Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
>(The default setting on IE6 is going to be) hard on publishers. I checked one of my pages that serves a rotating mix of Engage, CJ, and ClickXchange banners and buttons and the default-level security setting launched an alert box that would scare JohnQ.
>Leave your cookie security setting at the default and try not to kill the alert box forever via the "Don't show this again" checkbox when it pops up. It appears banners are triggering it bigtime.
Anyone watching the cookie blocking (click icon down in the lower bar, red circle with minus-sign)? I see engage and other ad server cookies being blocked.
So, when IE6 becomes the most widely used browser, what will advertisers and publishers use? It sounds like cookie duration could end up meaning very little, as well as targetting, etc for bannerbrokers.
Just to clarify for others that may be reading this, the banners themselves are not being blocked -just the cookies. This means that credit for impressions, clicks, sales generated, etc. may not be attributed to the publisher. I.E., no money.
It appears that the ad networks can get their certification in order and have their banners accepted... for instance, Burstnet banners do not seem be having their cookies blocked.
The idea is to allow the consumer to control the cookies on their own machine. Isn't that a radical idea?
Since I run a click-counting service, in time this will change how I operate. This is not a 'Microsoft' issue. It has been discussed for over a year. It is part of a larger set of issues that are seeking to curb eCommerce abuses.
The spammers and those guys that wanted to invade your privacy and track every site you visited are the cause for this cookie option.
Cyril, couldn't you simply add the P3P 'certification' and continue tracking as-is?
For example, suppose Alice creates an account at Spend.com, which contains a Web bug to Bug.com. During this process she enters her e-mail address email@example.com. The Spend.com Web site could use a Web bug to transmit her address to Bug.com without Alice's knowledge.
This bug now has attached this user's computer (with a cookie) to her email address, and knows where and when the person with that email address surfs. As cyril_kearney pointed out, this kind of thing is the real reason for this whole cookie blocking situation. (Not that all web beacons are used this way.)
>I empty my Temporary Internet Files and Cache
Do you also delete cookies?
Yes I do. Granted, I always have to re-enter my user name and password on those few sites I log in to - this for one, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. What gets me is why some cookies don't expire until 2030 or more. Who keeps a computer that long? And as for entering Email addresses, I have a slight advantage. I have unlimited Email accounts and open a specific one for each specific purpose so if I start getting Spam, not only do I know where it originated, I can shut down the account without affecting anything important.
If you open your html email and one is present it might pass along the fact that you opened the email.
So somewhere in the email there will be an IMG statement for a 1x1 gif called something like viewed123.gif.
But lets go a little further if a banner is on the page and the banner is called, the viewed.gif is not necessary. The banner being served tells them you opened the email.
In a positive way an email advertiser can use this viewing information to prune his list. Those that don't open them for some period of time can be dropped from the email list.
Remember the guys selling stuff for Y2K. They did it by creating a 'clear and present' danger. Witch-hunting 1x1 gifs, in my opinion is much the same.