also sprach Jerome Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net> [2016-04-12 21:08 +0200]:
> I have no knowledge of how current operations are set up, but I'm a
> little concerned that if these numbers were to be collected in a
> privacy-respectful way (eg. honoring DNT), then the numbers offered
> would not compare very favorably against other similar "investments" by
> potential sponsors.
I need to set something straight that's obviously causing confusion.
My suggestion did not involve "tracking" visitors or increasing our
visibility with SEO or what-have-you.
I merely tried to suggest to publish an awstats-like, number of
unique site visits, which can be an estimation, just as long as we
arrived at it not in unreasonable fashion.
I am specifically not trying to suggest that we change anything to
get these numbers. Just that it's a common mistake in fundraising to
sell advertising space when sponsors are looking for reach.
If we estimate (based on some real numbers) that we got roughly
20.000 unique visits throughout the period leading up to and during
DC15, then that's already more information than just saying we'll
put the logo on our website. Then the sponsor knows that we're not
talking 50.000 but also not just 5.000 and that will be incredibly
helpful to them.
Anyway, enough said. I wish I had foreseen the misunderstanding and
could have foregone the initial counter-reaction. Sorry for the
aggressive tone.
Is the above now clearer and do you think it's a good idea to
properly check our offering in the light of the aforementioned
fundraising pitfall?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf16: Cape Town: http://debconf16.debconf.org
DebConf17: Montreal: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf17
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)