ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
43% Positive
Analyzed from 8814 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#ads#google#app#money#bot#more#paid#don#click#fraud
Discussion (352 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
1. Dev publishes app with Google Admob integration to the Play Store.
2. Buys Google Ads to drive traffic to the app.
3. Google Admob bans his account for invalid traffic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/admob/comments/1vzg3fu/i_paid_googl...
Funny part to me was Google was the only network bidding on these bots while others must have detected something and stayed out.
We submitted a second appeal taking full responsibility plus providing a long list of corrective action we took in house plus a full triage of what happened.
They again rejected our second appeal with no feedback.
“Nice app you got there. It would be a shame if your account got banned.”
If a person does that, then that's dumb. But a company? Don't you have like a legal department or similar telling you to not ever confess to something you did in fact not do?
Last week on YouTube I was logged out of YouTube and on my work computer got an ad that appeared to offer access to underage girls, the pic was creepy as hell. Google took their money but if I posted that image in a video I bet I would be banned….
https://bsky.app/profile/atomic14.bsky.social/post/3mnc7ws2h...
Perfectly fine according to google.
It also tells me how primitive Google Ads are, when they keep showing me an ad I reported.
Google is fine attracting bots when it makes money for itself, but it can clearly detect that bot traffic when it has to pay out. There is likely huge amounts of money in total that Google has collected money from in ad buys but that they could also detect as bots. I would think class action lawyers would be all over this given the total amount of money involved.
Better ways to spend your money, like funding competitors.
My feeling is that this is systemic, and basically it's the very business model. I remember the first account explaining how the initial budget should be a few thousand dollars, so that "the AI could target effectively". It did target effectively - our wallet.
Google itself forces advertisers into fraud-friendly products like PMAX. Then, when you detect the fraud, the hapless account rep says "ummm... maybe try using IP exclusion lists?" (Like one of the comments below). Google, with all the data it collects on people who click the ads, wants you to catch sophisticated fraud networks by manually building up IP blocklists. Yeah right.
And the victim of this entire ecosystem is your clever YC startup.
As a mobile reddit user, I’ve noticed that the app treats ads differently than regular posts. They are more sensitive to taps than regular posts and I frequently accidentally trigger ad videos playing by scrolling past them but I never accidentally trigger regular videos.
He was probably busy clicking ads...
Higgsfield got to a billion dollar valuation by spamming egregiously. It doesn't pay for Reddit ads. They spam Reddit directly with an army of robots and cheap overseas labor. Thousands of posts a day.
Higgsfield got banned from X for this, but they still do it.
After running Google Ads for a couple of years, our current exclusion list has over 4000 networks just in the US.
You know all those trojan infected smart TVs and home routers and such? That's one of the things they're doing.
And the pay for these things is "access to 500+ TB Jellyfin-like movie services for free"
Of course, it's all pirated out of country. And the pay is being a residential proxy.
And piracy being the only way to actually own, I'm not imaging this will stop anytime soon.
Source? There's definitely shady people paying people to host proxies, but hyperscalers doing it would be surprising.
Web scraping (for LLM inference / training) I guess has transformed "residential proxies" into a giant industry.
Google has to be careful, ads that convert less are less valuable (duh) and what happens is not "well the business will just buy more ads", but "well the business has a 35% gross margin and marketing expenses already account for 20% of gross profit, they can't just buy more ads"
Don't all water companies do it?
And while it may point at what we could do with Google and the likes, the risk profile is still a bit different (make many people ill or die vs "unknowingly" stealing some money).
They get paid for adverts to bots don’t they? Unrelated?
Most marketers should know exactly how effective their ads are by measuring to the end of the funnel. This is standard for most business and while bots are a problem, if you're judging online advertising at the front end of the funnel that's to a large part on them for a bad setup and/or optimisation.
Tends to be how it goes once you reach a certain size.
