Competitor Click-Fraud Tracker

RJM62

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,157
Location
Upstate New York
Display Name

Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I'm working on revising and improving a script I wrote a while ago to detect suspicious clicks on Adwords ads (and eventually other PPC ads) that look like attempts by competitors to deplete the ad budget and/or or increase ad costs. This problem seems to be getting worse. Depleting competitors' ad budgets apparently has become something of a cottage industry.

Typically, I've found that Google's own anti-fraud measures find only about half of the suspicious clicks. However, when confronted with detailed records of the ones they missed, they will issue credits. So I'm thinking about selling my click-tracking script as a service.

The script resides on the landing site's server, and basically waits for incoming clicks from Adwords. It records the information about the clicks to a database, and then analyzes the database for suspicious patterns when requested.

My question is: How shall I define suspicious clicks?

At present my I define the following as suspicious:

1. Multiple clicks from the same IP address, that are more than 1 sec apart (to accommodate sub-genius users who double-click on ads).

2. Clicks from IPs currently on Project Honeypot's HTTP blacklist.

3. Sequential clicks on the same ad, on the same page, from different IPs assigned to the same host, or from IPs that fail gethostbyaddr(IP), when the clicks are less than 60 seconds apart.

4. Clicks from IPs already found to be engaging in fraudulent clicking within the past 90 days.

Still working on: If the advertiser has the "Target using physical location" option selected, then any clicks from outside the defined physical location.

Any other suggestions?

Thanks,

-Rich
 
The nice thing about storing all the clicks to a database is that you can do a couple of things:

1) Learn new patterns
2) Retospecitively apply those new patterns to historical data.

So, let's say you run the report on the last day of the month. You can categorize all the "honeypot" clicks at the end of the month to the whole month, catching new ones that were discovered during the month.
 
So, you pay for the ad by the click? Who is employing these clickers and why? To increase their competitors costs?
 
The nice thing about storing all the clicks to a database is that you can do a couple of things:

1) Learn new patterns
2) Retospecitively apply those new patterns to historical data.

So, let's say you run the report on the last day of the month. You can categorize all the "honeypot" clicks at the end of the month to the whole month, catching new ones that were discovered during the month.

That's something I'm thinking about building in to the script, actually, possibly as another unique database to track click fraudsters. It definitely has possibilities, but they have to be implemented carefully in order to be as fair as possible to all concerned.

-Rich
 
So, you pay for the ad by the click? Who is employing these clickers and why? To increase their competitors costs?

Yes, as well as to stop competitors' ads from rendering.

Adwords (and other PPC) advertisers bid on keywords, and the ads are rendered in bid order (highest bids on top). There are some other things that supposedly factor in, such as Google's opinion of the quality of the landing page; but basically, top bidders get best placement.

In addition, advertisers specify daily budgets, after which their ads will stop rendering at all.

The purposes of clicking on competitors' ads, therefore, are both to increase the competitor's advertising costs, and to stop their ads from rendering at all.

Google catches about half of this sort of thing, and misses the other half. But in fairness, they do issue credits when the data is presented to them.

-Rich
 
You just gotta love humans, we just love to **** each other over.
 
Companies with semi effective marketing departments wouldn't pay for clicks.

I try to tell clients that. I don't understand why they pay Google for Adwords when they're already No. 1 in the organic listings. But it's like talking to a wall. They want to be "on top," even though they're already on top.

-Rich
 
I try to tell clients that. I don't understand why they pay Google for Adwords when they're already No. 1 in the organic listings. But it's like talking to a wall. They want to be "on top," even though they're already on top.

-Rich

My issue with Google or any search engine, is does anyone actually click on the paid listings at the top of the search page?:dunno:
 
how do you know your ad host is not generating profit for itself as well . . . .
 
how do you know your ad host is not generating profit for itself as well . . . .

Well... I don't think they try as hard as they might to weed out the shenanigans, if that's what you're saying.

Frankly, I suspect that there are different degrees of scrutiny, and that the tougher degrees are assigned to the advertisers who complain a lot about click fraud. I've noticed that after two or three weeks of reporting suspicious clicks to Google, the number tends to drop suddenly and drastically.

-Rich
 
Well... I don't think they try as hard as they might to weed out the shenanigans, if that's what you're saying.

Frankly, I suspect that there are different degrees of scrutiny, and that the tougher degrees are assigned to the advertisers who complain a lot about click fraud. I've noticed that after two or three weeks of reporting suspicious clicks to Google, the number tends to drop suddenly and drastically.

-Rich

I think he was referring to Google adding clicks to drive revenue.
 
Back
Top