| LED Digest 2280: What's a Valid Click? |
|
|
|
What defines a valid click? How about an invalid click? This seemingly obvious question must come first in the on-going click fraud fiasco. Why hosted Blogger blogs are like Geocities, and customizing Wordpress. ================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Registration from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. November 2, 2006 Issue no. 2280 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ===================== --== Who am I? Name Look-up Sites ==-- ~ Salem Kashou "I googled my name today and found top-end results with links like this..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== ClickFraud - What's a Valid Click? ==-- ~ Michael Motherwell "What defines a valid click? Further to this: What defines an invalid click?" --== Blog Experiments ==-- ~ James Miller "It is also a good idea to store the created blog on a domain for which you have control..." <Moderator Comment> "It's like Geocities all over again!" ~ Donald Nelson "Is there any simple guide to customization of the Wordpress blog...?" --== The Sweet 16 ==-- ~ Thom Reece "John was the keynote speaker at my E-Commerce 2000 Conference in Hawaii..." ~ John Smart "We all want no spam. Except for the spam that we want!" ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== New Browsers: Firefox 2 and IE7 ==-- ~ Al Toman ~ John Smart ========== NEW =================================== From: Salem Kashou Subject: Who Am I? I googled my name today, salem kashou, and found top-end results with links like this: ppphonereverselookup.info/verizon_reverse_phone_lookup.html. Did the same with yahoo and msn, but this link did not appear. How can these steal "my" position? Salem Kashou, Marketing Manager Kangaroo Brands, Inc. www.kangaroobrands.com ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Michael Motherwell Subject: Click Fraud - What's an Invalid Click? > In spite of ever more public evidence of fraud... there > will be those who persist in saying that clickfraud is > not a serious issue. These will argue that the % of > fraudulent or simply useless clicks is not important... > ... if a PPC medium charges for X amount of clicks, > when Y% of those clicks are not valid for some reason, > this is a case of non-delivery, just as if a magazine claims > A readers when an audit actually shows A minus B readers... - David Yancey, LED Digest 2279 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/category/5/28/55/ David, all that is wonderful, but can you answer me this: What defines a valid click? Further to this: What defines an INVALID click? The scandal over reader numbers came down to several issues, and included the giving away of free and discounted copies. Not TECHNICALLY a lie about distribution numbers, but I am sure anything can be justified if you try hard enough :) All the talk of click fraud reminds me of the mess in Iraq. Part of the problem with the war was that there was no plan for the peace. Click fraud complaints calling for a "solution" is putting the horse before the cart, IMHO, because we still don't know what it is we are solving, and we don't have any criteria for success. So what would success look like? What is our plan for the peace? Do we want every click to be attributable to a real person? If so, I refuse to give you my details, so what do my clicks count as? If we want anyone that clicks twice in a day to be charged once, is that really realistic? What defines the "anyone" from the previous sentence? A cookie (I turn mine of)? An IP address (think AOL)? What? And what % of clicks as fraud will success be? 30%? 20%? 10%? 0%? -10% (not as unrealistic as it sounds, as Search Engines could, in a gesture of goodwill, only ever charge for only 90% of valid clicks)? -20%? (Stop when I get there). If we want a "solution" to click fraud, when need to know what that looks like, and then go get it. So lets hear some proactive ideas and means. Otherwise, click fraud is just, IMHO, more noise in a world full of dangers the TV won't stop barking at me (what, you mean to tell me that drinking red wine may not be good for me? But I am up to a bottle a day to fight heart disease. Oh man.. Stuff it, poor me another glass). > Stockholders in Google and the other companies whose > revenues and earnings are tainted by click fraud scams > may take a hit, along with the companies. There was a study I once saw cited that showed that, as a result of the fear post-September 11, many more people died on the road because they were frightened to fly. Despite the fear, flying was and still is the safest way to get between two places significantly apart. And that was true even on September 14. In the same vein, the greatest risk to the profits of Google et al is not click fraud, but the perception of click fraud. Ironically (not really irony, more irony in the sports writer sense), it is also the greatest risk to advertisers, because generating and citing the fear of click fraud causes two things: 1. It stops people from advertising profitably which, lets face it, is the goal of all advertising. I know people don't like to hear it, but if you gave me a way to spend $100 and make $110, I would do it all day long. I don't really care if I should really only have paid $90, I am sitting over here with my Latte and Friand living it up on the profits I am generating. 