Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix[event.schema.json]: remove click_through #19

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AnkitSiva
Copy link
Contributor

This is a minor change. I think we should remove the enum value click_through as that indicates a subset of click and has specific connotations in advertising.

@jzonthemtn
Copy link
Collaborator

I agree - a click through is just a click.

@epugh epugh added the RFC Request for Comment label Aug 15, 2024
@miike
Copy link
Contributor

miike commented Aug 16, 2024

Agreed - I'd consider adding "impression" to the enum to make it a bit more clear on how clickthrough rate could be calculated.

@jzonthemtn
Copy link
Collaborator

@miike That might be the purpose of view. Perhaps impression is a better term than view.

@miike
Copy link
Contributor

miike commented Aug 19, 2024

I think depending on the vertical they might mean distinct things (e.g., for ecommerce a page view of the PDP page would be a view versus a tile impression in search results). It's probably not particularly important but just depends on how opinionated you want the enum to be.

@epugh
Copy link
Member

epugh commented Aug 20, 2024

@miike would you be interested in submitting impression as it's own PR? It's far enough from click_through that it seems odd to have it be part of this PR, and it does seem like a valid question on it's own....!

@miike
Copy link
Contributor

miike commented Aug 21, 2024

Sure thing - I've done that in #22

@epugh
Copy link
Member

epugh commented Aug 31, 2024

I am going to leave this one open a bit longer, and the reason is that the "specific connotations in advertising" is kind of what makes this potentially REALLY valuable. Those same connotations also apply to very common search use cases. I did a search and I am clicking through to this detail page....

I don't see merging this materially as making the 1.1 release worse, so I'd like to leave this open for more discussion and try and get it decided for 1.2.

@epugh epugh added this to the 1.2 milestone Aug 31, 2024
@epugh epugh modified the milestones: 1.2, 1.3 Oct 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
RFC Request for Comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants