Gazoo, a word, re: web technology

The BBQ Pit
21

I’m assuming you’re referring to me.

I missed no point. I understand the sensitivity toward tracking. Try to understand the marketer’s perspective.

How would you feel if you went into a small grocery store once a week and the proprietor, despite your business, thought you were a first-time customer every time you walked into the store?

Personally, I’d feel like the guy was not taking the time to get to know his customers. You may feel differently. If so, you can use your browser to block cookies. Just don’t blame me if you get cookie warnings all over the place and your web-surfing gets to be more of a pain in the ass than it’s worth.

Just know that if you do block cookies, you’re not helping the publishers that supply you with content. Many publishers rely on ad revenue to pay the bills, as I’ve mentioned. Increasingly, many ad deals are being struck on a pay-for-performance basis, meaning that your favorite publisher might get paid only when people actually purchase a product or act on the information in an ad in some other way (sign up for a newsletter, register for a service, etc.)

I assume you block cookies, then. Or at least you check your cookies.txt files to find out which companies are tracking you, so that you can properly target your wrath? Or do you simply not buy anything online?

Fine if you hate web marketers. Fine if you want to launch your own little desktop revolution. Just don’t get upset when I point out that this attitude threatens the model of ad-supported content on the web. Maybe you’d prefer to pay a monthly fee for your stock quotes, news, entertainment, or any of the other ad-supported services that you’re currently enjoying for free? It’s heading that way.

There is no free ride. Providing web content costs money. You can either deal with the ads and the tracking, or you can fork over a membership fee to your favorite publishers. The well of free shit has run dry.

22

I’d be fine with it. I don’t want to have a relationship with the bag-boy at Safeway, I want to get my gawdamn groceries in a quick, efficient, polite way. I don’t care whether he remembers that I bought medicine for Great-Aunt Martha’s bunions last month or not.

And the thing that pisses me off about cookies (and why I delete them regularly) is that again, it’s “telemarketers” (computer based, to be sure) trying to use my resources (hdd space, bandwidth…granted a miniscule amount of both) for their purposes and I get nothing out of it. Plus it’s a pain in the ass to opt-out (turning off cookies to stop spying also turns off useful cookies, and picking and choosing slows down my surfing experience)

I don’t object to all cookies: the SDMB’s cookie serves a great purpose. But the example you gave about Unca Cecil? You’re spying on him and he’s getting nothing back from you, nor did you inform him that you were spying.

To try to defend them, you compared them to “valued shopper” cards. Execpt that I can choose not to use the card and I get something (a discount) in return. Imagine if, every time you tried to shop, the store owner said “You’ll need to fill out this questionaire, and we’re charging you .25c for the privilege.”

That’s what cookies feel like to me.

And it’s exactly the same arguement I have against telemarketers.

Fenris

23

[QUOTE}I don’t object to all cookies: the SDMB’s cookie serves a great purpose. But the example you gave about Unca Cecil? You’re spying on him and he’s getting nothing back from you, nor did you inform him that you were spying.[/QUOTE]

Fenris, sure he’s getting something. He got to take a look at the Van Halen News Desk’s content for free. The ads support the site he was looking at in the first place.

“Spying” is a strong word for describing what’s going on here - I’m only know that someone who had seen the ad bought a book, not specifically that it was Unca Cecil. Jeez, Fenris, do you use credit cards? If you do, know that your purchase behavior IS sold on a regular basis, and it is attributed to your identity. At least what I’m doing in this example is non identity-specific.

Another important distinction is that this aggregate tracking information about response to online ads doesn’t get sold for profit. It doesn’t get sold, period. It just lets the marketer know that Ad Banner A is more effective than Ad Banner B at getting the job done, so that marketing efforts can be optimized.

As for not informing Unca Cecil in my example, I mentioned before that most responsible websites cover the cookie tracking in their privacy policy.

24

I’m a hard core web surfer, both for work and fun. I use the internet constantly for research, purchasing and just plain goofing off.

I love cookies.

I love them almost without reservation. I love going to a site and having it recall my preferences, id, past purchases, what messages I’ve read, etc. I think it’s great that a web site I visit can get credit for, and therefor generate additional advertising revenues from, an ad I saw on their site and decided to act on.

Are cookies abused? Absolutely. So is the postal service (direct mail) and the phone (telemarketers). That does not detract from their usefulness.

