<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Dynamic Digital Media</title>
	<link>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 04:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>Comment on PHP: Sessions vs Cookies by Dustin Czysz</title>
		<link>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/php-sessions-vs-cookies/#comment-615</link>
		<author>Dustin Czysz</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/php-sessions-vs-cookies/#comment-615</guid>
					<description>Nile, you are absolutely correct, using GET is easily hacked. There are other more complex options you could use. For example, you could store certain information about each client in a temporary location on the server (like their IP and login) and then check against that for each subsequent page. However, this would also be prone to security and performance issues. As with all security, on and off the web, the best method is to have multiple lines of defense.

In any event, with the standard being that cookies typically &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt;  enabled you can simply deny access to visitors who don't accept cookies with a polite message like "To view this site you must first enable cookies in your browser". Then give some instruction on enabling them. That being said, always code to accommodate your target market and the technology they are actually using.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nile, you are absolutely correct, using GET is easily hacked. There are other more complex options you could use. For example, you could store certain information about each client in a temporary location on the server (like their IP and login) and then check against that for each subsequent page. However, this would also be prone to security and performance issues. As with all security, on and off the web, the best method is to have multiple lines of defense.</p>
<p>In any event, with the standard being that cookies typically <em>are</em>  enabled you can simply deny access to visitors who don&#8217;t accept cookies with a polite message like &#8220;To view this site you must first enable cookies in your browser&#8221;. Then give some instruction on enabling them. That being said, always code to accommodate your target market and the technology they are actually using.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on PHP: Sessions vs Cookies by Nile</title>
		<link>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/php-sessions-vs-cookies/#comment-614</link>
		<author>Nile</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/php-sessions-vs-cookies/#comment-614</guid>
					<description>Well is there a more secure method then using get?
get is a pretty un-secure function and easy to hack.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well is there a more secure method then using get?<br />
get is a pretty un-secure function and easy to hack.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Comparing Google Analytics to Server Logs by Dustin Czysz</title>
		<link>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/comparing-google-analytics-to-server-logs/#comment-281</link>
		<author>Dustin Czysz</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/comparing-google-analytics-to-server-logs/#comment-281</guid>
					<description>Neil,

Your experience is unfortunately typical. I can't say for sure which numbers are being used in marketing, but my guess would be the 'inflated' numbers. Bigger is better, as they say. 

In my opinion, honesty is the best policy - it may take a little extra explanation, but the relationships you build with your customers will be stronger for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neil,</p>
<p>Your experience is unfortunately typical. I can&#8217;t say for sure which numbers are being used in marketing, but my guess would be the &#8216;inflated&#8217; numbers. Bigger is better, as they say. </p>
<p>In my opinion, honesty is the best policy - it may take a little extra explanation, but the relationships you build with your customers will be stronger for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Comparing Google Analytics to Server Logs by Neil O'Rourke</title>
		<link>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/comparing-google-analytics-to-server-logs/#comment-280</link>
		<author>Neil O'Rourke</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dynamicdigitalmedia.net/comparing-google-analytics-to-server-logs/#comment-280</guid>
					<description>I switched over to google analytics from using the Urchin tool to analyse our server logs and the number of visitors seemed to plummet from 900 to 100 per day. We have been asked by a subscriber to our service for the number of visitors to our site and will clearly have to quote the lower figure. Do you know whether websites generally quote the unfiltered figures to their clients in their marketing? I wonder if  honestly puts us at a competitive disadvantage!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I switched over to google analytics from using the Urchin tool to analyse our server logs and the number of visitors seemed to plummet from 900 to 100 per day. We have been asked by a subscriber to our service for the number of visitors to our site and will clearly have to quote the lower figure. Do you know whether websites generally quote the unfiltered figures to their clients in their marketing? I wonder if  honestly puts us at a competitive disadvantage!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
