xf_from_search cookie

[Alvin63]

Trying to finalise my cookie banner. There are two optional XF cookies listed

xf_emoji_usage
xf_from_search

These are described as giving "enhanced functionality". What do they actually do? xf_from_search sounds more like it is an anlytical tool for admin, than enhancing functionality for the user.

Then in the advanced cookie banner pop-up, the description for optional cookies says "We deliver enhanced functionality for your browsing experience by setting these cookies. If you reject them, enhanced functionality will be unavailable."

Again it is talking about enhanced functionality. Now if the user decides to reject optional cookies, this also rejects third party cookies, including youtube. So they then end up with a banner to click asking them to accept third party cookies to watch the content (instead of the video).

I would like to avoid that happening, by making clear that third party cookies are also optional cookies and include the ability to view embedded youtube videos - so it is less likely they will just click "reject optional cookies".

Now I know I can edit the phrase to say that. But if it also says the xf optional cookies are for enhanced functionality - in what way does it give enhanced functionality for the user (as opposed to the admin)? And what would they be missing if they rejected optional cookies?

And would I be correct in saying that the xf optional cookies provide "enhanced functionality and site analytics"? Because presumably xf_from_search cookie does provide site analytics?

Thank you.

 

[ENF]

Trying to finalise my cookie banner. There are two optional XF cookies listed

xf_emoji_usage
xf_from_search

Refer to your own cookie page and read the description.

For the search one, refer to this post here for some further detail.

 

[Alvin63]

Thank you for linking that page. So what have you done about it in your cookie banner? If it suggests content then I guess that could be called user enhancement (although not sure why it makes a difference whether they came from a search engine or not). But then might also come under the umbrella of suggesting content to users under the online safety act criteria Which I thought the site didn't do.

Anyway - what difference would it make to a user if they rejected those two optional cookies please? Would anything stop working? And what is the benefit to admin to have those optional cookies accepted? And if they just accepted third party cookies but not optional cookies (currently I only have youtube as third party cookies).

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I have a habit myself of rejecting optional cookies on sites - unless I know I really need them.

And if people aren't going to bother to clink on the link to customise choices, then there should be three buttons

Accept all cookies
Reject optional cookies
Reject third party cookies (having already explained that third party cookies are for youtube functionality).

 

[ENF]

what difference would it make to a user if they rejected those two optional cookies please?

Well, as it states in the description, the site won't retain certain histories for things like recent emoji usage.

eg. keeping the commonly used emoji at the top of the list, like so:



The search one, I think it really has to do if a user lands on the site from a search engine.
I'm not entirely sure how that's put into real-world usage, except that things can be highlighted from searches, IIRC.

Are they going to break the experience? No.

I personally could care less about cookies, there's nothing I'm doing that's worth tracking.
I only care that the site does what it's supposed to when I expect something to work for convenience and overall ease of use.

 

[Alvin63]

Thank you. That makes sense with the emojis. I don't care about them really (depending on the site), but I know some of my users are old school!

So I get why the emoji cookie enhances the experience. And I guess I can accept both enhance experience. It would be nice to know if xf_from_search is actually any kind of analytical cookie for admin though. Or how it works exactly.

 

[Jeremy P]

Cookie purposes are laid out on the help page: https://xenforo.com/community/help/... has arrived on the site from a search engine.

However this feature is deprecated in XF 2.3+ as it doesn't work reliably so we should actually likely remove it from the cookie definitions.

 

[Alvin63]

Thank you. I decided to just leave the wording as it as - enhancements. I was just curious to try and understand what it did. I was quite impressed to see that when I removed Google Analytics, it also disappeared from the cookies page No need to edit it.

 

[Jeremy P]

The dedicated page is somewhat comprehensive, but yeah this one was used to track when a user has arrived on the site from a search engine.

 

[Alvin63]

Sorry just edited message above - I was impressed to see that Google Analytics disappeared from the Cookies page after I removed it I can still use google search console without a google tag.

 

[Alvin63]

The dedicated page is somewhat comprehensive, but yeah this one was used to track when a user has arrived on the site from a search engine.

Not that users would be bothered particularly!

 

[Kirby]

xf_from_search records one of the following values if a user came from the corresponding search engine:

ask
baidu
bing
dogpile
excite
google
lycos
search.aol
search.yahoo
yandex

In the past this value could used as a criteria for notices:


But as already pointed out this is deprecated and subject for removal (most likely due to privacy concerns and technical issues).

 

[Alvin63]

I can see it could be useful analytics for a site owner though - to know where users are coming from. I was just concerned with getting the wording right - if it was tracking I might have changed the wording to something like user enhancement and site analytics.