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."

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.

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.

Not a surprise

[Kelson]

...though it may be to some people.

Anonymous user stats are always going to be an estimate. Cookies aren't reliable, because people clear them. IP addresses aren't reliable, because some are dynamically generated, some are shared, and people move around.

You can only really know how many users you have if (a) they're registered and (b) they visit the site while logged in. (And even then, people could be sharing accounts -- bugmenot, anyone?)

Personally, I don't think this is a problem, as long as you're willing to look at the estimates for what they are and not treat them as if they were precise.

Hmm... how long before someone claims that Firefox's/Opera's/Safari's stats are inflated because they make it easier to wipe cookies than IE?

Visitors vs. Unique Visitors..anyone?

[madsheep]

But every time you delete cookies, many of the sites you've visited count you as a new visitor next time.

Yea in like 1999 this was true. Don't most websites that actually care about traffic or try to reasonably measure it go off of UNIQUE VISITORS? I think the most basic of webstats programs for 5+ years now know and show the difference. What exactly is the point of all this? Who realistically tracks their users and bases their counts off of cookies? This is absurd. IP address has been the standard for quite some time now.

Umm... So?

[pla]

But every time you delete cookies, many of the sites you've visited count you as a new visitor next time.

I have Firefox clear my cookies on browser close... So I look like a new visitor every time I visit a site.

Perhaps someone would explain to me why I should care about this? The only use I can see for unique visitor counts (other than the trivia value) involves ad revenue - And I aggressively block almost all adverts, so don't care about that, either.

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.

Re:150%?

[Sparr0]

No, it's just bad math and/or horrible reporting. The article states that 31% of visitors deleted their cookie. That means the increase in reported traffic might be (31%/69%)=45%. They probably meant an increase *OF* 50%, which is an increase *TO* 150%.

Re:Sometimes that's for traffic, though.

[jandrese]

See, I disagree there. This means a lot of the valuable information is locked up in a forum that people may well not find because it doesn't show up very highly in Google. The public may be better served by abandoning the guy on a shoestring budget and posting in forums that get indexed by search engines.

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.

Yeah, we know

[smooth wombat]

As the article from 2005 that I linked to in a comment from yesterday [slashdot.org], advertisers are going apeshit over people like me who delete cookies and skew their traffic results.

Oh boo hoo, cry me a river. Produce something people want and they'll come back time and again and you won't have to worry about your traffic.

Re:150%?

[pla]

I don't do it because it is a pain to constantly log back in everywhere.

As someone who has cookies automatically deleted when I close my browser...

You don't actually need to log in to every site you visit - Only if you want to buy or post something, in general (in fact, I prefer they can't track me while "just looking").

And not only do I get a somewhat increased level of privacy, I get massively increased security as well - Someone needs to actually know my passwords, not just sit at my computer, to use one of my accounts.

Why would I care?

[rbowen]

I simply don't care, and can't fathom why I should care. It is not, never has been, and never will be my responsibility to ensure the accuracy of statistical reports on sites that I visit. What data is stored on my personal computer is my business, and nobody else's. Is there seriously anybody who thinks that this is actual news? Are there seriously people who are able to get funding for such intuitively obvious research? Where do I get my cut?

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:Not users fault

[prockcore]

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.

I'm fully aware of the tracking techniques used.. and I don't delete my cookies. I'm an anonymous number to them.

I bet you go shopping in a ski mask too, because every store video tapes you.