I really didn’t want to blog about this in more detail because I don’t like splogs and any detailed post by me shooting down ideas against them makes me sound somewhat like a splogapologist. Unfortunately, Mitch Ratcliffe really seems to be sticking by his guns that encouraging people to click on Adsense ads in splogs that they have no interest in is not, in fact, click fraud:

Here’s the thing, most of the comments about this did not read my follow-up posting about information pollution. I’m not suggesting fraud. I am suggesting political action. If we don’t make some noise about this and create significant discussion about what constitutes legitimate contributions to the information economy, we’re surrendering our role in defining the Net. At no point do I suggest click fraud, what I suggested is that when bloggers receive spam postings they go to the sources of those sites and click the ads there.

Mitch also calls this “political action” in his recent comments left on this blog:

TDavid—I think you’re wrong, it is not dishonesty to follow links on a site to discover what advertisers are supporting sploggers and send them, along with Google, a message by driving conversion rates down. That’s a political action.

First of all, you can see the target URL of the sponsor in the Adsense ad and therefore can type that into any browser window. You can then petition that sponsor via email or other electronic means without ever clicking a single Adsense ad. It is not a requirement to click the ad to “discover what advertisers are supporting sploggers.”

Secondly, sorry Mitch, dressing this dog idea up as “political action” is being political, not taking any sort of honorable, ethical action as a responsible business owner. You say this is not a business decision, but that’s wrong. The problem here are innocent bystanders (the advertisers) are being wronged financially. Advertisers are not signing up with Adwords to advertise on splogs and even if some small percentage of them are, is it really our place to try and disrupt their business model under the guise of it being for the greater good? Robin Hoodism doesn’t apply here.

If you have no interest or intention of possibly buying from those ads, you are defrauding the advertisers because they paid for legitimately interested eyeballs from somewhere. They buy into the concept that their ads will show up where it is contextually relevant and are expecting to receive interested eyeballs. People who are encouraged to click ads just for the sake of sending some message about splogs, even if it is targeted clicks on splogs only are still committing click fraud.

It is sort of like some of these people who Adsense (rightly) booted out of their program saying: “yeah, but I only clicked my ads a couple times.” If they click any of their own ads and therefore profit from that action even one time, one penny, that is still click fraud and a violation of Adsense TOS. There is no couple times and that’s ok rule. No gray area, no political action, it’s click fraud.

Click fraud. Click fraud. Click fraud.

There are other better ways of dealing with this splog problem and some folks are already out there hard at work on them. I look forward to the upcoming Seattle Mind where we can talk about these ideas in more depth and create some real world action plans to reduce the splog infestation.

And you should do some more research (read the Adsense Terms of Service and Program Policies carefully). Google does not have to prove you committed click fraud to eject you from their program. They can kick you out for just thinking you committed click fraud based on their own data, which likely they won’t show anybody unless forced by a court of law. Sure, you could sue them and subpoena their evidence which will most assuredly confuse any court of law when they actually try and sift through Google’s evidence of alleged wrongdoing. They have billions in the bank and none of us should forget those billions will buy plenty of court time with highly skilled and very expensive attorneys.

Frankly, Mitch, the fact that you have already made this click fraud idea a public spectacle is enough evidence for them to cancel your Adsense account now. You are encouraging something that their program policy specifically prohibits. You are breaking their TOS.

Most affiliate programs have the deck stacked way against the affiliate so the best we can do as affiliates — always — is to tell others only when asked, not promote, only clicking ads people are interested in and never promoting or encouraging people to click Adsense ads they aren’t legitimately interested in. That is the business deal we signed into when we signed up for their program. If we don’t like those terms, we walk, we don’t use our blog for political action to try and void those terms. We just cancel the program and use somebody else. There are plenty of affiliate programs out there, so if you don’t like Google’s program then don’t use it.

I happen to like Google’s Adsense program and do use it. I try my best to comply with their program policies and TOS and hope that we will continue to have a business relationship into the future. Is their program perfect? No. Is their program being abused by sploggers? Yes. Do I think they can be motivated to fix it? Yes, but not by conducting click fraud.

Those even remotely considering Mitch’s idea please realize that it is against Adsense program policies to encourage people to click ads for any reason. Here is the specific passage:

Web pages may not include incentives of any kind for users to click on ads. This includes encouraging users to click on the ads or to visit the advertisers’ sites as well as drawing any undue attention to the ads. For example, your site cannot contain phrases such as “click here,” “support us,” “visit these links,” or other similar language that could apply to any ad, regardless of content. In addition, publishers may not bring unnatural attention to sites displaying ads through unsolicited mass emails or unwanted advertisements on third-party websites. These activities are strictly prohibited in order to avoid potential inflation of advertiser costs.

And now check item #5 on the Adsense TOS (additional bolding mine):

Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to: (i) directly or indirectly generate queries, impressions of or clicks on any Search Results, Links and/or Ad(s) through any automated, deceptive, fraudulent or other invalid means, including but not limited to through repeated manual clicks

And the only time to click these Adsense ads legitimately are:

1) if they aren’t your own Adsense code ads
2) you are legitimately interested in what the ad says
3) you haven’t been coerced to click the ad by some third party as some sort of incentive

Mitch’s example clearly violates #3. The incentive being that if people click Adsense ads, especially if they use “repeated manual clicks” then they will someday possibly, maybe, hopefully, politically reduce the splog problem. Sorry, Mitch, but this activity is completely and thoroughly wrong.

If 1-3 above aren’t correct then it can’t be excused as some political action or splog vengeance, it is quite simply and correctly click fraud.

There are better ways. Let’s explore, find and use them together to combat this problem. I believe that Google will help. I see from Mitch’s post that he is setting up a site called memepeace.org but honestly I can’t see joining a group like that if the foundation is based upon click fraud. That isn’t the kind of peace I know nor is it ethically viable. I sincerely hope that’s not the charter and there will be more to this organization and this click fraud idea was merely the spark to ignite a reasonable, honorable, ethical call to action.

Unlike others who think Google’s billions have darkened their soul, I believe at the end of the day they still want to do the right thing. Sure, I don’t like everything they do and complain here loudly when they do something I think is ill-advised.

You’ll know when I feel otherwise: when I stop using their products and services and sell their stock. That is the ultimate message that doesn’t require any click fraud to execute.

The splog problem requires strong action, but please let’s not lose our ethics, honor and minds in the solution. I can’t — and won’t — get or stay aboard that train.

Did this post make you go hmm?

 Loading ...

• How big a problem is click fraud, really?
• Pingoat creator shares splogs database
• Google near settlement of $90 million click fraud lawsuit
• Accidense?
• Pay per click programs sometimes too good to be true?
• Microsoft labs exposes mistyped domain scam targeting Adsense