Natural Search Blog


Quova Awarded Patent for Improved Geotargeting

Quova Logo - Location MattersQuova recently announced that they were awarded a patent for various methods which improve geotargeting accuracy and capability. My understanding is that Quova has been using these methods for quite some time already, prior to receiving the patent.

Here’s Quova’s description of the innovations:

“Quova’s newly added patent describes a method for determining the geographic location of an Internet user based upon combining trace routes, user registration information, host names with textual patterns that reveal geolocation information and Internet Service Provider (ISP) service area information. These trace routes describe the pathways by which data moves through the Internet. Each node or ‘hop’ in the trace route is identified by an IP address. These interconnected nodes can be used to recreate the topology of the Internet. Each geolocation can then be assigned to these IP addresses in order to determine the location of each node, up to and including the end user’s IP address and the geolocation of that end user.”

I previously have written about Quova in my extensive article,Geolocation: Core To The Local Space & Key to Click-Fraud Detection“. My earlier description of them reads practically as an endorsement – something I very rarely do at all. But, I think what I wrote is pretty accurate, overall. Quova is considered pretty much best-in-class of the companies providing geolocation data mapping, because of their greater variety of geo data sources, their more sophisticated mapping methods, and because they actually submit to a third-party audit for data accuracy.

As I’ve described previously, there are quite a number of providers out there which try to associate endusers’ IP addresses with geographic location coordinates, but I’ve always been a really huge skeptic of the overall error rates associated with this type of data. In the past there were estimates that geolocation error rates could be anywhere from 50% to 85%! For marketers attempting to precisely target ads and content to geographically cohesive groups, such high error rates were far too high to be acceptable from my P.O.V. five years ago.

For all geolocation data companies, error rates increase as the geotargeting level becomes more precisely granular. In other words, most of these companies likely have very high accuracy for country-level geolocation capability, lesser for regional targeting such as state or province level, less than that precision for city-level, and lowest accuracy for ZIP-code or postal-code level targeting.

I’ve also been highly skeptical in the past because there’s a low ability to actually test how accurate a given company’s data may be — most testing is based on sample sets which I’ve suspected may be highly skewed towards more accurate geolocations. Anecdotal stories of erroneous geotargeting have come up repeatedly throughout the industry, while there are few ways of calculating actual error, and geolocation data companies reiterate unverifiable claims of accuracy rates.

However, innovations such as found in this patent awarded to Quova help in improving the stature of the whole industry, and really help to reassure marketers and security administrators that the data is solid. I can critique testing methodologies for auditing the data, but I get less strident about it when I can see that the methods by which the data was arrived at are improving and are far less prone to error rates.

Since increasing amounts of advertising targeting are being based upon geotargeting, and since so much of our security screening of PPC ads’ click-through results are being based upon geolocation data as a major component of analysis, I think it behooves companies to use very high-quality data. Quova’s historically high price tags have caused some to look for cheap and easy alternatives, but people should be very careful about the methods used by those other companies. In many, many cases, the cheaper alternatives equate with far less sophisticated methodologies, which also equate with higher error rates. And, auditing undoubtedly also adds overhead to the pricetag, but using data that has zero third-party checks will open companies to greater liability.

Most of the cheap companies are using only ARIN network data which has a lower accuracy level than if it was further enhanced by data from major ISPs and network tracerouting.

Except for the simplest applications which do not involve security and fraud analysis, I think that Quova’s industry-leading patents in geolocation make it so that other geodata companies’ products cannot realistically compete in this arena.

4 comments for Quova Awarded Patent for Improved Geotargeting »

  1. MyAvatars 0.2

    Hi Chris, The post on Quova is really illuminating. Thanks for the excellent clarification. I am asking two questions at the same time, one for local search and one about supertior geotrageting technolog.

    With respect to local search results,what is your opinion on Google Local Business Center (GLBC) crawling trusted data sources like Better Business Bureau, InfoUSA, Acxiom and Localeze to confirm if a business’s listing is right by comparing the geographic location, phone numbers etc on these sites with the listing GLBC has at hand. David Mihm covered this in a video at SEOmoz. Would this still be a cheaper option for small local buisinesses?

    Google has admitted that their geotargeting in multilingual countries like Switzerland is far from perfect where they end up serving the wrong language website to users. Would Quova’s superior geotargeting technology make it an ideal acquisition for Google in future if it could solve such prblems? I would be interested in knowing your thoughts.
    Cheers
    Ravi

    Comment by Ravi — 7/28/2009 @ 5:09 pm


  2. MyAvatars 0.2

    I’m not sure what the first question is — cheaper than what?

    BTW – I don’t believe Google’s actually trying to correct business listings so much as display the most-current info and to enhance their existing listings. So, their methodology is to crawl those other sources of info and try to match the other data up with their existing listings. Listings which can’t be matched may get added to their existing directory database, according to the partner contract.

    On the second question, you might read the earlier article I linked-to which covers geotargeting extensively. Geotargeting is not a very good method for choosing which language to deliver up. In my opinion, Content Negotiation is a superior method:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation

    Also, to my knowledge, Google has used Quova by some amount in the past. However, the details of that use, use limitations, and whether Google currently uses Quova is suppositional. My guess is that Google possibly uses Quova for some click-fraud purposes, but likely uses other, cheaper data sources for ad targeting and content delivery purposes. Google would be able to easily build systems for accomplishing their own geotargeting for virtually all uses. In fact, since they must keep a lot of the details of their click-fraud policing hidden behind the veil, it’s quite possible they’d also use cheaper geographic data sources for that purpose as well.

    Comment by Chris — 8/3/2009 @ 12:20 pm


  3. MyAvatars 0.2

    Hi Chris,
    THe first question was not meant to be there at all. Sorry about that. I was editing the query and I failed to delete it. Thanks for the content negotiation info and your views on Google in the light of click fraud policing. Very interesting!
    Cheers
    Ravi

    Comment by Ravi — 8/3/2009 @ 5:27 pm


  4. MyAvatars 0.2

    A particular focus is aimed at internet-based technologies, which historically has been a difficult area to patent in due to the general exclusion of computer programme and business method inventions under British and European patent law.

    Comment by Patent search — 2/17/2011 @ 9:46 am


Leave a comment

* Do not use spammy names!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

RSS Feeds
Categories
Archives
2013
Feb      
2011
May      
2010
Jan Feb Mar Apr
Sep      
2009
Jan Feb Apr May
Jun Jul Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec  
2008
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Dec  
2007
Jan Feb Mar Apr
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006
Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec    
2005
Jan Feb Mar Dec
2004
May Jun Jul Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec
Other