[Pet_Ant]

> even if you just want to calculate retention or unique visitors.

Why is it so hard to for people to understand that I just want you to serve me the page and bugger off? It's like justifying embedding GPS tracking in pamphlets that people hand out on the street.

I don't want to be tracked period.

Is it that hard?

[ploum]

Exactly. Is it your business to track people?

There’s 90% chance that no, it’s not your business. There’s also a lot of chances that your website is about a product. In which case, it doesn’t make sense to know how many people come and read. People only need the information to know "will I buy that or not?" or, even more frequently "I’ve bought that but I don’t understand something".

Tracking is counterproductive in most scenarios. (but very few understand that)

[YetAnotherNick]

Europe's parliament website[1] uses cookie banner, even though its job is literally to just show information. If they want to track visitors any non trivial site would.

[1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en

[ploum]

Which demonstrates exactly my point: web dev are now incapable of not tracking users even if it’s actually harming their business.

I had an experience with a national meteo application including facebook trackers. I complained and they replied that they were totally unaware of that fact. The tracking was added by default by the contractor as part of his standard template. (note: they removed the tracking after my complain).

But it is also about people in charge, who are completely addicts to statistics about the number of visitors and all information. People like to track others. They actually want that.

The sad part is that nobody in IT really complain nor tell them that it is creepy. We install blockers on our own computers and get over it, writing code that track those without blockers without batting an eye.

[starbugs]

> The sad part is that nobody in IT really complain nor tell them that it is creepy.

Which may be because if you do, you will typically be called the "technical person" who "doesn't understand anything about 'normal' users" and you should be more focused on your actual technical tasks.

Sorry for being cynical. I couldn't resist.

[viraptor]

You don't need cookies for it, but it very much makes a difference how many people come and read. Optimising the visitor-to-buyer pipeline is an important job for retail. To even begin doing that, you need to know what percentage of visitors bought something.

[carlosjobim]

> you need to know what percentage of visitors bought something.

Why? What will you improve by knowing that, and why couldn't you improve that without knowing it?

[starbugs]

Your opinion is comprehensible from a user's standpoint.

Once you have worked a while in business or marketing, you will see that it's not that easy unfortunately.

There's a lot of pressure to provide certain numbers or at least to collect them "just to be sure". Typically this requirement comes without any willingness to invest money, because "you can just install Google Analytics for free".

I don't want to justify this at all, because I believe in the long run these numbers aren't worth what people claim they are worth at all. I just wanted to explain that not everyone is "bad" or "anti-social" for complying with "leadership" decisions and installing a CMP and Google Analytics.

[pavas]

> Once you have worked a while in business or marketing, you will see that it's not that easy unfortunately

Nobody is forcing anybody to do this, this is a personal and business decision to make more money at the expense of users' well-being. When you're surrounded by lots of people that think a certain way, you start to see it as acceptable and even good.

Though I know lots of people that disagree, I personally don't think it's justifiable. If someone finds it justifiable, they should take responsibility for it.

[starbugs]

> Nobody is forcing anybody to do this

Depends on how you define "force".

My experience is that the source of all this is the fear of having a substantial disadvantage against the competition and having to defend your decision of sustaining such a perceived disadvantage against the CEO/board. Understandable from my point of view, even though I don't like the outcome. This then usually trickles down the hierarchy in companies and, yes, someone will somehow implement it to earn their living. I'd define the implication of losing your livelihood as a consequence of not doing what you are told as force, but that is open to opinion I guess.

An anecdote that might be worth mentioning in this context:

I was once told by some CEO that they didn't hire a really qualified person, because that person had enough money to not be dependent on the job. This is, in my experience, an appropriate reflection of the role of money in controlling people's decisions. It's essential that you are dependent so that you can be forced to comply or risk losing your livelihood.