Independent report on invalid clicks released

Seems like a good time to remind people of my disclaimer, because this post is purely my opinion.

Normally, reading court documents is nearly the last thing I would want to do on a Saturday. But if you’re a search engine geek like me, you’ll find the PDFs linked from this Google Blog post interesting:

I enjoyed both. The first document discusses the proposed $90 million settlement. One excerpt:

Similarly, the California attorneys’ repeated statements to the media–and to this Court–that the $90 million settlement fund will cover “only 0.5% of the damages” is not only egregiously false, it is absurd. The California attorneys take the position that the “damages” are 200 times $90 million, or $18 billion, which is more revenue than Google has received in its entire existence. There is no conceivable theory under which anything close to all of Google’s revenue–let alone more than all of Google’s total revenue–could be attributed to invalid clicks.

The second document is from an independent expert. Dr. Tuzhilin discusses Google’s detection of invalid clicks:

I have been asked to evaluate Google’s invalid click detection efforts and to conclude whether these efforts are reasonable or not. As a part of this evaluation, I have visited Google’s campus three times, examined various internal documents, interviewed several Google’s employees, have seen different demos of their invalid click inspection system, and examined internal reports and charts showing various aspects of performance of Google’s invalid click detection system.

For example, page 17 talks about why Google prefers the term invalid clicks to click fraud. I think most search engine optimization (SEO) folks would enjoy reading both documents. Whether to do it on a Saturday or not is your call, of course. 🙂

P.S. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions for what people want to hear me talk about in the future. It helps me a lot, and gave me several ideas for future topics to write about.

Update: I thought I’d add a few extra pointers here. If you haven’t read the full 47 page report at this point, you’re probably not going to. If that’s the case, you should read Danny’s “Cliff Notes” summary of the report. It’s much shorter than 47 pages. Danny covers the report in a level of detail that you normally only see for subscribing members of Search Engine Watch.

Also, I just saw CNET’s article noting that Google is going to offer click fraud stats to advertisers:

Now advertisers will be able to see the number of invalid clicks Google found, as well as what percentage that represents of total clicks registered, said Shuman Ghosemajumder, business product manager for trust and safety at Google. …. Under the new system, AdWords customers will be able to see data on invalid clicks on a daily basis or beyond, going back to the beginning of the year, he said.

I think it’s great if Google starts showing data like this.

Update: Aha, I should have waited a few more minutes. There’s an official blog post up on the AdWords Blog, and it includes a screenshot of the UI. Check out the post.

43 Responses to Independent report on invalid clicks released (Leave a comment)

  1. Now I know a plaintiff is not an uncompressed tif file. No kidding, as I said in a previous comment I’ve learned english reading microsoft’s developer docs…

  2. Well Matt, now that Microsoft has fallen off the top of the heap and Yahoo’s ascendancy is now descent, Google’s going to be the big evil empire to attack. Even Apple, a 25 year underdog, is now getting people who hate them.

    It’s a bizarre kind of human response, I think. Big companies are always conspiring to do bad things, and a few honestly spoken words are blown out of proportion, etc. Now just because it’s true with many, not all corporations are evil, and if there’s ever a company that has thumbed their noses at the stupid, corporate status quo, it’s Google. And look at the incredible products the company has produced and keeps producing. Oh, and the money. Yet you’re the top of the heap, so somebody has to knock you off.

    In a previous job (actually for another search engine company where I was in the development group), I was approached by our legal council to testify for some BS claim against the company. We ended up spending several years and god knows how much money fighting off that pestilence. I never testified, thank goodness, for I surely would have said something wrong and lost the case for us :-).

    As a current AdWords advertiser, we have seen occasional cases of what appear to be a kind of spammers that somehow get people to clicks ads, presumably usually their own, but sometimes ours. So the reporting is excellent, and I just check our referrers and top ads and conversion rates to make sure they are kosher. And if they are not, and are just annoying, we kill the ad, and if they are more bothersome, we talk to our Google rep, Seth, who has been outstanding and responsive. We recently got a credit for an inadvertently mis-targeted ad, for example.

    So I would just ignore the people who feel compelled to put down Google (or MS or Yahoo or whomever). Don’t they have anything better to do?


