<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Answer to Click Fraud?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2006/04/answer-to-click-fraud.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2006/04/answer-to-click-fraud.html</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:05:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2006/04/answer-to-click-fraud.html/comment-page-1#comment-303</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost:8888/wp_import/2006/04/the-answer-to-click-fraud.htm#comment-303</guid>
		<description>Part of the problem lies in the area of determining a fraudulent click.

Some may define a possible fraudulent click that lands on a page and doesn&#039;t go any further, as some click fraud patterns may indicate.  But we all know that we&#039;ve gone to pages before and it&#039;s just not the information we were looking for and turned back.

Others may define a fraudulent click as more than one click from the same ip address in a given period of time.  &quot;Fraudulent?&quot;  Maybe.  &quot;Invalid,&quot; yes.

My point is that there&#039;s a lot of math that can go into determining different click patterns of invalid clicks that should, in effect, be reimbursed.  If an independent party is to audit clicks and, say, assign a percentage that gets reimbursed to advertisers on a continual basis, these click patterns will have to be agreed upon by both search engines and advertisers before doing so.  With the process of reaching this agreement, and some click fraud companies having patented detection methods, this effort could become quite a bit more difficult than it may seem.

Ben</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the problem lies in the area of determining a fraudulent click.</p>
<p>Some may define a possible fraudulent click that lands on a page and doesn&#8217;t go any further, as some click fraud patterns may indicate.  But we all know that we&#8217;ve gone to pages before and it&#8217;s just not the information we were looking for and turned back.</p>
<p>Others may define a fraudulent click as more than one click from the same ip address in a given period of time.  &#8220;Fraudulent?&#8221;  Maybe.  &#8220;Invalid,&#8221; yes.</p>
<p>My point is that there&#8217;s a lot of math that can go into determining different click patterns of invalid clicks that should, in effect, be reimbursed.  If an independent party is to audit clicks and, say, assign a percentage that gets reimbursed to advertisers on a continual basis, these click patterns will have to be agreed upon by both search engines and advertisers before doing so.  With the process of reaching this agreement, and some click fraud companies having patented detection methods, this effort could become quite a bit more difficult than it may seem.</p>
<p>Ben</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

