Delete Cookies, Inflate Net Traffic Estimates

eldavojohn writes "In my browser, I regularly go to the tools menu and clear my private data. This includes my cookies. As a result, people like me who destroy cookies by the thousands may be inflating estimates of Web traffic by up to 150 percent. People have good reasons for clearing out cookies — we've heard about bad cookies before (and I think the FCC is still investigating the issue). But every time you delete cookies, many of the sites you've visited count you as a new visitor next time."

Comments

No surprise

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I hadn't thought about counting it this way until this article appeared but, now that it's said, I'm not surprised. It doesn't matter what the consumer does. The business analysts will always find a way to spin it for their profit. Initially the business analysts thought that this would be a perfect way to track all of the visitors. When some of the visitors decided they didn't want to be tracked then the business analysts decided that, well, maybe tracking them (in that particularly way) wasn't the important metric for the shareholders to see. The more important number, obviously, is how many discrete visitors they have.

Brilliant.

So what?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

If the primary concern is for unique visitor tallies for traffic-based advertising, wouldn't web sites be affected (mostly) across the board? If all web traffic is artificially inflated close to the same amount, then this becomes a non-issue.

Re:So what?

[Red Flayer]

If all web traffic is artificially inflated close to the same amount, then this becomes a non-issue.

True. But I'm certain some websites have a higher proportion of visitors with cookies disabled... slashdot, for example. The trick, then, in order to make discrete visitor metrics truly useful (from a marketing standpoint) is to normalize for cookies-disabled visitors. Some factors that would have to be considered are how many cookies-disabled visitors access your site, and whether disabled visitors exhibit the same repeat visit habits as enabled visitors.

This is why there is research out there to use methods other than cookies and IP addresses to identify users -- see this article from last September.

I'm sure this concept can get some VC if companies begin distrusting current traffic anlayses -- it would be a useful adjunct to traditional traffic monitoring.

150%?

[catbutt]

That assumes an awful lot of people do that.

I don't do it because it is a pain to constantly log back in everywhere. But I seriously doubt more than 2% of the non-slashdot crowd does it.

Re:150%?

[Beetle B.]

Use the CookieSafe extension. It'll let you easily:

1. Whitelist sites whose cookies you want to keep.
2. Blacklist cookies from some sites (doubleclick, anyone?).
3. Set most other cookies to be killed after you exit FF.

I know Firefox lets you do that anyway, but the difference is that Cookiesafe lets you do it easily.

FTC, not FCC

[Eric Smith]

The FCC has little reason to investigate cookies.

Re:FTC, not FCC

[Aladrin]

That's funny, maybe you should tell them...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/15/16 22251

Re:FTC, not FCC

[Flunitrazepam]

Obviously you didn't see the sesame street where Cookie Monster called Big Bird a "nappy headed ho"

Re:FTC, not FCC

[Fozzyuw]

Obviously you didn't see the sesame street where Cookie Monster called Big Bird a "nappy headed ho"

The worst part is that they didn't fire Cookie Monster him until the letter Q and the number 4 pulled their sponsorship. Of course, I think he didn't need to go on Bert and Ernie's talk radio program either because they're hypocrites themselves.

Re:150%? Please

[w3woody]

There are also other ways of tracking people like IP addresses possibly in combination with browser UA string.

Unless you're on a corporate network behind a NAT with a standard-issue OS install with a standardized browser.

What I do in my computer is my business

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I delete cookies, permit them, leave them on, it is all my business. I am under no obligation to provide web site operators reliable count of how many uniqie visitors they get. They should stop complaining and develop better ways to count unique visitors. If they cant, it is still not my problem.

Re:What I do in my computer is my business

[catbutt]

While I mostly agree with your sentiments (I don't think anyone said it was your obligation) --- to be the devil's advocate: if they can't make money and shut down their site, it does become your problem.

CookieSafe is my current favourite

[KenAndCorey]

Cookiesafe allows me to keep my permanent cookies to a minimum, yet allow me all the functionality of session cookies. Of course, it does inflate the stats as the article mentions. In my previous job I worked with stats quite a bit (using WebSideStory/Hitbox), and it is such an inexact science that it ranks right up there with Lies and Damn Lies.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/249 7

Anyone have other suggested software they prefer?

