--000000000000f0f73d0617e293d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I confirmed with IT and legal and we will have weblogs by the end of the week (or an update on timing if it proves to be more difficult). However, our weblogs don't differentiate between sources. I'm not sure if that will help but it will at least complete the ask so hopefully that will allow them to move forward. On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 11:53=E2=80=AFAM Alexa Graziani wrote: > I'll reach out to Phil to see about the logs and my Google rep to see if > this is the type of response she expected. > > The link the support person sent has this section at the end: > > "Reporting invalid traffic > > There are many common reasons for increased traffic that don't involve > invalid interactions. However, if you suspect that your account is indeed > affected by invalid interaction activity, we'll investigate your account. > > Our team of specialists use a variety of different signals including clic= k > and impression information to identify sources of invalid activity. Becau= se > of the large number of data points we look at, an investigation into your > account may take several business days to complete. When you request an > investigation, please share as much information you have about the traffi= c > you're concerned about." > > > It also says the following, which is what we are trying to do. > > "You=E2=80=99ll be credited for any invalid interaction that escaped our > automated detection in the past 2 months." > > > Louise, please let them know that we want to move forward with a full > account investigation with the goal of getting credited for invalid > interactions that escaped automated detection and that we'll followup wit= h > the weblogs. > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 8:11=E2=80=AFAM Timothy Thomas wro= te: > >> That's above my IT paygrade. Alexa? >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 11:02=E2=80=AFAM Louise Scanlan wrote: >> >>> >>> And here is their nonsensical response... it's as if they didn't read >>> anything. >>> >>> Timothy, am I wrong in thinking even if you pull the server logs we wil= l >>> not see IP addresses if they were masked? Are you able to pull those lo= gs? >>> >>> Louise >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 613.228.2028 | 20eight.ca | Louise@20eight.ca >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: >>> Date: Mon, May 6, 2024 at 7:44=E2=80=AFPM >>> Subject: Invalid Clicks [4-7821000036681] >>> To: >>> >>> >>> [image: Google Logo] >>> Hi Louise, >>> >>> Thanks for contacting Google Ads. I sincerely apologize for the delay i= n >>> response. >>> >>> I understand that you are concerned regarding the invalid clicks in you= r >>> Google Ads account 458-886-9031. >>> >>> Upon reviewing your query and the files shared by you, I have checked >>> that you have taken most steps to make sure invalid clicks are filtered= out. >>> >>> If you're worried about invalid interactions in your account, there are >>> a number of thi