Invalid traffic review notes should separate source, placement, and user action

An invalid traffic review note should separate source, placement, and user action. If those are mixed together, the creator cannot tell whether the risk is coming from bot-like visits, misleading ad placement, accidental clicks, sudden referral traffic, or a page design that makes ads too easy to hit by mistake.

Google AdSense Help describes invalid traffic as clicks or impressions that may artificially inflate advertiser costs or publisher earnings, including fraudulent activity and accidental clicks. That definition is broad, so the investigation needs a narrow record. “Traffic looked strange” is not enough; the note should name what changed and where.

For source, record country, referral, campaign, search page, and device mix. For placement, record ad position, sticky behavior, distance from navigation, and whether the page changed recently. For user action, record CTR movement, scroll depth if available, session duration, and whether clicks are concentrated on a small template. Add screenshots only as private evidence when needed; the public note can describe the layout without exposing account details.

The goal is not to accuse a source too quickly. The goal is to create a review packet that supports one concrete action: block or investigate a source, adjust a risky placement, revert a recent template change, or wait while monitoring a clearly named signal.

Invalid traffic review notes should separate source, placement, and user action

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE