Re: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Dwight Merriman wrote:

> Agreed.  But I think if one looks at the long run, which is what is most
> important for a standard, all the proxies will work properly.

Sure, but then soon to come are cookie monsters (well actually I'm
aware of at least one already).  And all proxies I know of can easily
block sites converting the banner ad to a small broken image icon.
I know of one personal web tool based on proxy technology which has this
ability as well.

The more people who are offended by hidden profiling, the wider the 
deployment of such tools.

> I just find it kind of weird that the RFC specs nondeterministic behavior
> -- sometimes cookies work, sometimes they don't, and you can't always know
> when they will without a lot of complexity.

I think the question is from whose perspective the behavior is
non-deterministic. The behavior is quite deterministic from my perspective
as a user.

In the single very limited involvement I had with advertising, the revenue
was associated with the click thru on the banner ad, not the bannner ad.
That would, as I understand the DoubleCLick model would be a click to 
the DoubleClick site from which a set-cookie wouldn't be considered an
unverifiable transaction.

If I were advertising, knowing when a user actually asked to see more of
my message would have tremendous value compared with having my ad
where they might have seen it.

The bottom line is that WWW advertising is based on a business model which
didn't even exist a couple of years ago. It is based on leveraging
technology which is new and evolving. I am confident that it will evolve
in response to improvements to the technology..

David Morris

Received on Monday, 17 March 1997 11:19:28 UTC