  3. I can see both sides to that, Tom Harrison. Somebody asked me at WMW Las Vegas if Google was eviller (?) than before, with the IPO and/or getting to be a bigger company. And my answer was that I still woke up and went to work with the same people as before, and we still worked hard just like we did before. So it was strange to have the same people and the same work and the same values (in my experience) at Google, and yet to see how some people wanted to view things differently, through a lens where a company must be evil when it’s public or bigger than old days. It’s a bizarre feeling (like you pointed out), because of the number of people within Google who work hard to make sure that we do the right thing.

    On the other hand, I never want to dismiss criticism. I remember way back in the day, I interviewed someone from Infoseek who also worked on spamfighting. “Do you ever read webmaster forums?” I asked him. His reply was basically “Bah. That’s a waste of time.” And I think that’s the wrong attitude, because there’s been many many times when listening to outside feedback has helped Google adjust to do a better job on something.

  4. Thanks Matt;

    I used Pertinence Summerizer to read through the 47 page report by Dr. Tuzhilin and wrote my own summary in about 20 minutes. I’m sure I would have picked up a few more things had I read the entire document but I don’t have 3 hours to spend now. I’m glad you commented on it – and being an employee of Google it was good that you mentioned it as an official disclaimer on your part – which I think you needed to do in a case like this – when your reporting about an issue impacting your own employer.

  5. Dr. Alexander Tuzhilin – does anyone know how much he was paid to produce this report and by whom – Google? I doubt Matt does, but it’s an interesting question nonetheless.

  6. Good stuff, I always enjoy a good nap, er.. read. After so much search related analysis, some Legal speak is great, thoroughly refreshing.

    I myself am an unpopular fellow, since I am not all that Anti-Google (a hazardous activity at best). I must say the obvious, success always breeds animosity. If you’re in business, entertainment or politics, it doesn’t matter. That’s an issue for the psychology blogs.

    All industries have inherent security risks that must constantly be addressed to keep up with those whom would try to circumvent or take advantage of the system (can you say counterfeiting, identity theft?). Regardless if it’s a bank, art gallery or casino. The bad guys keep evolving and it is only the company’s responsibility to ensure ‘every possible effort’ is made to protect consumers, affiliates and partners.

    When I can ‘Google’ the future and see what ‘future’ security problems are, then we’ll expect perfection.

    Anyways, thanks for the read… good for a Saturday….

  7. William Douglas

    As an avid Adwords user, I will give it a read. I think when it comes to ppc advertising, one must simply factor click fraud into costs. I honestly don’t see it affecting me too much. I generally see very consistant number and I am very pleased with it. I never see akward spikes in traffic or anything that looks akward. I have days with poor conversions, but traffic is always consistant.

    Off topic, I think the recent change to “landing page quality” is bigger news. Read a lot of complaints about that on the Adwords forum at WMW.

    I think a lot of the “Google is becoming eviler” is due to the fact that a lot of people feel left in the dark about a lot of things. When it comes to Adwords, advertisers feel that if they are paying to play, they should atleast know all the rules of the game.

  8. The aim is just to decide is the efforts of Google are REASONABLE – …that gives a lot of leeway…

    a more real-life report would analyze if a best effort is being demostrated – for example if Google was as “REASONABLE” about their organic SERPS as they are about invalid Clicks – they would not be anymore relevant than Yahoo or MSN or ASK is right now!

    There are ethical concerns that were not addressed fully; one example
    would be maintaining an entire light blueHYPERLINKED area above the organic SERPs for all of those Sponsor Links – it is easy for Surfers to inadvertantly click or mousedown in that SPACE without intending to have clicked on a sponsor link

    There could be a policy for Webmasters to specify the amount of visits from an IP address during a period of time – or have a REDIRECT webpage option that would redirect automatically to the Adword destination after a specified number of seconds. That would help filterout machine generated clicks….

    No matter how anyone attempts to rationalize their efforts – 15% Click Fraud rate is just too high. That is almost like Subsidizing Google to the tune of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars annually.

    Search Engines WEB was not pleased by the thoroughness of that report 🙁 and wants better efforts manifested

    If the PDF file is too inefficient – you can do a select all – copy – paste into Notepad of Word

  9. I think a reasonable measure of the success of Google’s invalid click detection measures is the number of posts in the webmaster forums with the title “I got banned from Adsense!”. Some people never learn.

  10. I think a reasonable measure of the success of Google’s invalid click detection measures is the number of posts in the webmaster forums with the title “I got banned from Adsense!”. Some people never learn.

