3 ms·

I'm not sure what this blog is complaining about. >Problem one: Over-rating search, social, and app store ads Isn't this a problem with today's ad attribution

by gruez 5mo ago

I'm not sure what this blog is complaining about. >Problem one: Over-rating search, social, and app store ads Isn't this a problem with today's ad attribution system? The author doesn't try to argue how the new system makes it worse. >Problem two: Incentives for extra tracking Same as above. It sounds like he's against attribution in general, which is an okay position to have, but I'd rather he say this upfront and more directly rather than spending 1k+ words on what essentially can be boiled down to "I hate Attribution Level 1 because it's attribution, and attribution is bad in general", and implying the issues he has are issues with Attribution Level 1 specifically.

Ajedi32 5mo ago
Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. Still, the author has some interesting points I hadn't considered before. I guess from the advertiser's perspective this standard could be a concern, because the loss of cookie-based tracking might make it harder for them to develop alternative attribution tracking methods that don't have the same data quality problems.
- akersten 5mo ago
  > Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. The mistake is assuming this replaces anything instead of becoming just one more piece of the tracking puzzle. Even if it did "replace" cookies or whatever, it's strictly worse than "before" because it's giving advertising a front seat in the browser. My browser should be doing precisely nothing to help you attribute your ad impressions or whatever. But now Mozilla et al have to waste their time maintaining and augmenting this opaque piece of mathematical faff.
  - Ajedi32 5mo ago
    This is a debate I've seen many times now on HN. I sympathize with what you're saying, but the flip side is that many users seem to prefer a free ad-supported funding model over a paid, ad-free model. If a site is going to be serving me ads anyway, then all else being equal I'd rather them make as much money off each impression as possible to incentivize them to keep providing me with free services. The privacy and resource cost of a user's browser sending anonymized attribution statistics is very minimal.
    - nemomarx 5mo ago
      Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? If not you aren't really working towards them paying a lot for ads, right?
      - gruez 5mo ago
        >Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? Nobody "wants" ads, but they do want the free content they get today, which are funded by ads.
        curtisblaine 5mo ago
        Nobody asked for free content. It was pushed on us so they could track us. Before the Internet, you normally paid for what you consumed (at least, more than now. And before that even more).
        cm2012 5mo ago
        Newspapers, network tv, etc has been subsidized by ads for 100 years+
        curtisblaine 5mo ago
        And for the most part of this time period they weren't free.
      - Ajedi32 5mo ago
        Maybe? Depends on what the ads are for. Obviously I'm not going to buy something I don't actually want just to support the site I'm on, but I have no particular objection to buying something I discovered through an ad if it's something I would buy anyway if I discovered it organically.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
- devmor 5mo ago
  > Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. Why can't it?
  - Ajedi32 5mo ago
    Because as GP alluded to, the thing it's replacing (cookies) already does exactly the same thing but isn't anonymized.
    - troupo 5mo ago
      > the thing it's replacing (cookies) already does exactly the same thing but isn't anonymized. No idea what it's replacing. Cookies is a red herring. Tracking involves more than just cookies.
    - devmor 5mo ago
      It’s not replacing cookies, though. It’s adding an additional feature that provides information to advertisers that they currently use cookies as one part of, with different considerations.
crowcroft 5mo ago
The issue is that problem one is real, but not in a way that's beneficial to other advertising products. Search, social and app store ads are over rated in that a lot of brands should probably decrease their investment, but things like programmatic display ads are absolutely not under rated. The correct number of dollars that should be spent on those placements is close to zero.

by gruez 5mo ago

Ajedi32 5mo ago

Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. Still, the author has some interesting points I hadn't considered before. I guess from the advertiser's perspective this standard could be a concern, because the loss of cookie-based tracking might make it harder for them to develop alternative attribution tracking methods that don't have the same data quality problems.

akersten 5mo ago
> Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. The mistake is assuming this replaces anything instead of becoming just one more piece of the tracking puzzle. Even if it did "replace" cookies or whatever, it's strictly worse than "before" because it's giving advertising a front seat in the browser. My browser should be doing precisely nothing to help you attribute your ad impressions or whatever. But now Mozilla et al have to waste their time maintaining and augmenting this opaque piece of mathematical faff.
- Ajedi32 5mo ago
  This is a debate I've seen many times now on HN. I sympathize with what you're saying, but the flip side is that many users seem to prefer a free ad-supported funding model over a paid, ad-free model. If a site is going to be serving me ads anyway, then all else being equal I'd rather them make as much money off each impression as possible to incentivize them to keep providing me with free services. The privacy and resource cost of a user's browser sending anonymized attribution statistics is very minimal.
  - nemomarx 5mo ago
    Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? If not you aren't really working towards them paying a lot for ads, right?
    - gruez 5mo ago
      >Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? Nobody "wants" ads, but they do want the free content they get today, which are funded by ads.
      - curtisblaine 5mo ago
        Nobody asked for free content. It was pushed on us so they could track us. Before the Internet, you normally paid for what you consumed (at least, more than now. And before that even more).
        cm2012 5mo ago
        Newspapers, network tv, etc has been subsidized by ads for 100 years+
        curtisblaine 5mo ago
        And for the most part of this time period they weren't free.
    - Ajedi32 5mo ago
      Maybe? Depends on what the ads are for. Obviously I'm not going to buy something I don't actually want just to support the site I'm on, but I have no particular objection to buying something I discovered through an ad if it's something I would buy anyway if I discovered it organically.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
devmor 5mo ago
> Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. Why can't it?
- Ajedi32 5mo ago
  Because as GP alluded to, the thing it's replacing (cookies) already does exactly the same thing but isn't anonymized.
  - troupo 5mo ago
    > the thing it's replacing (cookies) already does exactly the same thing but isn't anonymized. No idea what it's replacing. Cookies is a red herring. Tracking involves more than just cookies.
  - devmor 5mo ago
    It’s not replacing cookies, though. It’s adding an additional feature that provides information to advertisers that they currently use cookies as one part of, with different considerations.

crowcroft 5mo ago

The issue is that problem one is real, but not in a way that's beneficial to other advertising products. Search, social and app store ads are over rated in that a lot of brands should probably decrease their investment, but things like programmatic display ads are absolutely not under rated. The correct number of dollars that should be spent on those placements is close to zero.