North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
At 09:44 10/20/00 -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:
I vehemently disagree with the statement that impressions do not make any sense,I think the point being raised was that that business model is, by definition, based on a flawed assumption.
I pay my ISP to carry IP packets around. Caching is acceptable in some casesAnd browsers implementing caches in memory or disk are also causing copyright violation. Yet for the most part browser caches are considered a Good Thing.
In general I do not want people to have my photos stored in their browser cache (much less permanently saved).And that saves practically nothing, given that they're very small files. Your choice, of course.
When I switch to CGI-based delivery of images the cache will of course become pass-throughIs the assumption there that by using CGI you'll automatically tweak a configuration in a caching proxy? If so then it's a flawed assumption.
Having had a very quick look at your site, it seems a little strange that you want to defeat caching of those objects that soak up bandwidth; the request to perform "click-through" on the advert suggests that you're using the revenue to pay for your bandwidth costs. (So, one assumes that the more the material was cached, the less you'd have to pay, and the less you'd have to worry about page impressions.) I particularly like the way that you require my browser to send a Referer field to be allowed to view the pictures ;-)
Nice photos though...