It's not that they're not trying, it's just a very hard problem.
the only reason I got the go-ahead for the effort was because one of our upstart competitors who was handily eating our lunch had implemented this years ago, started advertising based on it, literally pointed to the fact that we didn't do this yet, and then this was followed quickly by all of our other competitors implementing this, too. at this point we were well inducted into the illustrious halls of companies who stopped giving a shit about their core product with leadership blaming everyone but themselves for the fact that we were churning faster than we were net-new-ing
and even then it was a half-assed, resource-starved implementation that got dumped on regularly. have left the org since and couldn't be happier
That is not how an organization fighting ad fraud would structure itself.
Alphabet does not have an abundance of technical incompetence. But it does have the strongest of incentives to ensure ad budgets get spent quickly and no meaningful disincentives.
I mean what’s the OP going to do, go to Google’s competition?
I am asking because I maintain botnet ASNs that are spamming/phishing/scamming our customers, and this would be a nice complementary category for it.
Most often I realized that a lot of those "growth" companies have rotating ASNs that they go through after each larger spamming campaign. I'd assume they do the same thing in the admob/adclick world.
[1] https://github.com/cookiengineer/antispam
It is absolutely ridiculous that you have been either victim shamed, blamed or simply neglected by Google into doing it yourself.
In a mall, you expect to see mall cops ... where are they?
If you're just getting started I think the best thing you can do by a mile is just attend conferences/events where your ICP is and try to bootstrap PLG with it.
Step 1 is to understand who those people are for your product, and figure out which information sources they trust. As implied above, almost nobody trusts online ads.
Google does not give you a detailed breakdown of where all the ad was shown within Google's services. They do give a breakdown of the 3rd party websites and apps where the ads ran and they are all terrible shorts drama and html5 games websites for me - some of them even had the same UI with different URLs! Shame.
Ideally I would like my app's ad to be placed in the Play Store only, but Google doesn't allow this control conviniently.
Next I am going to try using in-app actions for conversion instead of install, but I doubt it will be helpful at all.
I've reported a few to Advertising Standards in the UK, but they're not really interested in combatting Facebook/Amazon fraud.
What's hilarious is having reported an ad to Facebook, they show you that ad more because you didn't longer looking at it. Mad.
Until last year I used Instagram and most of the ads I got were actually relevant. Zero scams, mostly local businesses. If I'd been visiting pages about home decoration I'd get local furniture shops and so forth. Google ads were - and are - the opposite for me, totally irrelevant and frequently scammy.
Which emotions does this bring up? For me its hate. fostering hate is what these places mastered. The data is clear - it skyrockets engagement and time-spent. The question is if we want this as a society? I mean, they dont even tax any of the "earnings" aka "mental-health-money"
Flashlights that can do this exist. I don't know if they're being advertised on Meta platforms.
famous saying 'i'd cut my ad budget in 1/2 if i knew which 1/2 to cut'
'attribution' is the holy grail of hard thing in marketing.
so they know for sure the channel spend is iffy.
but it's hard to measure, esp. for brand and indirect campaigns.
so as a 'starting point' - it's a very 'noisy channel problem'.
the next wild idea is that ads come from a marketing budget which has $X to spend, and they have to spend it.
this is where the ROI stuff is wildy upside down.
large companies with 'market power' have a lot of surplus. they put that towards relatively lucreative marketing. the $ must be spent.
the cmo makes a budget, allocates, the managers follow the campaign, front line staffers spend. they try to get the best results they can.
there is often an unbelievable lack of true roi concern in all of that.
sometimes it's very aggressive, aka for some keywords, for sure.
but a remarkable amount of $ is spent in very unnacountable way, over what are 'grey' channels anyhow.
the marketing ops person is going home at 5pm and does not care one bit about bots. they were paid to spend it, they did. Facebook is paid to 'show a chart of view' ... they did that. 'everyone is happy'.
im not saying the whole system works that way, but much of it does.
the wild part is - there is so much 'dumb big money' in ads, it makes the whole thing very inneficient.
companies like P&G have 'distribution monopolies' on so many packaged goods, they have to keep up brand awareness.
