Google: Independent companies miscalculate click fraud
Google experts sorted out and published their own detailed report with a critical assessment of the work of independent analytical companies. As you know, recently, several different companies, including AdWatcher , ClickFacts and Click Forensics , have published their own click fraud scores on Google, Yahoo and others. According to their estimates, the number of "fake" clicks on advertising links ranges from 10% to 40%, depending on the advertising campaign and the keyword.
Google experts conducted a "technical analysis" of the work of independent consultants and found several fundamental errors in their methodology, due to which the assessment of fake clicks was overestimated. A detailed analysis and explanation is contained in the 17-page document (PDF file).
The main fundamental error of independent analysts is that they do not have the ability to calculate the actual number of clicks on links and instead evaluate other factors, such as the number of visits to the advertised page. In this case, in the case of a page reload or a user visits the same page again, analysts regard this as a double click on Google contextual advertising and record it as a “fake” click. This can happen if the user explores the advertiser's site, and then presses the back button and returns to the first page. There was actually no click fraud, but analysts fixed it.
This is not the only example of how independent analysts are “inventing” fictitious clicks, which actually did not exist. Another fundamental mistake is the incorrect implementation of cookies, with which analyst consultants monitor user behavior. One of the most well-known consulting firms, for example, has implemented cookies in such a way that clicks on Yahoo ads can count as clicks on Google ads and vice versa.
')
These are the two most serious fundamental errors in the work of independent experts. Because of them, the results of counting advertising transitions are seriously distorted. In some cases, the distortion exceeds 50%. For example, in one of the cases, an independent consultant recorded in his report 1278 "fake" transitions, whereas in Google logs only 850 transitions were noted.
The Google report provides specific cases of “blunders” in analyst reports. For example, in the May 2 Click Forensics report, there were 6 clicks on Google's sponsored links from one IP address in 9 minutes, while Google’s logs included only 2 jumps in seven minutes. The February 4 report from ClickFact recorded 54 clicks from one user during the 26-second interval, and in fact Google billed this advertiser in just one transition.
Another testament to the defective methodology of AdWatcher, ClickFacts, and Click Forensics is found directly in their reports. There they indicate the level of conversion, including for "false" clicks. It turns out that it is unrealistically high and in one case reaches even 5.1%, while normal transitions show a conversion of 5.8%. This is further evidence that firms can’t normally identify click fraud.
Google experts once again emphasize that serious gaps in the methodology are noted among all, without exception, consultants who are trying to evaluate click-fraud on search sites.
Google experts conducted a "technical analysis" of the work of independent consultants and found several fundamental errors in their methodology, due to which the assessment of fake clicks was overestimated. A detailed analysis and explanation is contained in the 17-page document (PDF file).
The main fundamental error of independent analysts is that they do not have the ability to calculate the actual number of clicks on links and instead evaluate other factors, such as the number of visits to the advertised page. In this case, in the case of a page reload or a user visits the same page again, analysts regard this as a double click on Google contextual advertising and record it as a “fake” click. This can happen if the user explores the advertiser's site, and then presses the back button and returns to the first page. There was actually no click fraud, but analysts fixed it.
This is not the only example of how independent analysts are “inventing” fictitious clicks, which actually did not exist. Another fundamental mistake is the incorrect implementation of cookies, with which analyst consultants monitor user behavior. One of the most well-known consulting firms, for example, has implemented cookies in such a way that clicks on Yahoo ads can count as clicks on Google ads and vice versa.
')
These are the two most serious fundamental errors in the work of independent experts. Because of them, the results of counting advertising transitions are seriously distorted. In some cases, the distortion exceeds 50%. For example, in one of the cases, an independent consultant recorded in his report 1278 "fake" transitions, whereas in Google logs only 850 transitions were noted.
The Google report provides specific cases of “blunders” in analyst reports. For example, in the May 2 Click Forensics report, there were 6 clicks on Google's sponsored links from one IP address in 9 minutes, while Google’s logs included only 2 jumps in seven minutes. The February 4 report from ClickFact recorded 54 clicks from one user during the 26-second interval, and in fact Google billed this advertiser in just one transition.
Another testament to the defective methodology of AdWatcher, ClickFacts, and Click Forensics is found directly in their reports. There they indicate the level of conversion, including for "false" clicks. It turns out that it is unrealistically high and in one case reaches even 5.1%, while normal transitions show a conversion of 5.8%. This is further evidence that firms can’t normally identify click fraud.
Google experts once again emphasize that serious gaps in the methodology are noted among all, without exception, consultants who are trying to evaluate click-fraud on search sites.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/4264/
All Articles