I've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I don't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files. In fact, I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data.
So how are you going to do this usability testing? Are you going to assume that everyone arrives at the home page and then navigates through your site? This is 2009, wake up to the real world. Most sites have 60%+ visits coming from Google in the middle of the site, to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability. To get this information you need to have cookies. If you don't, you'll end up with a really nice home page, pointing to your good bits of content and you'll ignore most of your user base. This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls. It'll fail. If all EU content has to follow the new cookies rule, it will fail too and the only option you'll have in an EU country is to access non-EU content.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/apr/06/google-wallstreetjournal "Most newspapers would prefer a fraction of their current traffic in exchange for a core set of engaged, frequent, transacting users."
I'd argue that the 'would' should be a 'should'.
It's probably not what Google wants to hear, but more visits and ad views doesn't necessarilly help most newspaper sites as they won't sell out their ad inventory anyway. What the newspapers need to do is focus on building up a bigger core audience (through building authorative links to informative, well written articles) who are more likely to interact with the site and add value based on however the newspaper sees its business model. The real trouble is that they don't really have detailed business models at the moment apart from putting ads on the pages. However if you don't sell all your ads, then more page views does not equal more money.
"But don't forget, there is also a whole spectrum of physics to be investigated at the LHC which the Tevatron can never do."
In other words if Tevatron discovers it first, then LHC can get on with finding more useful stuff rather than trying to prove god exists/doesn't exist because of one particle (yes I know that this particle doesn't prove that god exists or doesn't exist).
I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943