I do not understand why some people are so afraid of people having any information about them. I mean, right now, the SDMB knows my email address (one of them), my user name and password (very handy, as I can never remember it, since I post so seldom), and probably some other things like which forums I prefer and which threads I have read. So what? None of it is linked to anything I am concerned with keeping confidential. Email address? I use a Hotmail account for all my contact info. Username? Password? Useless except on this site.

I want retailers, advertisers and content providers to know what I like. If they know what I like, they are more likely to provide goods, services and information I like and will pay for. If people know what ads I respond to, maybe I won’t have to see so many X10 ads. I would hate to have to wade through a website every time I want to get to a particular piece of information I need regularly. That’s why I love my my.yahoo page. It’s tailored to my preferences, and thanks to a little cookie, I don’t have to log in every time I fire up my web browser.

I would love to have the same convienience offline. If I had a card that I could swipe on my way into Best Buy and be presented with a store containing only things I want I would love it. Not having to walk past racks of NSync albums, washing machines and cell phones to get to the stuff I want. Hell I would be thrilled if they knew what I bought last time and could present stuff I might like based on that, say, super cheap CD-R’s because I bought a CD burner two months ago. Maybe I didn’t come in looking for CD-Rs, but if they knew I might need them, they could put the display right in front. Bingo, I get something I need at a good price and they get a sale. That’s win win. The beauty of the web is that things like this are simple, thanks to cookies.

gEEk

25

Don’t use faux concern for the friendliness of my shopping experience as an excuse to store files on my personal computer that assist you in adjusting the trajectory of targeted advertising.

If a cookie is tracking my personal preferences and making visits to websites I frequent more convenient, that is one thing; if a cookie is reporting information (however innocuous) for the benefit of another party, it is encroaching on my personal space. It is a question of using my property, without my consent, for the benefit of someone else. And yes ultimately, I think it is possible that someone will find a way to report information I would have preferred remain private. When Adaware tags a cookie and recommends it be deleted, what exactly is it about that cookie that differentiates it from my SDMB settings? I seriously don’t know, but I assumed it was attempting to violate my privacy.

I wouldn’t consent to my television tracking my viewing habits and documenting my reaction to commercials so that it could send me ‘better’ advertising. At first glance, it sounds like an absurd analogy; but upon reflection I’ll maintain that it is indeed accurate.

26

The problem isn’t all cookies, just some.

I love my SDMB cookie - I don’t have to keep typing my password. Yay! That’s a good cookie. I don’t mind Amazon giving me a cookie because they have all kinds of interesting marketing lures that I like letting them show me - I know and like Amazon from way back. I have no problem with cookies that allow me speedy logins and things like that.

I hate advertising related cookies. First, I’m not going to look at your stupid ads. Show them to me all you like, I’m barely going to glance at them. You want to know what ads I’ve seen and what ads I haven’t? Well, I don’t want you to know that. I don’t know who you are, and I don’t like you. Ads are just an annoyance that I pay no mind to.

What bothers me most with this kind of cookie is the lack of clear request for participation. If a company approached me and said “Now listen here, we don’t care to know your name or any details, we just want to assign you a number and keep track of the kind of sites you visit, and therefore the kinds of things you’re interested in, what ads you’ve seen so we can personalise our marketing slightly, and other statistical information, such as how many times you visit a site. Now keeping in mind that never at any point will you be personally identified, do you mind participating in this data gathering exercise?”, I would say “No thanks”. I don’t want to supply statistical information to marketers because I’m never going to pay any attention to their ads anyway, and I just don’t want to. So I run a Cookiewall, and select which cookies I want, and which I don’t. I control who gets the information about me, and I like it. I would prefer to interact in a virtual world where cookies were only issued at my request, and advertising didn’t exist. I realise this isn’t going to happen, but I can manipulate my own internet experience by blocking cookies from people who I don’t think have any business tracking my movements.

I’m not going to lose sleep over it. What do I care if the local grocer has a short term memory problem? Besides, the example only applies if I slip into the store once a week, look around and then leave without buying anything. If I’m doing that, I probably DON’T want the prop remembering me!

Besides, what if my little brother comes over, asks to use my computer to look for work, and sneaks off to a porn or warez site? Suddenly I have a cookie that says I’m into hot teen girls and illegal warez, and the grocer is beckoning me to come out the back and check out his leatherware. Other people do use my computer from time to time, and I don’t stand here watching over their shoulders. On occasion, I’ve stumbled across sites that contained things that I didn’t want to see - if I was “cookied” by those sites, I’d face the possibility of being served “targeted” advertising for somethings I don’t want to see.