    For example I do not consider that option viable. I got banned whilst beeing in vacation. I had nothing to do with any click incetives or fraud, nor did I encouraged anyone else to practice such activities. Someone apparently click frenzied my personal blog and/or one of the other websites I had Adsense in.

    I had been deprived of income, image (websites of mine had a lot of empty weird spaces in them, go figure why; search functions, using Adsense for search stated “this user’s account has been disabled for fraud” or something similar etc.) and nerves.

    I don’t see account disabling/banning (as a preliminary measure of precaution) as the most useful and appropiate resolve to fraud. It’s the WORST resolve actually.

    Happily, I got my account back. A lot of others didn’t.

  11. I found this interesting:

    [quote]The only person from this era who is still at Google is on an extended leave and was not available for comments during my visits to Google.[/quote]

    And here we thought you were on “vacation” 😉

  12. I would think the California lawyers seem to be adding up the money lost to invalid clicks PLUS the lost potential of those advertising dollars. Lawyers attempt to find any thing they can claim as the prize no matter how far fetched.

  13. Even Apple, a 25 year underdog, is now getting people who hate them.

    Evidently, you haven’t seen the new egocentric, arrogant, and self-contradictory ads they’ve been serving up for Macs lately. My favourite scenario occurred last week where they aired the one with the PC that “had the virus” which the MAC was immune to, and then they followed it up with a commercial about how a MAC was also a PC (or something to that effect) because it could run Windows. Nope. No logical flaw there. Of course, they clearly aren’t trying to market to anyone with half a brain.

    MAC: Moronic, Annoying Crap.

    So yeah, I guess I’m in that boat. Then again, I’ve done something retarded with them before: I actually tried to find a practical use for one. Don’t ever try this, kids. It’s three hours you just won’t get back.

    Nevertheless, I tend to agree with the overall opinion that Google isn’t trying to be evil, at least not in the Montgomery Burns sense. I think the problems that a lot of people perceive to be evil actually derive from inefficiencies created by a company that is now much larger in both employee size and product/service scope than it ever has been, and the game of broken telephone that quite often gets created as the result of instructions being passed through the chain of command down to the rank and file. Keep in mind that Google also has a lot of international datacenters and presumably international employees as a result, which may also lead to cross-culture communication difficulties.

    That might be a cool future topic, Matt…the whole chain of command in Google and how it filters down from Sergey and Larry down to you and then to the Adam who didn’t get here first 😉 and then to…however low it gets.

    Come on dude, you gotta do that. It’s an excuse to use Visio or Powerpoint and do one of your way-cool 16-colour GIFs. 🙂

  14. I love the following:
    Although correlated, good click-through rates (CTRs) are still not indicative of
    good conversion rates, since it is still not clear if a visitor would buy an advertised
    product once he or she clicked on the ad. In this respect, the CPA-based models
    provide better solutions for the advertisers (but not necessarily for the search
    engines), since they are more indicative that their ads are “working.”

    Nope CPA-based models will just harm Google because the webmaster can’t build a decent landing page. That is the web site’s fault not Google’s.

    Read a lot of the article but just got too bored. Guess I am not nerdy enough. 😉

    Believe me I may well be guilty of being such a webmaster as I have yet to gain headway in a space that nearly every slimeball makes headway.

    Take care and don’t forget to get out of the basement once in a while and enjoy the beautiful summer.


    Brent D. Payne
    Founder & Failure

  15. Click frauds are there since they invented places to click 🙂

    The problem I see as an end user is that Google for instance is not telling me how many click frauds they were able to detect unless I ask them to.

    Since I know for sure that there are click fraud (even in very low percentage) and the only way I can dig them out is by burning my eyes looking at my log files, you get the feeling that Google does nothing to prevent them or even worse is trying to hide it from you.

    If only Google could post on my AdWords account a snapshot of total valid clicks I received next to the fraudulent clicks they managed to detect and did not bill me for, I would have been much more relaxed knowing that Google is aware of this problem and has nothing to hide.

  16. Hmmm, Matt, I think you should slap some adsense onto this blog and experience things for yourself.

    Real life experiment sorta thing.

    Seriously 🙂

  17. Wit, I’ve thought about it, but I don’t people to think I’m profiting by the blog; for me, the point is to get the word out, not to have ads.

    On the other hand, being a webmaster has been really helpful to my insight-level, so that’s an argument for wading into AdWords/AdSense.

