- From: dolphinling <dolphinling@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:25:11 -0400
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, dolphinling wrote: > >>>The script can be written backwards too, if that is a concern. >> >>This still doesn't "force" it to work. As a user-tracking-implementer >>doing it for money, I want to make absolutely sure I count properly. >>That means forcing people to hit the counter _before_ even telling them >>where they're going, so they can't get around it. There's no way to do >>this with ping=. > > > In practice, you usually can tell where the link is going, so there isn't > really any way to stop the user doing that anyway. Also, at least one of > the biggest Web advertisement companies would rather let a user go to the > target site without tracking them than track them against their wishes -- > I'd hope that this actually applies to all the big advertisement > companies, though I could believe that it does not. > > At the moment, there isn't a sane way to offer that option. > >>Like I said before, I like the semantics of ping=. But it doesn't fit >>into the usage model that advertisers and other trackers want. >>Semantically, I want notification and linking to be separate. In usage, >>they want them to be linked. They seem to me to be mutually exclusive. > > > In my experience, "they" are ok with it being separate, as it conveys a > number of benefits to the user. (I would consider my source on this matter > reasonably authoritative.) Hmm... perhaps your source could explain his reasoning here? :) It's extremely easy to make non-circumventable tracking, and I assumed that most times it _was_ circumventable were due to ignorance rather than an informed decision. To me, it seems, the benefits to an advertising company of doing so outweigh the benefits of not. -- dolphinling <http://dolphinling.net/>
Received on Friday, 21 October 2005 22:25:11 UTC