Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: Dana Hudes <dhudes () hudes org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:28:31 -0400 (EDT)

I can point out plenty of examples of large sites which do not
work without JavaScript.

Also don't confuse pofit with revenue.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Hendrik Visage wrote:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 12:43:51PM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa () samurai sfo dead-dog com>
To: "Dana Hudes" <dhudes () hudes org>
Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: decreased caching efficiency?

On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 10:24:27AM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:
No, you are interfering with my revenue stream by preventing 
my getting credit for the banner impression.

Tough.  Banner ads aren't a guaranteed form of revenue.

Neither is being an ISP a guarantee of revenue.

Depends on a couple of factors, but it could be a pretty decent
form of "guaranteed" revenue.

How would you feel if I said my cache at home filters banner
content out? 

I hope my JavaScript would detect this and refuse to display the photograph.

Sofar you've given us LOTS of reasons NOT to visit your site (BTW, url
to exclude from our caches ;^)

This will actually make several people turn away from your site, as
people don't always like java/javascript and have it actually turned
off, like when browsing via a Nokia 9110, lynx etc.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]