  18. What if you did the Adsense and gave the profits to charity or something? That way you could test, and someone wins no matter what.

    Here’s one for you: (what those kids have to go through is absolutely brutal.)

  19. I would like to see the Adwords program report every clicks IP address and date/time, not just aggregate data grouped by day.

    First, this will allow us to do more analytics for our site and our clients. So we can see when and where a click from, whether they signed up, and/or purchased something.

    Second, this also clears the air on any possible click fraud. For instance we could see which clicks are being charged for and which are not. Moreover, we could assure clients that multiple clicks are being counted and there is no mystery person sitting in front of a computer in Bangalore clicking on their advertisement every hour.

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant

  20. I read the paper about invalid click detection with some interest. Matt, I don’t expect you could or would step into the debate about what happened in the past or the legal/financial implications of this lawsuit or the ones to follow.

    Two points stood out:

    The first is that perhaps Google should consider have another, parallel team. One that attempts to “profit” by designing and perpetrating the kind of “sophisticated” attacks that Tuzhilin suggests are still possible.

    Just as network security ultimately benefits from hacker, any invalid click/click fraud detection system needs a known antagonist who will ultimately own up to there success instead of taking the money and running.

    The second is that a non-technical overview of the invalid click/click fraud detection program would help reassure SEMs (and their bosses) far better than the current Google dual strategy of saying “trust us, we are on top of this” and “click fraud is built into the ROI of the campaign”

    I attended the click fraud panel at SES NYC 2006 and left feeling more upset with Google than when I arrived. The basic overview Tuzhilin provides for the invalid click detection effort is a lot more comforting that the explanation the Google engineer on the panel provided.

  21. One thing I found disturbing was that the click fraud problem wasn’t identified early in the history of AdWords and AdSense. It isn’t really “new”; it is well-understood by people in the Internet technical community.

  22. Here is my take on the issue. Let me preface this by saying that I appreciate Google’s Adwords and Adsense program a LOT and do not think they are evil at all.

    Click fraud is so easy to commit that it singlehandedly makes the Cost-Per-Click model unreasonable, in my opinion. It’s upsetting to think that my competitors can peel dollars out of my wallet in seconds from the comfort of their homes. One of the things that makes people distrust Google is that Google benefits when click fraud occurs AND, as Asher pointed out, Google does not give advertisers information about fraudulent clicks unless advertisers request an investigation (and they NEVER give you a list of IP addresses that clicked, probable locations of those IPs, and the times when clicks occured – you have to subscribe to click fraud services to get that information in an easy-to-understand format).

    Here are a few solutions that I think would make the CPC model more reasonable.

    – Never charge advertisers for more than 1 click that comes from the same IP address within an hour.

    – Do not charge the advertiser for clicks that occur within a certain time frame relative to the number of impressions the publishing site gets. For instance, a smaller site that gets 1,000 impressions a day probably doesn’t receive more than 1 honest click in the span of 10 seconds. If 3 clicks come within 10 seconds, even if they are from different IP addresses, only 1 should count. This would account for IP-changing scripts.

    – Employ flat-cost banner advertising instead of CPC. Do it on an auction system so advertisers can compete against each other for a place on the site. That way publishers and Google would get paid the fair market value of advertising on their site, and there’d be no way to commit fraud.

    Do these solutions have flaws in them? Yes. But they err on the side of safety for the advertiser, whereas the current system errs on the side of profit for Google.

  23. Charity and Adsense, could I claim my charity clicks on my taxes?

  24. Google needs to more thoroughly define “invalid clicks” publicly and to themselves. In the last few weeks Yahoo! has *greatly* clarified what is and isn’t acceptable practices for their publishers while Google sits on their hands.

    As a result it is blindly obvious what is and isn’t acceptable methods of publishing their ads, and when they start cracking down the final result is going to be advertisers receive quality traffic.

    In my opinion an invalid click is anything from actual click fraud to deceptive placement of ads that gets accidental click thrus. I’m sure advertisers would agree whole-heartedly.

    The response and response times from YPN *and* Google on reported sites is disappointing and leaves someone like me with the impression that Google either condones or doesn’t care. YPN is (slighty) forgivable because they’re busy finalising everything and haven’t gotten around to creating a mechanism for non-publishers to report such things.

    I reported these three sites several days ago for the placement, wording and images around the Google ads and they’re still happily deceiving people into clicking ads.