2. It stops all of us from getting a good solution. I am sure people are going to doubt this, but hear (OK read) me out. When an issue becomes an important publicity piece, what we invariably get is not a good solution, but a solution that makes the noise die down. The two are not one and the same. A solution that pleases people is usually one that sounds convincing, but has very little real value. All examples I could have would be political, so I won't go there, but ask yourself the how often an issue becomes a big news item and was solved well. My guess would be rarely at best. That is because the goals are not aligned. Party X wants the noise to go away, and party Y wants the issue solved. Party X (cool name that) probably will settle for any idea that sounds good, and most likely the FIRST idea that sounds good. I would personally rather have a good solution, not a hasty appeasement. I firmly believe in and want click fraud to be handled transparently and fairly, and I hope everyone tries to keep that goal in sight, and not concern themselves with fears that are irrelevant and cloud my muddy mixed metaphor. Michael Motherwell -------- new post - new topic --------- From: James Miller Subject: Blog experiments > I wonder about what [Wordpress] template / package > you use if any? ... I'm trying to decide if it's worth it to > blow the money on these other systems, or if running > Word Press out of the box [is sufficient]. - Brett Simpson, LED Digest 2279 I've integrated several Blogger blogs into web sites and found it pretty easy to modify a standard template to how I wanted it. It helps a lot if you choose a template that has a similar layout to what you want. http://www.jamesmiller.com/mtmblog/blogger.html The link shows a Blogger blog fully integrated into a web site, but just changing the Scribe template. I just added my header and links to the top of the template, moved a few things about and it looks totally different and fully integrated. Anybody who knows HTML and CSS to a reasonably level would have no problems. I've recently set up a blog for someone on WordPress. It would appear that to change things as radically as I have done with the example, would mean that I have to pay money. So I would always choose Blogger over WordPress, if I wanted to integrate a blog. Note that you have the problem that once you've created a large blog, it is a devil's own job to move it. It is also a good idea to store the created blog on a domain for which you have control, so that if you have to move it, you at least have the HTML. I shall investigate the other blog sites, to see if any others are better. James Miller Daisy Analysis: www.daisy.co.uk <Moderator Comment> James, > It is also a good idea to store the created blog > on a domain for which you have control, so that > if you have to move it, you at least have the HTML. That's an important point - and not just for control reasons. Credibility, brand, authority, links, SEO, etc are all tied into it as well. I recently had a talk with Ken Evoy, and he made a great point: all these Blogger accounts proliferating across the 'Net remind us of the old days with free hosting services. It's like Geocities all over again! Check this out, from our SEO Glossary: "If you are serious about building a brand or making money online you should publish your content to your own domain because it can be hard to reclaim a website's link equity and age related trust if you have built years of link equity into a subdomain on someone else's website. "Blogger is probably the easiest blogging software tool to use, but it lacks many some features present in other blog platforms." Here's the entry: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1295/174/#blogger If you need to learn what "link equity" and "age" related trust are, just click on the link above to find out. -Adam -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Donald Nelson Subject: Blog experiments Dear All, Brett Simpson's request for more information on using Wordpress as a marketing tool, leads me to ask another question (not quite related to his): While it is easy to install Wordpress out of the box, it seems difficult to modify the default template so that the blog blends in with the site. Is there any simple guide to customization of the wordpress blog that I can refer to? (I am not interested in downloading a snazzy new template but just want the blog to look like the rest of the site with logo and navigation intact). Sincerely, Donald Nelson www.a1-optimization.com -------- new post - new topic --------- From: Thom Reece Subject: The Sweet 16 John was the keynote speaker at my E-Commerce 2000 Conference in Hawaii and he presented his "Sweet 16" for the first time to a very eager audience. The presentation was a rousing hit and attendees still comment to me to this day about how important that presentation was to their online careers. John gave out small wallet-sized laminated cards to the audience which featured his "Sweet 16" points and I still refer to mine. It's a bit dog-eared... but a great reminder of some wonderfully crafted information shared by one of this industries smartest and best. Thom