Google has the stats and profiles to determine what's really going on, but they do need us to report suspicious activity before too much fraudulant activity has taken place. It's their program, I trust that they will not disable accounts on little evidence. After all it is their own revenue that they are cutting if they make a bad decision. Yes, they've probably made some mistakes. Andi
that's quite melodramatic. easy to hide behind morals? what society do you live in? morality and doing the right thing isn't so popular these days.... but no one here has the authority to say he's guilty and to kick him out of any program. report suspicious activity and leave the rest to google. if you think that is a witch hunt, you need to see what a real one is like....you know, where real rights are being violated.
I have to wonder whether you would feel that way if the fingers were pointing at you... or if you just want to get into a pis*ing fight... Either way, I've gotten my fill of this thread. I already know what side of the fence *I'm* on.
I only got interested in this disscusion because it didn't seem to stop, and I asked myself why was that... And it didn't, I think, because of the animosity towards others opinions, the animosity that made some of you not able to hear, and only echo your own judgements... that's how wars are started... no-one listens... everybody is right.. and that is why I thougt "it's me" to be the best listener... he was able to listen to the other side, keep his opinion independent, and lighten up from black and white judgements... I too, do not think crime should be unpunished... I would react to someone being hurt... but in this disscusion, this side is already stated enough... n the other side of the disscusion, I dont think I would be so harsh on someone stating his opinion on snitches... did he send the letters? nope... only stated something about turning in someone doing something bad... for you, in thet second, he became a crook, as if he did, and, in you minds he did, I think... and for that you have no proof.. and already, you are treatig him as such.. of course, you don't realy speak with tieves and crooks, and morons, do you..? that is why you all are so angry... you are speaking whith a crook... YOU made HIM a crook... fascinating... and I must be his frien or another crook, no other way would I maybe try to understad what he is saying... So I'm discarded on the oteh side to... how convinient... so let me set another topic: what would be a crime you would not bother to snitch...? when is snitching a opsesion? when is it pathologycal or when is it for your own good, and not for the good of opresed... and I'm not saying any of this was the case in the "crooked letter case".. I only want to see if you are able to debate both sides... when is snitching bad? and when you are at it, when do we too early judge those who do not share out opinions...?
no tahnks, I'm going to sleep now... I'm not angry, and I don't hate anyone... this was a discusion... ...I was accidentaly passing... said something, no big deal... so see yaa, and enjoy your life...
Yes <margot> that is my opinion as well... a great thread to join in on! and lively... and interesting for many reasons.
man that's just cynical , I can see both sides to an extent but I certainly know which side I'm on (if sides is the right word).
You're wrong, when you see the fraud you report it. If you saw someone stealing something from you or your neighbor, you wouldn't report it? You would just give up and say "there is nothing I can do"?
I don't know about the other two, but I *am* going to sleep soon. Now it's getting late (in my time zone anyway) but I'll entertain you for one more post. I think there are a lot of interesting things happening in this thread. It started off as someone mentioning an email asking them to "help" by clicking ads, then it turned into a discussion about whether or not to "turn them in", do "the right thing", don't be a "rat" and so on... Then the poor guy, _vlada_, who seems to be the only one who's either brave enough, crazy enough or just wants to mix things up... goes up against popular opinion and gets the entire forum against him. As I recall he isn't the one who sent the email. Yes, I like to play devil's advocate sometimes... guilty. But I think that he's right in this particular case... why? Because this is not a "crime" (you show me ONE conviction and I'll take YOUR side). It is against Google's TOS, yes. Last time I checked Google was not an authority on anything, G isn't the police, gov. agency or anything else. Besides that, the email is sent from a guy who was sending to a link partner and trying to boost his earning by a couple bucks. In the Google TOS, it states that webmasters are not to engage in activities to artificially improve their search engine rankings... things like link building for the purpose of SEO, anyone here a part of the co-op ad network? I am, I also perform SEO on my websites in order to rank higher... now is THAT enough reason for the guys at digitalpoint to send Google a list of all of our websites so G can ban them all? It *IS* against their TOS... The problem is too many Google Police. Remember when it was against the AdSense TOS to report CTR, earnings and so on? Remember how many people were whining about "You shouldn't say that!" and so on... give it a rest. I think people should stop bullsh*ting about "if your car was stolen", "neighbour is getting robbed" and so on, and just take it easy. I'm not sure what the allure is that pushes people to be such big heros on the Internet... when WAS the last time you righteous folk made an effort to IMPROVE something in the *real world*? Yes, I would report a real crime, something that directly and negatively effects someone's life or puts them in harm's way. NO I will not waste my time to rat out some schmuck who sent a personal email to someone he had personal contact with. I'm off to bed. (yes I know I'm fighting an uphill battle that *can't* be won... but what's the fun in going with the flow? )
You are saying that because you probably haven't been a victim of pay per click fraud or are not an active ppc advertiser. I'm pretty sure you would think differently otherwise. Anyway you are comparing apples with oranges. PPC fraud is not quite the same thing as SEO or even search engine spam.
read my previous posts... you'll see I no longer advertise on google's content network for that exact reason. I only do search results and other PPC netorks that I have good results with. I am active and last month I spent over $2,800 USD on PPC. No, I feel this way because I am always surrounded and working with people and I understand that sometimes you have to look the other way and accept the fact that people aren't perfect... otherwise you will quickly find that no-one will ever have *your* back covered if they think you're an uptight pr*ck... or a rat. Seriously. Sorry but I couldn't resist posting, this time I am seriously going. See you later people.
That is no excuse to be complacent. Contextual advetising is a great thing and it is in our interest as users to try and help keep it "clean".
The legal definition of fraud is "deception for gain." Fraud is a crime in every jurisdiction, there are convictions every day and have been for centuries. Google would be called the VICTIM of this crime. When you agree to Google's TOS you agree not to allow "fraudulant clicks." When you allow (or commit) fraudulant clicks you are knowingly commiting a crime that can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction. These things are not pursued by prosecutors because Google (evidently) prefers to simply disable the account and let it go. But these can be prosecuted as crimes. I'm sure that if a case with a large dollar amount or high media visibility occurred you would see arrests and convictions. Andi