I agree with your opinion, but the issue with the counts is that we only get to charge for the counts that the 3rd-party server says we've delivered. When space is tight, we can potentially end up not being able to deliver all the impressions requested, which not only costs us money, but makes us look bad with the advertisers. Also, if we're routinely seeing counting problems like this, it means that we have to reduce the number of ads we sell, to be sure we have enough space to meet the delivery levels for all our commitments, allowing for the undercounts.
Either problem can be very expensive over time. It can easily be a couple of thousand dollars/month, on the home page alone. So we continue to search... :( On 7/20/05, Peach Lynda L Contr 96 CG/SCTOA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First, I don't use "ad impressions" either but this sounds very much like > the ole "counter page" issue. > > If it turns out that CSS is reducing the clicks that is no reason to abandon > it. What they are looking for is how the "new" numbers measure up to the old > ones. > > Let's assume your new page has the same content and ads as the old one. > What's the percentage ratio difference? Simply use that on all the other > pages and that's what the count would be on the ads for those pages once > they are converted. > > Going back would be like -- oh, reverting back to mowing your grass with a > push mower just because you think the gas is too high in price for your > rider mower -- *AND* you have two acres to mow! Someone is equating the cost > of gas and not counting your time and energy. > > I would be interested to know though if CSS is actually the factor. > -- Yazmin Wickham Contractor - Internet Development http://www.yazmin.net ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