    These two I reported nearly 2 weeks ago with no result.

    This site spammed one of my sites nearly a MONTH ago and is still displaying ads on their keyword-spam filled (one page) site in lieue of content.

    I’ve been reporting this site for a couple of MONTHS now because of their deceptively placed ads, as well as this one.

    As far as I’m concerned your (Googles, not you personally) efforts are far from enough. 🙂

  25. I’ve thought about doing something like that, The Adam That Doesn’t Belong To Matt. For some reason, I just haven’t gotten around to it yet though.

  26. PS. I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while …. just how many Adams *do* belong to you Matt???

  27. Howdy Matt:

    I’ve spent several 100K on Google PPC and I am certain click fraud occurs. It simply can’t be stopped. If some fool clicks on an ad 10 tens in 20 seconds, yeah – that’s easy to spot. In many instances the same shopper will click on the same ad 2-4 times over a 2-20 minute period. I suppose they are doing price comparisons, they have alzheimers, or they are just plain stupid – but I wind up paying for all those “legitimate” clicks no matter.

    There is always the possibility of subtle “robot armies” of zombie computers who can click on ad once and then go find another ad to click on 20 minutes later. I have thousands of 1 second visits in my log files. Are they evidence of click fraud? I couldn’t prove it if I tried.

    You wind up having to decide that with or without click fraud you are making money with Google PPC, or you aren’t. In my case I have concluded I am getting enough business from my campaigns to not stay up at night worrying about it. Besides, Google’s far more worried and capable of detecting click fraud than I am. So for me it is an irritant and a concern, but not one that I am going to let get my blood pressure up.

    One way to minimize click fraud is to go with all impression based advertising. Don’t know if Google offers that or not, but there is a lot less bang for the buck clicking on serps to create imnpressions than there is with the current PPC formula of doing business. Lastly, no oneholds a gun to an advertiser’s head and forces him to advertise on Google, Yahoo or any other PPC channel.

  28. Sorry, Matt, stupid question:

    Were you referring to my “Google hierarchy” idea or my “Adsense charity” idea?

  29. I actually think while giving your proceeds to charity for adsense would be okay, actually mentioning it on the site would be in violation of policy as it would draw undue attention to the ads and might even encourage people to click on the ads.

    So be careful, we would hate for you to get banned from Adsense. 🙂

  30. All big companies get detractors I got haranged by a drunk about BT’s ISDN policies in a pub once – I used to joke we should be like Milwall FC who’s unofficial motto is ‘Everyone hates us, we don’t care.’

    And that’s not counting the weirdoes who think that the BBC is the great Satan and the GPO (as BT then was ) would help them – I got this story from a senior PR guy who worked with me on an early web project in BT

    Search Engines WEB

    You’re obviously not familiar with legalese “reasonable” is one of the ways judges/courts decide if something is bad or not for example was the sacking of petite anglaise reasonable or not and does Google take reasonable steps to reduce click fraud spam etc

    For example combating spam by going to that town in florida that hosts a lot of spammers and giving the town the TDP/IDP via a backhoe fade is not reasonable (though tempting)

  31. What is unreasonable is that advertisers are expected to jump through hoops to provide Google with exhaustive and overwhelming evidence of click fraud AND WE STILL GET BLOWN OFF.

    Whether is it termed invalid clicks or click fraud is just semantics, Google really does not know the intent of the fraudlent clicker and to term a click invalid just seems so vague.

    Anyway, now that Google is so big and good, can we get more than one represatative from Google to communicate to the Webmaster community, especially during the times Prince Matt is absent?

  32. Dave (Original)

    Matt, I have used AdWords for a few years now. For me, stopping our ads from showing on content sites increased our ROI a lot and also stops a lot of invalid clicks.

  33. Since he apparently has no experience with the click-fraud community, Dr. Tuzhilin’s report is disturbing for several reasons. First, he doesn’t know just how far click-fraud techniques had advanced before Google existed (much farther than the report implies). Secondly, he made no attempt to investigate click-fraud from the side of the click-generators. Third, he proposes an admittedly unscientific metric with absolutely no empirical or theoretical support.

    Google’s ability to measure its success not only remains unvalidated, the online business community has no real opportunity to evaluate the full effectiveness of PPC advertising through the revelations of these documents.

    The methods Google employs may indeed be “reasonable”, but the unresolved question is whether they are effective.

