<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: on the BW click-fraud story</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.biasedopinions.org/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.biasedopinions.org/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/</link>
	<description>politics, techology, internet, books, movies, life and other stuff</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael @ MostChoice</title>
		<link>http://www.biasedopinions.org/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/#comment-842</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael @ MostChoice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.avneron.com/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/#comment-842</guid>
		<description>Wanted to comment on the search versus contextual issue. I am the online marketing manager at MostChoice, the advertiser featured in the Business Week story, and while this may not have been entirely clear the problems we faced were with the search network, not the content network which we opt out of. The problem is that for the search engines, especially Yahoo, there are certain "partners" they include in their search network which are not real partners by any stretch of the imagination. These are the sites that sent the bulk of the junk traffic. 

We have no problem with the real traffic from partners like AOL, Earthlink, and so forth -- those clicks both look like real visitors and convert at the rate you would expect. What we do have a problem with is being forced to pay for the junk clicks mixed in with the real traffic. If we had a way to opt out and exclude these bad sites, we would do it in an instance, but it is not possible.

To be fair, Google has been far better then Yahoo and offers a lot more customization, but it does not completely solve the problem.

Blog owner:
I agree with your call to having third party involved because the truth is it is not just the click but what happens once a visitor comes to the site that gives the best indication the traffic is not real. There need to be more open standards so that advertiser can share data on the worst offenders and help to clean up the search advertising space.

Michael @ MostChoice</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wanted to comment on the search versus contextual issue. I am the online marketing manager at MostChoice, the advertiser featured in the Business Week story, and while this may not have been entirely clear the problems we faced were with the search network, not the content network which we opt out of. The problem is that for the search engines, especially Yahoo, there are certain &#8220;partners&#8221; they include in their search network which are not real partners by any stretch of the imagination. These are the sites that sent the bulk of the junk traffic. </p>
<p>We have no problem with the real traffic from partners like AOL, Earthlink, and so forth &#8212; those clicks both look like real visitors and convert at the rate you would expect. What we do have a problem with is being forced to pay for the junk clicks mixed in with the real traffic. If we had a way to opt out and exclude these bad sites, we would do it in an instance, but it is not possible.</p>
<p>To be fair, Google has been far better then Yahoo and offers a lot more customization, but it does not completely solve the problem.</p>
<p>Blog owner:<br />
I agree with your call to having third party involved because the truth is it is not just the click but what happens once a visitor comes to the site that gives the best indication the traffic is not real. There need to be more open standards so that advertiser can share data on the worst offenders and help to clean up the search advertising space.</p>
<p>Michael @ MostChoice</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: avneron</title>
		<link>http://www.biasedopinions.org/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/#comment-838</link>
		<dc:creator>avneron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.avneron.com/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/#comment-838</guid>
		<description>very true.

but going off the google/yahoo network also has a lot of value, which the advertisers want to reach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>very true.</p>
<p>but going off the google/yahoo network also has a lot of value, which the advertisers want to reach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Ball</title>
		<link>http://www.biasedopinions.org/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/#comment-837</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Ball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.avneron.com/2006/09/25/on-the-bw-click-fraud-story/#comment-837</guid>
		<description>The BW article fails to differentiate between search engine advertising and contextual advertising.  The bulk of click fraud can be mitigated by simply opting out of contextual advertising.  Why the advertisers in the BW article complaining about click fraud didn't do this is rather puzzling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The BW article fails to differentiate between search engine advertising and contextual advertising.  The bulk of click fraud can be mitigated by simply opting out of contextual advertising.  Why the advertisers in the BW article complaining about click fraud didn&#8217;t do this is rather puzzling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