It's why so many commercials are for commodity products like home stuff - the market is huge, the market channels are locked, they pay $$$ for ads for 'toothpaste' - the least novel and least productive kind of thing imaginable.
so 'Colgate' costs $5 at the store, it costs 50 cents to manufacture - that $4.50 gross margin is stuffed into a system of relative inneficiency up and down the economy. much of it in 'nearly useless ads'.
it's a deep market inefficiency people dont want to recognized because people assume private capital is inherently efficient and that a dollar spent = GDP = value and that's it.
our lives could materially be improved if we banned ads for a lot of things - feels like 'socialism' but really it'd just be about a kind of 'regulated market efficiency'.
It's more like 25% of their budget.
https://www.statista.com/topics/7725/cpg-industry-advertisin...
SMBs can find an audience that would otherwise be impossible to reach. The thing that is advertised is so diverse it's hard to generalize, however the main thing I've noticed is SMBs live and die by the quality of their ad creatives.
For big businesses which make up the other 50% of Meta ads revenue: They are very effective in circumstances where your main offering is operational and the long term value of a customer is very large. For example it would be a very good place to advertise health insurance and TV subscriptions (which is a significant amount of the big business spend). Here I am more certain. If you didn't invent your product, and it is a beneficiary of the zeitgeist promoted by social media itself (beauty-focused, soft core brain rot), and your thing is basically fungible, you will thrive.
It's bullshit all the way down. The most valuable bullshit is the numbers that you can sell to someone else who is looking for bullshit. They're not lying; they are merely reporting what they are being told, and you can't fault them for trusting their ad networks / investees / LPs / LPs / pension plans.
I went through the CPI basket[1] and vaguely looked for categories "life's necessities" and came up with "Food and beverages", "Shelter", "Fuels and utilities", "Transportation", "Medical care", "Education and communication". Those categories alone make up 85.3% of the basket, and I didn't even bother going into detailed categories to look for other essentials. "Televisions" on the other hand makes up 0.1%. I'm sure there's more non-essentials on there, but 85% of the CPI basket being non-essentials seems... pretty reasonable? If anything, it's weighted more towards essentials than typical consumer spending patterns.
I get my app is probably bad but you'd expect at least one comment out of 100 "clicks" to say something.
Here on YC News, even a minor comment a few lines long might get at least one or two upvotes (or downvotes). I'll get a reply about 50% of the time.
On Reddit there are posts with apparent huge volumes of "user interaction": thousands of comments, thousands of upvotes per top comment, etc... but if I comment on one of those posts... nothing. Zero up or down votes, zero replies, just... silence.
I'm learning to recognise these posts now, and they're the majority of the "front page" volume. The only posts where I'll get any interaction now is the really niche ones like the hobbyist ones or "owners of specific gadgets" and the like.
Unless you somehow insult their favourite entertainment franchise / political party / deity / etc., or praise one of the same that they don't like. That will get you piles of responses, though not in a way useful to your app!
What doesn’t work is the nonsense people try to teach about how to optimize it.
It’s what got me into programming in first place, since most strategies can be automated, but there are still companies paying money to people to manage their ad spend.
It is not to protect the children.
Ad business is the best business: you pay for something no one can reliably verify or measure. But you still pay because there is something somewhere with some correlational relationship with an uplift in some of your metrics and you’re afraid to turn it off. So you just keep paying.
If you login to the admin side of any ad business (Reddit Ads, X Ads, LinkedIn Ads etc) you are faced with a severely broken product: broken buttons, obviously wrong metrics, and other glaring bugs.
But somehow you still trust that people who cannot pull the CRUD side of the product off, are going to serve your ad accurately to the targeted audience and give you reports.
There are definitely industries and situations where ads are difficult to make perform, things like a single business working against aggregator heavy environment or markets where growth is more important than profit, but overall there's reason for hundreds billions spent on online ads, this when most business can track ROI results.
One of the bigger issues I see is even 'experts' hand over control to the ad platforms to optimise their spend. For better results often you need to manipulate the systems to work in your favour, which platforms try to limit but you do what you can.
One change I feel we need is for regulation around controls and data on ad platforms to stop this ever increasing 'give us your money and trust us' type behaviour.
So who is this shit working on? These companies must have detailed profiles on “people who do what we tell them” as a whole class of people. Scary.
