. Beside the loss, was the knowledge that someone had targeted this site and managed to get me banned from Ad Sense.

After I calmed down a bit, I wrote to Ad Sense. I first explained that I have never violate the TOS nor clicked any of my own ads. I further explained that I had reported the unusually high clicks twice. I also pointed out my IP address and told them they needed to check their records as they would find no clicks from that IP. I commented on how it was unfair to penalize publishers for click fraud when they have nothing to do with the attack, and have no way to control or stop such an attack. I also started searching and sent similar emails to everyone from Google I could find. I even wrote to the guy that writes the Google Blog. LOL I was desperate for someone to help.

Not expecting a positive response, since I had never heard of anyone ever being reinstated, I began searching for viable alternatives. What I found was quite disappointing. There are others out there who can deliver ads, but they have few advertisers, so it doesn't do much good when the same ad runs on every page. I chose one just to try and placed it on one of my sites that usually earns $xx.xx a day. I made less then $1 a day with the new program.

Then, I got this email a few days after I had been banned:

Thank you for your email regarding your Adsense account.

As you know, Google treats instances of invalid click activity very seriously. We have reviewed your circumstances and determined that you are not responsible for the most recent activity. We have reinstated your account, effective immediately. However, there will be a delay before ads start running on your web site. It may take up to 48 hours before all of our servers are informed of the change.

Thank you for clarifying your situation. We appreciate your patience, and apologize for any inconvenience. If you have any questions, please feel free to respond to this email.

Sincerely,

The Google Adsense Team

WOW!!!

I was amazed and delighted. Kudos to Google for actually looking into the matter and making the right decision! It restored my faith in Google, which had been shaken with the events of the prior week or two. All I can hope now is that they have a way to catch whoever would do something like this.

Many times in the past I've read posts on other forums where people complained they had been banned unfairly. I have seen many posts regarding things of this nature, and never found one to indicate anyone was ever reinstated. To be honest and frank, I generally figured them to be BS. Kids trying to outsmart the system or something of the sort. I have a new appreciation now.

I was lucky. Somehow I caught the right ear at Google and was reinstated. People who do things like this threaten the whole contextual advertising system. It costs Ad Words advertisers money, and causes publishers a means of support. To me, this kind of click fraud is the worst of all. Its malicious and intended to cost someone their livelihood. I see sites all the time that say "Help us by clicking the ads" and that's wrong too. But I suspect its usually done by people who don't know better. What happened to me, was an attempt to cause me harm. Luckily, Google didn't ignore my pleas, and saw the right thing to do.

http://www.vbwebmaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=862
Posted by: Joeychgo - vbwebmaster.com Administrator

Posted by Hans A. Koch at 07:57 AM | Comments (0)

VeriClix: Free Click Fraud Monitoring

VeriClix has launched a free service to monitor and audit clicks from paid search with Google, Overture and Kanoodle. This sounds great. Everyone would like to know how much fraud there is in paid search and everyone should know their own numbers.

Why is VeriClix doing this? Is it out of the goodness of their hearts? Is it to help the world? I think they have to have a way to make money from this.

Why We Do It
You already pay for pay per click campaigns - you shouldn't have to pay to monitor for fraud. VeriClix is fully sponsored by relevant industry advertisers which allows us to provide a full featured, professional service at no cost to the user. VeriClix gives you the knowledge of exactly how your advertising dollars are being spent up to the second - the way it should be.

I don't know if I but that. My first impression is that they plan on using it in one of two ways:

1. They are gathering and selling the information. Do you want to know what keywords your competitor is bidding on? There are other forms they can repackage the data that aren't as bad but they won't make the news.
2. They are gathering and using the data. They can look at your click data and see what types of sites they should build and the keywords they may want to use. It is more useful to get the keywords aggregated into clusters (most likely logical since advertisers pay for the clicks and should have themes to their sites).

I could easily debunk my own theories by reading the terms and conditions. Those should tell me how the information can be used. The only problem is, I can't find T&Cs on the site.

I've seen a little online about the founders, Jeff Martin and Mike Waltman. I may get a lot of negative comments.

I think that the best improvement that they can add to VeriClix is to add a Privacy Policy and T&Cs so that it is clear how they plan on using the information. Until then, I don't know how anyone can sign up for this.

Posted to SEM and PPC on June 23, 2005 at 03:38PM

I asked.

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=51944#post51944
Posted by Jonathan (Trust) at 04:58PM on Jun 23, 2005

We burned the midnight oil and have published our privacy policy. We aren't lawyers, but I think we covered most people's concerns.

"Why is VeriClix doing this? Is it out of the goodness of their hearts? Is it to help the world?"