    The Google response was much more worthwhile and informative, especially the part explaining that the alleged amount of click-fraud has resulted in more lost income than all of Google’s historical revenues.

  34. Adam, I was talking about the “adsense charity” idea. Bob, I’ve only got a finite number of hours in the day, so I can’t make it everywhere. Adam is ramping up fast, but it will take time until he’s ready to wade into any discussion. Ben, I’ve only got the one Adam working with me. 🙂

    Maurice, some people think that the BBC is Satan-ish? That makes me feel better for some reason.

  35. Matt, I see many people talking about click fraud from the perspective of people (or machines) clicking on ads purely to either disable a competitor’s ad, or to generate affiliate revenue.

    I see a bigger problem in my industry (admittedly, I have no metrics, just an impression) of the scraper sites who make a search-results-lookalike page that has PPC ads on it and try to get those pages to rank highly. Now, I have seen Google in general drop those kinds of pages way out of sight in the SERPs, but of course if they still rank well in Yahoo, MSN etc., and they have Google ads on them, the problem still exists: a legitimate consumer finds the scraper site (instead of mine!), sees that it’s a pile of poo, but clicks on my ad on that site and I get charged.

    Can you comment on how landing page analysis helps here? Your thoughts on what Google is doing to combat this?

    Thx, Michael.

  36. Michael, whats even more egregious is the players in a certain niche I’m aware of who use adsense to fund their adwords by targetting competitor ads on their adsense sites, apparently it does a wonder for ROI and knocks out competition, a one-two punch.

    If it can be done, it will. Please help Matt, the alligators are waist deep!

  37. Ben: I’m the Adam that doesn’t work for Matt. In fact, he’s never even met me. He’s just one of my groupies that I keep around since he worships the ground I walk on and stuff. See him taking the charity Adsense idea seriously just because I suggested it? Yeah, that’s what it is. Really. 😀

    Seriously, Lasnik is the one who works for Matt. I’m just a random stranger to him.

    And the charity idea is a good one…but Matt, if you use it, you may need to put some sort of disclaimer or something stating to people [b]not[/b] to click the ads unless they’re legitimately interested. A lot of people would just to support you and/or your charity just because it’s on your site and, while the idea is noble, it cheats the advertisers. Either that, or run the PSAs only? Either way, it’s probably something you thought through a lot more than I have.

  38. Nice work Google on alleviating one of online advertiser’s concerns.

    Brent D. Payne
    A Google Certified Advertising Professional

  39. I have been trying to figure out how to email you for months.

    I am really irritated. I own my own business and I work hard. I went to SEO conferences, I have read all the books, and read everything there is on pleasing google. I did have #1 placements for the search phrases I wanted, but then google starts puttin crap like this

    at the top of everything! They do not even have the words on their source page that should put them above me, yet they are. They have no text, no sybstance…it is just another junk website and it gets a #1 placement!!?? I do not understand this at all.

  40. Matt, here is a post I made over at SEOChat I thought I might run by you since I found this article.

    I found this the other day and found it quite interesting.

    Now advertisers will be able to see the number of invalid clicks Google found, as well as what percentage that represents of total clicks registered, said Shuman Ghosemajumder, business product manager for trust and safety at Google. …. Under the new system, AdWords customers will be able to see data on invalid clicks on a daily basis or beyond, going back to the beginning of the year, he said.

    Its supposed to be available in a few months, probably in a beta version, then released after the first of the year.

    Well before this thing every gets off the ground Google and Matt Cutts, let me make a few suggestions that are painfully obvious, and soon to create a stockpile of duplicate suggestions from your beta testers:

    1. Allow an automated IP blocking tool to be used. Within the Adwords tool, offer date values to be selected as a filter, then sorted by frequency.

    2. Add an email notification alarm to identify to the user when a rule that we set is broken.

    3. Integrate this CF, or as you prefer to call them, invalid clicks statistical information throughout Analytics.

    4. Don’t just go back to the beginning of the year, you repeatedly say that you have been monitoring this for us so you have the information. Your settlement protects you against any repercussions, so release this valuable information to us.

    Setting this up initially, rather than ignore these obviously critical enhancements for your clients, are what we have come to expect from Google.


  41. I wonder how much he got paid to produce the report ?

  42. Thanks to Google team for producing invalid click reports for advertisers.

  43. offer an independent services thats control the clickfraud.