zlacker

Google HAS to block this and prevent it from ever being run if it can, its click fraud plain and simple and they've been stung too many times with huge bills for fraud it could have prevented and didn't.

>>waxim+(OP)
Disagree. If they want to stop click fraud, they can try to do it from other than the browser end.

>>waxim+(OP)
Everything that is GETtable risks being GET. Why would Google serve an ad to someone who might click it without the intention of following through with the ad? Because Google chooses who to show the ad to. So it is really Google's fault. Google created click fraud.

See how ridiculous this is?

>>ominou+m4
Just issuing a GET doesn't cause a somebody to be charged.

It's a process involving delivering specific tracking cookie along with the ad that should you end up clicking through to the intended destination gets tracked through either more cookies or tags in the URL.

>>damien+F9
How is that the user's problem? I don't care what the ad network does. If they are sending me links and I'm choosing to click on them, whatever happens is their own fault. I entered into no contract with this company.

>>ominou+m4
...and, this is how search engines work, on a simple level. They request a web page then they "click" on everything and request all those other pages.

Of course, Google probably detects bots and doesn't count these clicks, but your statement that "Google created click fraud" is correct (although they weren't first) and kinda funny.