I’m not a fan of targeting marketing. Targeted means “we want to know stuff about you”, and I don’t want to share. If my grocer starts insisting that I fill in a questionaire telling him what other stores I frequent, I’m going to start shopping elsewhere. That’s one damn pushy grocer. While I respect the right of companies to advertise, I exercise my right to pay no attention. When companies want to know stuff about me, I’m not obligated to tell them anything, and I usually choose not to unless I feel I have a a good relationship with them, or I can trust them. I don’t trust anyone who wants to track my movements around the net.

27

Most add-on applications that help web users manage cookies look at whether the cookie being set is from the domain that the web user is currently viewing. For instance, if you’re on Yahoo! Finance and an ad server is trying to read or set its cookie while you’re there, the app would notice that another server is trying to set a cookie and would warn you. I think that these apps also maintain lists of ad servers, such that they can warn you when an external “marketing cookie” is being set.

Let me stress again, the tracking mechanism I described above does NOT track one’s behavior across the web, so “the kinds of sites you visit” is not something that is tracked by user. The pertinent information that advertisers who use third-party ad servers like to look at consists of the following:

  • Did a purchase or lead occur? If so…
  • What ads were delivered that might have contributed to the action?

Tracking behavior across multiple sites would be difficult to implement, and it’s not the type of information that is readily actionable to an advertiser. As I mentioned before, the companies that wanted to track behavior across the web have either backed off that initiative or they’re out of business.

Keep in mind that if you’re concerned about allowing marketers to know if their ads are generating sales, you can block cookies (either selectively or altogether).

One last thing before I submit this post… Please don’t hate me because of the line of work that I’m in. I’m not the guy that wants to make money selling your personal information. All I’m interested in is seeing the effect of my ads on the people that see them. As I’ve pointed out before, if you’re pissed off about privacy violations, you should take issue with the offline direct marketers who make money selling your personal data before you take issue with online marketers who are much less intrusive in that regard.

I’m just giving you a realistic view of what’s being tracked on the web these days. And I’m trying to express the opinion that online marketers tend to have more respect for privacy than offline marketers. I’m also trying to combat some of the misconceptions about what cookies do, because there are boatloads of people out there who think that cookies represent organizations that are trying to track their every move. Such is not the case.

28

Ok. Well, forgive me if I’m wrong, but my understanding was that third party cookie servers such as Double Click were doing just this - as it was explained to me, they were actively controlling the advertising on many sites across the net, and used cookies to see which of their sites you were hitting, building a fairly good profile of what sort of thing interested you, how frequently you were exposed to their ads, etc.

Even so, I’d rather not say what effect advertising has had on me making a purchase. It just encourages them, and I’m not a fan of internet advertising unless I seek it out - I go to Amazon to see what books they have that I might like, but I would never click on a banner ad to go to a site to look at books. Cookies provide feedback that I wouldn’t actively give to people I don’t know about things I don’t care for. I live by the motto “Tell them nothing and take them nowhere”, so I selectively block marketing cookies.

Oh, I don’t blame you - as long as you don’t spam! :smiley: I fully understand that you’re doing a job, and not snooping for the sake of snooping. I’m sure what you do has value. I just choose not to participate, because that’s the kind of girl I am :slight_smile:

29

Lemme give as much of the Straight Dope as I can on DoubleClick.

I do a lot of business with that company (mostly buying media placements from them). DoubleClick operates a network, on which they sell advertising. Media buyers can hand-pick sites from their network or advertise across categories or in a run-of-network capacity.

I have never personally accessed data from DoubleClick that tracks behavior across multiple sites. That said, they certainly have the technical capability to profile user behavior across the sites for which they perform ad serving duties, if they want to. This application would be distinct from what ad agencies use cookies for. When I access my campaign data, I only get information on the sites I’m advertising on, specific to that site.

Realistically, DoubleClick has the capability to collect data across multiple websites, but people in my position don’t get to access any of that data. I also can’t speculate as to what DoubleClick does on its end - that information would be considered proprietary. What I do know is what DoubleClick has publicly announced. They’ve essentially abandoned the idea of appending (see my post above), offline purchase behavior to online profiles. This move would have given DoubleClick the ability to target ads to people who visit sites on its network, by purchase behavior offline. However, as I mentioned, this appending initiative was abandoned.

