How Fictitious Clicks Occur in Third-Party Click Fraud Audit Reports を読んでみた。既に報じられている通り、結論は(広告主に委託された)調査会社のミスというものだ。

We have seen numerous reports of click fraud estimates which we believe significantly overestimate the impact on advertisers.
their measurements show much higher levels of click fraud than we believe could possibly be realistic (e.g. 14%), which is troubling.
The most fundamental flaw that we have seen in these reports is the existence of fictitious clicks:
Thus the reportis conclusions about the percentage of fraud and financial loss for the industry are essentially a poll of the perception of the size of the problem (中略) rather than actual size of the problem.

調査方法に問題があることから実際よりも多くの数の「クリック詐欺」が報告されたと何度も強調している。その問題点は以下の2点に集約されている。

  • Fictitious clicks due to detection of page reloads as ad clicks.
  • Fictitious clicks due to conflation across advertisers and ad networks.

ひとつめはユーザーのリロードによるもの、

Now assume the user presses the “Back” button on their browser as part of their browsing activity. In this scenario, because the advertiseris original landing page is dynamically generated, the user’s browser cannot use a cached copy of the page and sends a request to the advertiseris server to get the contents of the original landing page again (note that this request is no longer the result of a click on a Google ad).

2つめは、広告主とAdWatcher間での重複だという(技術者じゃないんで細かいこと分からない。訳が不適切であればご指摘を)。

AdWatcher obtains traffic logs either through a redirect mechanism (where an ad click goes to AdWatcheris server before being redirected to the advertiser’s site) or through adding code to the advertiser’s web pages. AdWatcher also maintains a cookie that keeps track of the frequency of visits for a given user.

Appendix Aで問題点の内容を指摘、BではClickFacts、Click Forensics、AdWatcherそれぞれのレポートの中身の誤謬を徹底粉砕している。

Technorati Tags: ,

広告