W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft

From: Rob Hartill <robh@imdb.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 14:12:22 +0000 (GMT)
To: HTTP-Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970319134845.309E-100000@127.0.0.1>
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Koen Holtman wrote:

> >> 1c) host: doubleclick.com GET ad image
> >> 
> >> The new 1d is uncachable, but 1d is a very small transaction.  1c becomes
> >> cachable in proxy caches, which is very good.
> > 
> >This "future" method is what I'm using now. However, 1c is NOT cacheable
> >(for us) in practise; we've had to make it deliberately uncacheable because
> >we were getting screwed (financially) by caches that'd never inform the
> >ad server that it had served the same ad to dozens or hundreds of users.
> 
> So in your scheme, the ad server counts 1c) transactions, and this is
> what your revenue is based on?

Yes, it's pay per impression as with most other advertising on the web.

> Well in that case of course the 1c)
> site would have to make 1c) highly uncachable.

Indeed.

> [Note: I looked at your site and I could not find any use of the 302
> ad serving scheme above.

The DoubleClick ads represent only part of our overal advertising.

> I did find some use of 302 for
> clickthroughs, so I'm not entirely sure we are talking about the same
> thing here.  Could you point to an example of what you are using now?]

The ads are spread out evenly over the day in 'random' places, so there's
no place I can point you.

> Also, if the site does more processing itself, and allows savings
> (because of caching) on the ad network site, I would expect the ad
> network to give them a some appropriate amount of extra money for
> their trouble.

:-)  now wouldn't that be nice.

> >Now you've lost me. We end up with an extra trip to the content site
> >and because this will be persistent, this extra trip will save us something
> ?
> 
> Again, the extra trip will make the ad image cachable,

Caching ads is very bad news for people selling ads on a per impression
basis. If a content site has to redirect to an ad network then it will
either have to cache bust everything or waive goodbye to 30-50% of their
revenue OR 30-50% of their ad serving capacity.

I can't see network sites trusting the content sites to report accurate
impression counts, so if the network site does all the accounting then
its the content sites that will lose or cache bust everything. Going
from our content site to the DoubleClick network site we cache bust
everything.

--
Rob Hartill   Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
http://us.imdb.com/Oscars/oscars_1996 -  hype free Oscars (R) info.
http://us.imdb.com/usr/sweepstake     -  Win a 56k X2 modem. Free draw.
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 06:24:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:31 EDT