Re:On the other hand...

[dattaway]

and be sure to set your browser to "googlebot"

That way no one has visited but another web spider!

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just forward all my cookies on to Santa - I get good presents

Every time you delete cookies...

[chinard]

...god kills a kitten!

Re:Every time you delete cookies...

[DreamerFi]

Approximately 70,000 dogs and cats are born in the U.S. each day, or 25,567,500 each year. Of these, roughly 54%, or 13,806,450, are cats. Since 34.5% of cats don't live to see their first birthday, we can assume that about 4,763,225 kittens die each year in the United States alone. We'll take for granted that God in His divine Wisdom purposely smote each of these kittens.

Let's assume that the idiom is talking only about male masturbation. Let's further assume, highly conservatively, that males do not start masturbating until they reach age 15. Of the total U.S. male population, 107,199,356 would then be masturbation-age males. Again, let's conservatively estimate that teenagers masturbate no more frequently than adults, and that all men masturbate an average of 20 times each month or 240 times per year. This means that each man in the United States masturbates approximately every 1.5 days. It also means that there are approximately 25,727,845,440 male masturbation sessions in the United States each year.

There are nearly 26 billion male masturbation sessions in the U.S., yet there are fewer than five million kitten deaths annually. Far from a one-to-one correlation, there are 5401.5 masturbation sessions for every single kitten death. This means that the average American man can masturbate regularly for 22.5 years before he is responsible for the death of a single kitten. Indeed, with a life expectancy of less than 75 years, the average man will be responsible for only two or three kitten deaths in a lifetime of vigorous masturbation.

That's nothing, think of people use muliple PC's

[Xenna]

I use a PC at work.
And another one at home, well even two sometimes.
And a smart phone equipped with a browser.

So I inflate web usage statistics with 100 to 300%?

And then there are people sharing the same PC/account deflating the stats...

All of us who host websites know how unreliable statistics are. Nothing new there...

X.

Re:On the other hand...

[Goldenhawk]

Hmmm. I wonder if this inflates the apparent popularity of Firefox (not that I consider that a bad thing, mind you).

After all,

1) it's geeks who tend to both use FF *and* block cookies
2) the FF extension architecture makes it easy to use selective cookie blocking tools
3) FF settings allow automatic cookie deletion each time it exits, unlike IE (=IE6, at least)

All in all, I suspect that (*IF* the subject article is accurate) FF users probably account for a disproportionately large chunk of those "re-visits".

I bet M$FT hates that.

Re:Not users fault

[causality]

It's not the fault of the person who deletes the cookie.

What you say there is absolutely correct, but it begs the question: How would it ever be the fault of the user in any possible case? I have a newsflash for the advertisers -- you do not have a God-given inalienable right to store data on my computer. It's mine, I paid for it, and I will selectively accept or freely remove any data that you attempt to place on it, for any reason or for no reason at all. The world does not owe anyone a reliable way to track the Web surfing of others.

This and DRM are two categories where marketers act like my personal property is theirs to do with as they please, and I'm sick of the way the average "consumer" puts up with this concept or anything resembling it.

Any Web site owner who doesn't like this can feel free to block me from their Web site; since it is theirs after all, I certainly do not dispute their right to do that (they would do so to find that I can live quite well without them). But please, let's dispose of this idea that some marketer not being able to track me is somehow my fault or my problem.

I say that if your business model relies on the ability to effectively spy on people, often without their knowledge or consent, then your business model is flawed and any difficulties you encounter are well-earned. I further say that the current situation exists only because of widespread ignorance; that is, if every single person who ever went online were a thoroughly educated uber-geek and fully aware of all tracking techniques used, then no one or practically no one would ever allow any of it and the marketers would have to come up with a more reasonable way to make money.

Re:On the other hand...

[xENoLocO]

On one hand, your post is intriguing and thought provoking.

On the other hand, this is slashdot and that kind of behavior is not allowed here. We demand you say something funny.

Oh boy...

[Seoulstriker]

Dear Anonymous Coward,

So, you're the little bastard who keeps forwarding me that crap.

This year... no presents for you!!!

Sincerely,
Santa H. Claus
santa@northpole.net