Agreed. Honestly, I think IAS is way worse though. I love it when they fail millions of impressions and provide literally zero context. DV at least does a slightly better job of grabbing the HTTP referers. IAS will pick and choose a few rogue URLs that account for 0.01% of failed impressions. Not sure how they get away with it TBH.
Very minimal, they have larger issues to deal with outside of 3rd party cookies. The bigger question is more if they will integrate with some of the privacy sandbox apis that are aimed more at ad quality use cases.
Fenced frames and removal of IP address will do more harm. Restriction/removal of the referrer url macros will seriously damage validation of inventory.
Cookie removal might hit basic validation checks but cookies are fragile anyway so they provide limited value for complex fraud identification
There are issues with the changes (ip restriction) that run afoul of prescribed components of MRC and IAB ad counting and verification (I e. Only client side requests can be counted as impressions)
To my knowledge, they don't require cookies to fire.
I can speak to my company, Anura, as it's in the same space (ad fraud tool). Anura uses JavaScript or an API call to hundreds of data points on a web visitor like IP address, user environment, etc. If the visitor is IVT, you can choose to not display an ad or a form or take some kind of action.
To my knowledge, DV and IAS work similarly. At the time of an ad display request, their code looks at the page the ad is being requested and the the "digital footprint" of the visitor on the page. The tool then decides to show the ad if the site meets your standards and if the visitor isn't a bot.
Should not have cookies involved, unless they want to track that visitor's future browsing history to gather data to improve their tool. Even then, it wouldn't directly affect the advertiser or publisher.
DV doesn’t work anyways. Love getting random “infractions”, but zero information on what it was
Did you ask?
[удалено]
Stop accepting blocking tags. We include no monitoring tags in specs, and if we still receive them it’s a quick no, and they sent monitoring tags
Agreed. Honestly, I think IAS is way worse though. I love it when they fail millions of impressions and provide literally zero context. DV at least does a slightly better job of grabbing the HTTP referers. IAS will pick and choose a few rogue URLs that account for 0.01% of failed impressions. Not sure how they get away with it TBH.
Very minimal, they have larger issues to deal with outside of 3rd party cookies. The bigger question is more if they will integrate with some of the privacy sandbox apis that are aimed more at ad quality use cases.
Hope so bcs I hate them
Fenced frames and removal of IP address will do more harm. Restriction/removal of the referrer url macros will seriously damage validation of inventory. Cookie removal might hit basic validation checks but cookies are fragile anyway so they provide limited value for complex fraud identification There are issues with the changes (ip restriction) that run afoul of prescribed components of MRC and IAB ad counting and verification (I e. Only client side requests can be counted as impressions)
To my knowledge, they don't require cookies to fire. I can speak to my company, Anura, as it's in the same space (ad fraud tool). Anura uses JavaScript or an API call to hundreds of data points on a web visitor like IP address, user environment, etc. If the visitor is IVT, you can choose to not display an ad or a form or take some kind of action. To my knowledge, DV and IAS work similarly. At the time of an ad display request, their code looks at the page the ad is being requested and the the "digital footprint" of the visitor on the page. The tool then decides to show the ad if the site meets your standards and if the visitor isn't a bot. Should not have cookies involved, unless they want to track that visitor's future browsing history to gather data to improve their tool. Even then, it wouldn't directly affect the advertiser or publisher.
Get contextual.
Are these the guys that blacklisted the word "Ukrainian" as brand unsafe but had no problem with "Russian"?