W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-adv@w3.org > February 2021

Re: discussion on FLOC performance?

From: Kris Chapman <kristen.chapman@salesforce.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:02:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFW3Y-N1aN0s7uVP1pfMUKT+3zJrWyQBv2_gHnTmYDy_tZ_15A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Cc: public-web-adv@w3.org
Hi Wendy -

Two use cases that I'd like to see discussed in terms of FloCs are:

   - Site personalization: I'm wondering what the expectation is for how
   FLoCs will be used there.  Right now, site personalization can happen by
   targeting audiences or data being included on links.  If FLoCs are seen as
   the replacement, how will it be supported for first-time visitors?  One
   example would be when a user clicks on a link in an email.  If the client
   doesn't support JS, how could the user be added to a FLoC in order to get
   the personalized content?  Or the case where they're trying to support site
   personalization to match an ad campaign - but the user doesn't click on the
   ad (ie, view-through personalization).

   - Analytics: I was thinking about Google Analytics here, but I was just
   wondering if there are plans for how Cohort IDs would be represented in
   analytics reports - or just reporting in general.  Would the names of
   interest-based cohorts be shown?  If browsers create their own FLoCs, what
   info would be shared for reporting (just the Cohort ID, the browser version
   and the Cohort ID, etc.)

Just some thoughts.

- Kris

Kristen Chapman

Privacy Technology
Salesforce Marketing Cloud

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:55 AM Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Arnaud and group,
> I'll invite the Google Ads team to respond to questions about their
> experiment. For the agenda, I'd also like to invite a broader discussion
> of data useful to the work of improving web advertising and performance.
> Are there other use cases and needs we should be documenting?
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> On 2/15/21 4:59 AM, Arnaud Blanchard wrote:
> > Hi Wendy and group,
> >
> > We would like to put FLoC's performance level discussion to the agenda
> to ideally get:- More details about the test objectives (metrics;
> dimensions; etc.)
> > - More technical details about the creation of the FLoC (FLoC size; FLoC
> assignment detailed methodology)
> > - External communication clarification
> >
> > 2 sessions ago, there were many interesting points raised around
> Google's recent communication pieces about FLoC performance compared to 3rd
> cookies. In particular, the idea that FLoC would retain 95% of the
> performance brought by third party cookies seemed to draw particular
> attention from the community. Then, someone from Google Ads said that they
> would share the analysis this figure was drawn from with some details.
> > If I am not mistaken, the only publication so far consists of this brief
> explainer:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/FLoC/Floc-live-experiments.md__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!XvOmmehZgMyjVKhGm34nkcsQCs1bNI9wwJJ7XBRWxpnudRdfmuDRQpsBnuj23Qyki01MGoU$
> . It does bring some clarifications, such as the fact that the experiment
> concerned a very narrow use case ('audience targeting' based on Google
> taxonomy), with some others explicitly out of scope (remarketing, others
> vendors taxonomies).
> >
> > However, despite Google's reassurance that the AB test was conducted in
> the best conditions, and with sound analytical methodology - which we have
> no reason to doubt - we still miss a lot of details that would allow
> everyone to understand how FLoC would impact their products (flock sizes,
> proprietary taxonomy impact, etc).
> >
> > Stating that 95% of the performance is preserved without stating the
> particular use case it was measured against implies that Google Chrome's
> FLoC will be considered as good as long as it allows emulation of Google
> Ads proprietary taxonomy. I hope this is not the case, and I assume this
> was not the intention of the analysis, but that what it looks like.
> >
> > All in all, this 95% number is an overstatement that does convey a
> misleading idea to the public. In my opinion, the whole group, and the FLoC
> project itself, would seriously benefit from a broader, more detailed
> clarification.
> >
> > Thank you very much in advance,
> > Arnaud Blanchard
> >
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
> Strategy Lead and Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wendy.seltzer.org/__;!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!XvOmmehZgMyjVKhGm34nkcsQCs1bNI9wwJJ7XBRWxpnudRdfmuDRQpsBnuj23Qyk7s6N56s$
>        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 17:03:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:32:27 UTC