NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Re: New Ad Model: LESS Accountability
ONLINE-ADS>> Re: New Ad Model: LESS Accountability
Mark J. Welch, Esq. (markwelch_at_ca-probate.com)
Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:30:08 -0700
I would caution against the conclusions listed here. If AOL caches
a site, then only very few impressions will be recorded. If I only
get 1 impression per hour from AOL, I have no way of knowing whether
one AOL user or 50 saw my page -- since AOL's cache automatically
prevents subsequent requests from coming to my site.
My statistics are similar to those reported (see
http://www.ca-probate.com/stats.htm to see the breakdown of traffic by
domains), but I have no way of knowing whether caching is artificially
reducing the number of impressions I am seeing. The problem is that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to know how caching affects server loads, since the practice of
caching HIDES the traffic completely from the cached site.
At 11:26 AM 10/11/96 EDT, Steve Roth wrote:
>Three to six percent of our visits (not hits--a visit for us is multiple
>hits within an hour of each other from the same source) are from AOL.
>Since we get only a few hundred visits a month from AOL, I assume caching
>is minimal or nonexistent for us.
Others wrote:
>>RK> On the DoubleClick Network which comprises over 50 sites and about 40
>>RK> million page views per month (ad banner impressions), no more than
>>RK> about 10% of our overall traffic is generated by AOL, Prodigy and
>>RK> Compuserve *combined*.
>>
>> I subscribe to *many* e-lists, get lots of mail and see very few
>> AOL domains - much less Prodigy or CS. 10% is high IMV.
-- Mark J. Welch, Attorney at Law, Pleasanton CA
-- http://www.ca-probate.com 510-462-8483
-- Email is not legal advice, and is not confidential.