I don't think it even registers for them that they're ads (even though I have informed them multiple times).
Same for sponsored items in Amazon search results. As an adblock user it's really jarring to see their experience of the web compared to my own.
I always ignore all numbers on the dashboard. All I care about is how much I paid, and how much revenue went up in following weeks.
I never could quite get that number positive.
I think the only sane way tu run a Google Ads campaign is to:
- only enable Google Search ads (i.e. disable all third-party publishers -- this may be a bit extreme but it's good if you're advertisting a niche product that people are actually searching for)
- only use "exact match" keywords ("broad match" is so broad that Google will show your ads in completely unrelevant SERPs)
- disable AI Max
- disable all automations
- reject any of their "optimization" tips
- set a max CPC even if they say it's bad for you
In other words, reject everything they suggest you to do. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe this only works for my use case, but that's how I've been using Google Ads succesfully without wasting money.
Except then they just don't run your ads unless you're willing to pay silly amounts like $3 per click for bot traffic.
In a normal scenario, the provider of ad space would be a website or an application. Google would pay the owner of that space. On Youtube, that would be an ad served by Google paid to the channel owner.
Bot farm is operated by a company that displays Google ads. This bot farm fakes traffic to the bot farm owner and simulates conversion Google wants to see. Google sees the high conversion and happily serves more ads to the bot farm owner. Bot farm owner is paid by Google for displaying the ads. The person paying for the ad gets screwed.
in short, people/entities with websites employ bots to click and interact with the Google Ads on their website to generate fake ad revenue.
and the person running the ad campaign is billed for those fake interactions.
I'm guessing app ads are heavily botted because they're more costly vs. a simple ad that lands you on a website (edit: I was wrong, see reply by OP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49665323)
It’s been known for decades that third party website are just lost money.
And then, even Google own pages get clicked by bots but this time from competitors so you spend all your budget and they get cheap auctions.
What I did was create a game with an action button. Then I served ads right next to the action button. I didn’t realize people would miss click on the ads at a high rate, but they did. They fat fingered it, clicked the ad, I got paid.
I looked into it after a couple weeks because my click rate was crazy high.
And it's absolutely not the case that google can't detect ad fraud - in fact they are VERY good at detecting it when they want to.
Today the fraud is perhaps more obvious. YT has served me the same 20 min ad 200+ times over the last few weeks. I let the entire thing play 10 times and 50 times didn't press skip for the first minute (or the view doesn't count) It's so annoying Ive reduced video watching by 80-90%
The idea they have someone pay for this in the hope I will buy the product?
Or do people really intentionally run campaigns like that?
Look, I run UBlock Origin myself. But that's because there's zero other way to look at any Web content without going insane with videos and other garbage popping all over the place, and even when sites have memberships, I use too many distinct ones anyway, and the memberships may not remove the ads and junk.
But when it comes to sites like YouTube that let me choose between "ads" and "non-ads" experiences... I guess I'm just saying I see a ton of ROI on the $16.
Isn't that what you see on free to view TV. The same ads over and over.
I was never going to give any of the woo-woo secret health nonsense hucksters any money, though.
This is the opposite of resourcefulness - unless the videos were a distraction, not a real goal of yours.
PS Genuine question: where is the fraud in a 20 minute ad?
Steve Balmer explaining his take on how local governments of the US work was a hilarious ad offering on my non-adblocked device the other day - I’m struggling to see vectors for fraud.
It's not fraud, more like a cheap ass dystopia. It's some how worse than HP and MS combined.
> ..unless the videos were a distraction, not a real goal of yours.
You are not wrong but all work and no play... I will seek entertainment elsewhere. My apologies in advance HN :-)
But that's not in the article and I don't get it: what's in it for these bot networks, how do they get paid?
Another theory is since lots free games have where you can earn in-game currency for viewing ads, the bot farms might be abusing this method.
What’s the name for this sort of marketing?
I really like the interface you’ve built for completing the puzzles. Very clean - it’s very nice to not be bombarded at every screen.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_marketing
Guerrilla marketing.
