Basically I found it disappointing that Google did not continue the ability to use the auto tagging for other traffic sources than adwords, but after google analytics became free I am now mollified.

Most true 3rd party apps provide this type of quick redirection, but I have also had good luck with some (cough) other web analytics packages that let you basically make your own auto tagging on the fly. Its really nice to just create a new marketing campaign by simply making a link, and the software automatically parses that and it shows up as a separate campaign in the reports automatically.

Call me stupid, but I consider this efficient, but then again I think everyone should do things from the command line…….

Steve Blom
Yada Yada Marketing
a marketing firm based in Tampa Florida

1) user browses more deeply into the advertiser’s site, then hits back button.
2) user presses browser reload button on the landing page.
3) user opens a new window in Internet Explorer, causing a reload of the landing page.

My question – Is these fictitious clicks due to detection of above mentioned reasons will effect on CTR?

Watching for spikes in click thru rates and collapsing cost per conversion have both been the best indicators for click fraud. In all cases, Google has acted quickly and usually in agreement with our assessment.

thanks again for the tip

well as far as Google AdWords Ads are concerns that auto-tagging opt is just great but how to measure shopping engines and price comparisons shopping engines clicks to track out as that industry is also causing the merchants fraudulent clicks issues.

* Google will not have the same connectivity to the target site as the
person clicking on the ad, generally speaking. There is no
guarantee that there will be a one-to-one correspondence between
user clicks and Google pings. It will just be one more data point
that the advertisers struggle to reconcile with everything else
(their own reporting, third-party reporting, Google Analytics, etc.).
* If there are implementation errors on the Google end, or it’s gamed
in some way, it won’t be of any use to the advertiser.
* Even if the clicks somehow did correspond, it doesn’t tell the
advertiser what s/he really needed to know. Was the click
fraudulent? Would s/he have been willing to pay for it if it were?

I can make the argument that Google could provide advertisers what
they’ve been asking for fair easier with much higher accuracy: a
detailed report of clicks by IP (or possibly IP block by name),
referrer, user agent, and amount charged, such as what is provided to
people who subscribe to phone services with metered billing. While it
wouldn’t address the third of my points, it would at least put Google
on the level of other service providers in terms of transparency.

Yet, I must reiterate. Why do we insist on these bandaids, when the
core problem is that PPC is particularly vulnerable to click fraud?
Why not address the core problem? In just about every other
(computer) industry, when faced with a core vulnerability, the
decision was made to move to a less vulnerable model. But the top
search engines insist that the problem is under control, when clearly
it is not.

My question: Is there a (good) reason that Google doesn’t let users count clicks directly, in their weblogs? This would be easy to do. Every time a user clicks on an ad, in addition to Google redirecting that user to the landing page, Google itself could send an http “ping” to a specified target page on the advertiser’s site, used only for that purpose. Since these pings would come only from Google, and could contain some authentication code (if the IP source isn’t good enough), they are definitive evidence for the advertiser of exactly how many clicks occurred.

It seems to me that it’s in Google’s interest to give its advertisers accurate information about clicks. Is there a (good) reason to retain control of this information only within Google?

You *might* want to look into why Googlebot indexes pages with the auto-tagging variables, and dumps the original page as duplicate content. That’s why one very large client is turning auto-tagging off, even though they would *love* to use it.