[31801] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dana Hudes)
Fri Oct 20 16:30:38 2000
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dana Hudes <dhudes@hudes.org>
To: Hendrik Visage <hvisage@is.co.za>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20001020211126.P14081@hermwas.is.co.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010201627370.16560-100000@advsol4.dsl.concentric.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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.
>
> Hendrik
>
