- From: Watson Ladd via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:51:09 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
I'm still not sure I really understand. This sounds like to get us on the same page you'd need a presentation or perhaps one has already been given and I missed it. It's one thing if there is an impression recorded by a UA that never actually happened that ends up in attribution, or a conversion reported maliciously. It's quite another to deem it "stealing" to attribute a conversion to an impression that actually happened, but was selected because of propensity to buy the product advertised. Isn't that the point of online advertising, to have better information about where to show the ads? At what point is it appropriate smart selection vs. fraud? And I'm not sure why UA based mechanisms aren't able to handle this, or why the draft couldn't evolve after adoption to address your issues. If the problem is that the impression shown isn't linked enough to the data that is used to attribute, I can think of some solid ways to address that like making the URL of the creative depend on that data. Why do you think this is a showstopper for this proposal? -- GitHub Notification of comment by wbl Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/admin/issues/26#issuecomment-2420665932 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2024 21:51:10 UTC