I am not 100% accurate on this, but i have always gone with 10% of people block cookies. So many sites now days require cookies, or you cant even use the site.
I block cookies on all sites. If I can't get in, I usually leave unless it is a site I really, really, really want to use. Otherwise, if I can find the info I want elsewhere, that's where I go.
Thanks guys. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I noticed that some big company blocked cookies within there network. Security reasons.
In addition to people blocking cookies, there are people who delete cookies every month or so. I have seen quite high numbers for this, but I can not remember where.
I have a huge discrepancy between the number of returning visitors as tracked by cookies and the number of people without referrers (who are presumably mostly returning visitors).
|I block cookies on all sites. If I can't get in, I usually leave unless it is a site I really, really, really want to use. |
Like this one then - since you can't use WebmasterWorld without them.
8.9% is my up to date statistic.
|Like this one then - since you can't use WebmasterWorld without them. |
Yes, there are two sites I allow cookies for; WebmasterWorld and a camera site. That's it.
I find the most common cause of cookie blocking is some of these overzealous "internet security" products which block everything and everything so they can have the longest paranoia check list for the uneducated people looking at the shiny box in the shop.
I just don't see the problem with non-3rd party cookies, and a decent web browser will allow you to block 3rd party cookies, doing so very rarely cripples functionality on any site.
I'm just sick of cookie paranoia.
|I'm just sick of cookie paranoia. |
I understand your sentiment, most cookies are harmless ... but I just don't like the idea of anyone tracking my every move. It goes against the grain. Thankfully, I still have the option to surf the internet with cookies turned off and I still have the choice to leave any site which won't allow me to view their content without inviting them to drop a cookie on my computer.
Alternatively, you don't have to let people like me see your site! Fair is fair.
When I read a book, magazine or a newspaper ... the publishers don't know who I am or where I am located. I don't feel anyone has the right to invade my privacy by leaving a cookie on my computer anymore than I think a book publisher should have the right to demand my name, address or any other personal information about me just for the priviledge of reading his book, magazine or whatever. Its none of his/her business who I am and its my choice to remain anonymous if I choose.
Democracy is a good thing ... on the web or anywhere else!
financial firms have so much info about me and my preferences.
governments also routinely track phone calls & web traffic. so, even without cookies they will know what you are up to.
if you use store cards then the shop knows oodles about you and your buying habits.
if you have a mobile phone they can track quite accurately where you are (or at least where the phone is) 24/7.
police/local authorities can track my personal movements on CCTV 24/7. They can also track my car movements automatically through number plate recognition software 24/7.
cookies are the least of my worries.
I live in the British Virgin Islands. I pay cash for everything, my car doesn't have a GPS locator and I don't know what CCTV is. I don't use or own a mobile phone and our government doesn't track phone calls or web traffic. They barely know what a computer looks like.
However, the police can usually find me if they need me. I still plan to keep my cookies option switched to the "off" position! :)
Your car doesn't need to have a GPS locator, in the UK security cameras (CCTV) are wired up to computers with number plate recognition software.
You may block your cookies, but they can still track you...
A lot of fear comes from lack of understanding, but whistling when passing through grave yard at night helps some folks. Cookies are just not that big of a problem. The hype helps to sell cleanup utilities.
|won't allow me to view their content without inviting them to drop a cookie on my computer. |
I've got a site where you must be a member to use it. Two levels, just registered, or a full paid member. Cookies are needed for the system to know that it is still you (and your membership status) as you move from page to page on the site. Interesting discussion, given people on this forum must be computer literate and yet some are still worried about temporary cookies, then the public must be very confused.
We sometimes get calls from people who can't log-on, normally because their firewall is preventing cookies (the browser is easy to help them with but firewalls they must know what to do themselves, and of course it is exactly the people who can't adjust their firewall that have the problems).
I'm now looking at alternatives for achieving the same thing, but not yet sorted it out, so cookies are still needed at the moment.
I block third-party cookies. Which means cookies set by domains that are not the domain that I requested in the address bar.
I don't think this is the default setting, though.
On a board elsewhere I reguarly see posts saying "I can't log in, it says to enable cookies". Invariably the enquirer is running something "out of the box" that blocks cookies. Usually they have no idea what the product is doing and made no attempt to configure it.
Not so many users must block cookies completly but many of them must be deleting them at least once a month
I have been following this issue for some time. I have seen statistics ranging from 5% to 45% cookie rejection and as high as 65% for cookie deletion. All this tells me is that no one really has any idea how many people don't use them.
I expect that most of the cookie rejection is due to off the shelf security apps which probably represents a fairly random sample of internet users and shouldn't skew data too much. Some turn off cookies for PII concerns, or they simply don't trust the data miners (which is fine). Anecdotally, these folks seem to be less likely to do business online in the first place, so the businesses who should be trying to connect with these people are the multi-channel retailers and big brands.
Why not use a "session cookie" the web site is happy and the cookie is deleted when you exit the browser. Right?