> ..for what I'm trying to achieve right now it seems like I'm being asked to jump through a 30cm hoop that's being dangled from the top of a 4 storey building.
To be fair, I think the shape and placement of the hoops would've been different if it was made clear(er) from the start that the proposal was to measure outbound traffic for a *limited period*. At least I didn't understand that until this email.
Sorry, I thought that was clear as I said in my original message that I thought the outbound link tracking would be useful for the project I'm working on. On re-reading I see that my wording on that was somewhat less than awesome.
Settling on the future analytics needs for postgresql.org sounds like a topic well suited for an unconference style discussion, maybe we'll end up changing nothing but it's worth discussing.
Agreed.
What we can do to address concerns with tracking in the meantime is to honor the DoNotTrack header in the site template, and only load GA/GTM in case navigator.doNotTrack isn't set. Something like the (completely untested) attached migth be all we need? The diff also removes the ability to load GA over http, which we clearly shouldn't allow (and since moving the site to all https we don't anyways IIUC).
I think we'd also need to check windows.doNotTrack to cover Microsoft browsers, but yes, I think that will work with GA.
In GTM you can do it in the config (i.e. through the container settings in the management UI). Browsers would still pull the code of course, but then any tracking would be disabled.
