90% of visitors declined ICO website's opt-out cookie
Oh sir... it's only wafer thin... Just the one, sir...
What you need to know about cloud backup
As we know, no one is on time in implementing the EU's cookies directive. Well, two countries managed to get their laws in place in time, the other 25 didn't bother.
The UK has given everyone a year to comply, a year longer than we're supposed to have. Not fixing your website doesn't seem to be an option, given the £500,000 fines that can possibly be levied.
All of which is something of a problem. Anyone running a website knows that when someone visits that site you want to know where they're from. Not, particularly, because website masters are nosy bastards, but because the advertisers you rely upon to pay for the website want to know. No know, no cash.
But the way we know is by the cookies, and now we have to allow people to opt out from those cookies when they visit the site. There's only one site I know of which currently complies with the law: the Information Commissioner's site. Get there and you'll see this:
The ICO would like to use cookies to store information on your computer, to improve our website. One of the cookies we use is essential for parts of the site to operate and has already been set. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy notice.
I accept cookies from this site. [tickbox]
OK, so far, so bletheringly stupid, but hardly the end of the world. Which is what makes looking at it from the other side so interesting. Intrepid researcher Vicky Brock filed a FOI request and found that, umm, recorded traffic fell by 90 per cent.
At least that's what happened with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) when it implemented the new law with existing technology. Over 90 per cent of site visitors declined to accept a Google Analytics cookie, thereby disappearing from their analytics.
We all know that most websites don't collect all the information we'd like to from visitors – and the advertisers know this too. But if this is replicated across the web, then it's rather a serious kick in the teeth for the idea of an advertising-supported web.
Lord Lever pointed out that he knew that half his advertising was wasted, just not which half. Cookies and click-throughs and all that are supposed to help out in the brave new digital world. But if we're in future only going to get 10 per cent of the information we currently do: well, how much are advertisers going to want to spend on blasting ads who knows where? ®
COMMENTS
Things like Google analytics are a pain in the arse
So many times I've sat waiting for a page to load and I see my browser saying it's waiting for ssl-google-analytics.l.google.com, s.ytimg.com or ad.be.doubleclick.net. So as far as I'm concerned, they're getting in my way so I'm going to block them.
@Destroy All Monsters
I find all those advertising supporting flashy sites do a bloody good job of stopping me finding what I'm really looking for. Usually so busy trying to look pretty they either forget to put any meat on or hide it under so much flashing crap it's not findable.
That 'circa 2000' bare web has a lot going for it. Perhaps if folk stopping pissing pounds away on graphics they could afford pennies on real information. And just maybe the more useless ones will just bugger off and stop polluting the web if the cookie ban fscks up their business plan enough ;)
So....
When will El Reg begin asking me if I want Cookies and milk?
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