From a DCLK press release issued 3/2/00 (statement is from Kevin O’Connor, then-CEO):

30

Of course not. It’s clear that you are just trying to earn a living, but hopefully you understand that people have sound reasons for not wanting unsolicited communication between their personal computer and an outside network. Given the security risks (remember when MS Outlook could ‘invite’ the haptime virus aboard your system?) an individual should be granted full control over what is transmitted over their internet connection – and it should be done at the operating system level – it shouldn’t be question of the user being savvy enough to find, install, and configure the necessary 3rd party software.

Re: Doubleclick: It’s all well and good that they have decided against reconciling identity and internet activity, but in order to arrive at this ‘well intentioned’ decision, they must have the technology to do just that, and a serious desire to create such a database were it not for the public outcry. I think the fact that it was even considered speaks pretty strongly about Doubleclick’s integrity and reinforces my position that one should take serious steps to protect their computer from intrusion.

31

WTF??? - I would ask YOU to defend cookies, please. I don’t think I should have to defend not liking some bogus web site putting information I don’t want and don’t need on MY hard drive. Have you been to gator.com?? It just might be the site for you.

If you need to track me from page to page on your web site, there is a little thing called a session cookie - it doesn’t put anything on my hard drive.

There is absolutely no reason for them other than marketing, and if marketing needs information, they can fucking well pay for it. It’s called market research.

Then again, you probably think you are getting a better deal by using your Jewel card or Dominick’s card at the grocery store. Ooooh, it’s saving me all this money. Except that the prices are the same (with inflation) as they were before the card - the difference is they can follow almost every purchase you make.

Big Brother IS watching.

32

Gazoo, you can take this FWIW, as I like my privacy as much as anyone else, but I only like it where it matters. My financial and health records? My business.

But some marketing fruitcake wants to see how much speed stick, fruity pebbles and green pepper I’ve purchased in the last 36 months? Have at it. Who the fuck cares?

33

Ah, but don’t forget, this is used at the Osco pharmacy as well. How would you like some marketing type at Lilly Pharmaceuticals to know you ordered cancer treatment medicine or HIV medicine? And then you decide to apply for a job a Lilly and they just happen to look up your drug purchases with the information that the Osco sold them for “marketing purposes”?? Gives one pause, doesn’t it?

I became a little paranoid a long time ago when I signed a petition from some dumbass in college just to get rid of him and it showed up when I applied for Q Clearance with the G. And that’s a long time before computers were widely used.

34

Sure it does, but that’s not what you said. I said my medical records are my business, so I would never use a card like this at a pharmacy.

You used the example of the grocery store, and I still maintin I don’t care if it’s known what I buy at Kroger. Granted, I don’t know what a “Jewel card” or a “Dominick card” is, but I assume that is nearly the same as the Kroger card I use. If it isn’t, then I retract my statements.

35

Stop your whining and take some responsi-fucking-bility and turn your cookies off, or make it so your fucking browser asks you to accept it. I’m tired of the whining when 90% of the whiners won’t take the little responsibility required to make it so your computer doesn’t accept that privacy-violating cookie.

Cookies are good. I don’t like dealing with the bullshit on most sites so the less I have to search for what I like, the better.

Sam

36

What bug crawled up your ass and laid eggs on your brain? I posted a link to a program that is a lot more convenient than having your browser ask you every time about every cookie. Look up to find my link to Guidescope. I’ve taken responsibility for my security. Have you?

I didn’t know that only the domain that set the cookie could read the cookie. Thank you for correcting me.

37

No I haven’t, cause I really don’t care. It doesn’t worry me like it worries some of you.

What crawled up my ass? Whining about trivialities and paranoia about little text files when instead of complaining, you can set your browser to handle them, or get some aftermarket prog to do it for you. That’s what.

Sam

38

Yes, it’s the same. Jewel is a grocery store, Osco is the pharmacy associated with Jewel. They both use the same Jewel card. I don’t think Kroger has that.

But, let me give you an example of where you would use it. For some insurance plans, you have to go to a specific pharmacy to get your prescriptions. Osco uses the Jewel card and has a sale on your prescription, but only if you use the card. So, you have the choice - buy the prescription for $75 or use the Jewel card and get it for $50. Whattya gonna do? 90% of the people are going to use the card. Then the scenario I mentioned earlier comes into play.

39

It’s not that simple. Go to Expedia.com and try to book a flight without cookies on. You can’t do it. Now go to Orbitz.com. You can. Guess which one I use now? And this is after using Expedia for over a year now.

40

Are they allowed to put prescription meds on sale? For some reason, I thought that this sort of thing was regulated from state to state. I could very well be wrong, though.