North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
- From: Dana Hudes
- Date: Fri Oct 20 16:31:28 2000
I can point out plenty of examples of large sites which do not
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: "Dana Hudes" <email@example.com>
> > Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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?
> 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
> off, like when browsing via a Nokia 9110, lynx etc.