Reece http://www.e-comprofits.com/ Comment? http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1286/174/ -------- new post - same topic --------- From: John Smart Subject: Sweet 16 There is a line between valid UCE and invalid UCE. We have a mailing list for our clients where we occasionally send notices (planned down time). But we have used it very rarely for promotions too. If we are joining with a third party spam filter (which we have) is it wrong to mail our clients to let them know about it? They did not sign up for such e-Mails, but it is a service that may have a value to them, and it is related. So would it be improper? Most (if not all) of my clients would like to do better in Google et al. Would it be inappropriate for me to mail a link to the LED and a brief blurb about how much good it could do for them, if they can make the time investment. I get UCE from companies that I do business with, and within reason, I do not mind -- it is how I find out about new things. Most of my credit card bills come with UCS (Unsolicited commercial Snail-mail) Are they doing something wrong? I usually just throw it away, but sometimes I see something interesting to me. There is so much stuff out there that most of us do not know about, and will not find out about in our usual course of business. Not all companies can afford TV / radio adverts. If I tell you about Mousestuff.com -- a great place for an unusual gift of a character computer mouse (you can, of course, get a gift for yourself!!) is that wrong? I mentioned my shopping cart software here the other day, so Adam may stop me blatantly pushing myself like this -- but the question is valid to the conversation -- if I had a 6 line signature at the end promoting computer mice in this forum, that would be inappropriate. But a little plug like that -- is anyone really offended? What if I mailed all my hosting clients in regard to the mice? Maybe that would be a little uncool. How about if I offer them a discount? Are they even aware that such a thing as a pig style computer mouse exists? Probably not -- so how will they ever find them? I can be number one in Google, Yahoo, and everywhere else for 'Piggy Mouse' but if that is not being searched for -- what good does it do me? We need advertising so that we know what is available, UCE is cheap advertising that small companies can afford. Huge Bulk mailings that are untraceable, and pushing drugs, surgery, diet pills, or anything else that plays on peoples fears should not happen -- no question about that at all. What about mortgages? I get a million mails a year offering me cheap mortgages. I delete them all. But the fact remains that I would have never considered looking online for a good mortgage deal had I not received at least one of those. One got through my spam filter today for a radio controlled toy helicopter -- I have wanted one of those since I was 6! Now there is a cheap -- easy to use one. Had I not got that spam, I would not know about that. Now I want to go get one. Not through the company that spammed me though. Even though they educated me! The problem with spam is quite simple. We all want no spam. Except for the spam that we want! Kindest regards John Smart InternetDesign.com - A Human Touch in a Digital World Comment? http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1286/174/ ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Al Toman Subject: New browsers You guys speak as if all y'all have a choice of web browsing. I'm a web designer and run IE6, IE7, FireFox, Opera, and Netscape 24/7. I'm not too opinionated on any of them. They all do what they do and I can't do much about that. However, my web sites have to "look good" and function as designed across all platforms. Here's the stats for October 2006: IE7 ... 3.1% IE6 ... 54.5% IE5 ... 3.2% Fx .... 28.8% Moz ... 2.4% N7/8 ... 0.3% O7/8/9 ... 1.4% OP Sys Stats for Sept 2006: WinXP ... 75.6% W2000 ... 9.2% Win98 .... 1.4% Win NT ... 0.3% W2003 ... 2.0% Linux ... 3.5% MAC .... 3.8% My mainstay system is Win98SE2, FireFox 2.0. It being halloween, tonight. I was totally impressed by the young whippersnappers. The setting is, is that I live in the wood / marshes along the eastern U.S. coast filled with crocks, copperheads, cotton mouthes, fox, bear, deer, bobcat, and a whole bunch of creepy-crawly things. It's about 111 feet from road to front door on a dark dirt path. The young whippersnappers were all dressed up and very, very polite. This year was really weird and creepy. ALL the trick-n-treaters were dressed up as the ADAM GUY~!!! It was even ScArEy for me~!!! Source: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Kind Regards, Al Toman http://studio9.ws -------- new post - same topic --------- From: John Smart Subject: New browsers Doh Within 5 minutes of sending that post, after weeks of looking, I found the home button! It is not where it should be! But yes, it is there, and yes, it does work, and yes, it does look like the old one, and yes, I am a klutz. On the plus side, I have clearly mastered the roll-on sentence. John Smart InternetDesign.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I've created an atmosphere where I'm a friend first, boss second. Probably entertainer third." - David Brent, The Office |