VeriClix was built to try and level the playing field for the advertisers. No, we don't think we're curing cancer but we are trying to help support our industry which has been very good to us.

"I think they have to have a way to make money from this."

Sure, if many sponsors want to advertise on VeriClix then I presume we could reach a point to where all of the costs for keeping the services running are covered and there is enough funds for R&D that perhaps one day Mike and I could do VeriClix full time. Now thats a reward.
Posted by Jeff Martin at 10:42PM on Jun 24, 2005

Jeff, thanks for your comment. I was about to commend you on your efforts until I looked at the sponsor sites.

CPA Pro and SBD Pro are virtually identical sites (in look-and-feel and navigation if not content). The funny thing is, they are registered to different people in different parts of Florida. The two people named on the registration are Pete Townsend and Jimmy Jones (sound fishy yet?) The sites have no contact information. The blogs on both are written by Lisa Banks, a freelance copywriter (she does have a link for that on the bottom of one of the sites).

I have found that when things don't add up, there is something wrong. This is one of those cases. You are planning on making money off of your service (or at least break even) I am forced to stick with my original conclusions that it is through the data and not sponsorships. The partners listed won't be able to support this service if it gets any volume and bettter sponsors won't sign up if they do this simple analysis of the existing sponsors.

As I always write, pick your partners wisely.
Posted by David Lewis at 04:36PM on Jun 25, 2005

David, sometimes a [insert item here] is just a [insert same item here].

If you don’t want to use this free service that’s fine. We aren’t out to get people to pay us money to use VeriClix and we aren’t out to underhandedly make a buck by selling out people and their data (as noted in our official privacy policy; which could lead to nasty lawsuits like the PPC networks are involved in).

CPA Pro and SBD Pro are sites that Mike's full time gig owns and I’m keeping them there because I like Mike’s boss. The freelance copywriter, Lisa, works for Mike’s boss as well. People have donated time and effort into getting VeriClix up and running and this is us saying thanks (Thanks!).

If you want to wear the tinfoil hat, that’s your right and God bless you. However, we have stated why VeriClix exists. You focus seems to be money (as well may be other folks trying to sell a click fraud service) while ours is: (1) giving something back to an industry that has been good to us and (2) to help many of our friends who are in this industry. As I said, if VeriClix gains many, many sponsors that allow Mike and I to do it full time then that’s a reward we would look forward to.

This will be my last post here as I have stated who we are and why were doing what we are doing. Anyone still focused on a conspiracy theory probably couldn’t be swayed from that ideology (after all who really shot JFK??). If our privacy policy and public statement aren’t enough, then why would anyone else’s be?
Posted by Jeff Martin at 10:50PM on Jun 25, 2005

Jeff, thanks for stopping by. While a rose may be a rose, a cigar often isn't just a cigar.

What you fail to note while flinging insults at me is that you took action based on my article. Your site was deficient. It had no privacy policy. This left your motives open to interpretation (BTW, I'm wearing a Cal baseball cap) as you and Mike are experienced enough on the Internet to know that you need a Privacy Policy if you are collecting information. It was obviously important enough that you and Mike "burned the midnight oil" after reading Revenews and you used your privacy policy as your link twice above. All I can say is "You're welcome!"

Note that transparency (not just a Privacy Policy) will always help and avoid tinfoil hats. Your partner's boss' lack of transparency (I'm guessing his name isn't Pete Townsend or Jimmy Jones and that he doesn't live in both Miami and Tampa) doesn't reflect well on your site and leaves your site open to questions (especially when combined with the former lack of a Privacy Policy or apparent business model). If all is as you say (and I hope it is), I wish you and Mike the best of luck. As I said in the original article, transparency in paid search and the truth about paid search will be a great thing for all of us in the industry.

Since you asked, it was the Mob who killed JFK. Ballot boxes were stuffed in the 1960 election. The US did land men on the moon. There are no aliens among us (although Mark Jeffrey did a great job writing about them in "The Pocket and the Pendant" (www.pocketandpendant.com)). Oh, and watch out for the Illuminati... or was it the Discordians?

Posted by David Lewis at 09:10AM on Jun 26, 2005

http://www.revenews.com/davidlewis/archives/000766.html

Posted by Hans A. Koch at 03:38 AM | Comments (0)

The click, the fraud and the ugly side of search

ANALYSIS: Victim of click fraud? Only analytics can save us now, writes Mike Grehan

There may be multi-million dollar companies who aren’t crying about it, but they’re sure pissed off about it. And to some of them it might just be another bunch of spread sheets and budgets. But to the smaller advertisers, this is their livelihood. They can’t afford to bleed 10,000 dollars a month!