From time to time, Google ads sales reps call me and are trying to convince me to increase the ads spend. I complain about bots, and none of them had any suggestion on what I can do to appeal it etc. I mean I can appeal on some specific instance, once - but there's no process to communicate back to Google the cases where I'm 99% certain about bots on regular basis.
And these bots get increasingly more sophisticated. They used to just click on ads. Then they started installing the app. Then running the app once and do nothing in it. Then they started tapping on the app screen & actually try to go through some initial app steps. When they do it in a spiky way, it's easy to detect them. But when they do it through some distributed device farms, below noise, it's very hard.
The world itself would almost certainly be a much better place without large scale/centralized advertising. I think the argument about it providing product discovery for hidden gems is nonsense. In reality it's mostly just crap, artificial demand creation, and behemoths trying to maintain brand image.
Same for Google reviews.
I’m a software engineer, and the way I find new tools is usually YouTube, GitHub, and HN. Even those channels are manipulated now with bots to inflate numbers to reach more
I’ve found that younger users tend to instinctively swipe away from flashy interstitial ads on tiktok/reels, but are far more likely to be engaged by a talking head influencer reading the same script.
When you advertise via parasocial word-of-mouth, you don’t even need to link your app in the post, as users are likely to take the time/effort to search for your app on the app store.
Unfortunately, the ad platforms/exchanges don’t really profit from these types of brand/influencer collabs.
The farm doesn't gain anything, the only thing it does is waste the advertisers money?
What's the play for the farm operator?
With a small budget, in 15 years I never managed to get any positive ROI on any online platform I tried advertising on.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/marketing/comments/4smisl/facebook_...
I set the related gaming subreddits.
After one month only ~38 new wishes, the other hundreds of clicks was for nowhere.
The internet has so much fraud, bad actors and toxicity, yet it makes so much money.
When I set a reasonable cost (0.1£) I got either nothing or generic keywords (which I added as a test). I'm pretty sure no one is actually bidding on these niche keywords as there are no ads shown on them ever.
Google simply decides not to sell unless you pay an exorbitant amount.
[0] https://novc.fyi/why
I decided to stop burning money on these ad systems. I'm not sure if they work for anyone at this point, I'm guessing this is more of everybody being convinced they might work and trying to get them to work, rather than ads actually resulting in conversions.
Well, I guess this might be different if you are an online casino or something similar.
How does a bot farm make money off this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
Also, all else being equal, earning potential of paid or subscription apps on Android is usually an order of magnitude less than on iOS, due to the self-selection effect of people who buy $1200 phones tend to have more disposable income than someone who buys the median Android phone which costs much less. So, trying to sell a paid casual game, especially on Android, is not going to pay the bills the way an ad-supported free app would. Sadly.
Sometimes I am wondering the low acquisition rate still pay off
I don't disagree that these findings may be useful for other users, who can now look more at suspicious bot behaviour - but all of that money empowers Evil. Let's not let Google off the hook. Remember why they went against ublock origin. They want people to use of ads, so you ultimately contribute to evil harassment via such pester-ads that further sustain Google's de-facto monopoly. This is bad from A to Z.
So, a CAPTCHA!
Search for "datadog" and the first result is a sponsored link for Datadog. I click that and datadog had to pay google. scroll a bit down and there's the "real" natural link.
Fugazi!
In that context: suggest a fairer way.
Now, it may just be you don’t like advertising in this context - a valid take. But a different one!
And you could advertise related products, or unrelated products. So many options there.
This type of fraud is almost as old as web ads themselves.
How does that work for an app that's just some game ?
Well, the answer is that many people owe their paycheck to not letting their employers or shareholders know that digital marketing is a solved problem.
But if you need stronger marketing than that, there will always be willing affiliates.
Good luck on that. I have sympathy for OP, but running ads is really hard. It's why most people set targets for things that happen in the app (OP updated to a target of winning a game, not just installing), and why companies have entire teams dedicated to monitoring Google/Meta/X ads. Trial runs are often thousands of dollars, and it's easy to evaporate money. I've made the same mistakes, and its why y-combinator strongly recommends against running online ads, especially in the beginning.