Negligable effect from implementing cookie bar - with geolocation

I'm in the US and it turns out that I didn't really need to implement the code. But I did and see no negative effect.

Same here - U.S.-based publisher, implemented code, no negative effect.

I took it off. Come and get me, Google.

US based
Installed at top page,
moved to bottom of page
then I took it off.
But saw no negative effects while I had it on my pages.

Not a high traffic site, but very few clicked "read more" to get the cookie policy / privacy page.

If I had to I could reinstall pretty quickly.

I have removed it, based on the information given at Pubcon. Total clicks to TOS from the cookie bar was four clicks from 1 million+ PVs. Seems to have been a waste of time and effort.

Yes, it is one of those things, when it was introduced by the EU, that caused a great deal of annoyance, and as a user that keeps seeing the stupid popup, I find it one of the most annoying aspects of today's web. But, that aside, it really only matters if you're in the EU, and those that don't know about it by now could never have been online.

The small number of abandonments might have been abandonments anyway. I'm going to change the options and see if that changes, up or down, the abandonments.

I have a "Privacy and cookie policy" link at the bottom of each page. (It used to be a "Privacy policy"link, but I figured I'd toss cookies in in case anyone cared.)

I refuse to annoy users with popups.

I never bothered with any pop ups or scripts. Just amended my privacy policy and added a small statement at the bottom of all pages. Entire thing seems so ridiculous so I echo netmeg's statement.

My understanding is that G are requiring something in excess of the minimum legal requirement as part of the Adsense T&Cs.

My site is legal but no more. If G don't like it then the ads can go. They used to be a nice bit of icing on the cake but these days it is just inertia that is keeping the existing ads on my site.

It's traditionally a quiet time of year for the test site, so i won't know the real benefits for another few months, but I have "improved" the cookie message which now looks much better.

For me, adding the "Cookie consent banner" doesn't seem to have had any effect on my AdSense earnings. But I'm still not happy having to add this to my sites as most people realise this is a daft/failed EU 'law'...

U.S.-based publisher, implemented code, no negative effect.

It's worth noting that the silktide cookie script (probably the most popular and easiest to implement) changed cdn the 23/11 so lots of sites have not been showing the cookie message since then, often without the owners realising.

@Rasputin - Can you expand on this please?
Surely if the CDN changed then people using that method would just pick up the new address etc.?

I'm using a modified version of their script on one of my sites - I store the script locally so haven't noticed any problems.

I can't see any people mentioning problems on the SilkTide Github issues page either?
Thanks.

@Badger37 there's an update about it on the SilkTide website...

"As of November 23rd 2015, some old versions of Cookie Consent will stop working. You must make a small change to your code to keep using Cookie Consent.

Why the update?
Cookie Consent has become far too expensive for us to host, so we’re forced to move it to a different hosting provider. Unfortunately there’s no way for us to keep the old web address that version 2.0 uses without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, which as a small company we can’t afford for a free tool."

@Badger37 I only found out about it on here from @Rasputin's post the other day - it just means a URL change where you have the script implemented. Obviously this won't affect you as you're hosting your own copy :)

Thanks @Maleda :)

One other thing I became aware of because of the silktide change is that the position of the message seems to have an impact on adsense earnings in certain layouts.

I found that adsense is higher when the message is at the top of the page rather than the bottom. I assume this is because a message sliding up from the bottom after a couple of seconds attracted the eye of the visitors to look below our 'above the fold' advert whereas a message coming down from the top attracts the eye back to the top of the page and gives the visitor another chance to see the ad.

Pretty negligible for me as well. I've noticed a 2% abandonment because of it. Not too bad.

Live in EU, half of traffic is EU, haven't bothered at all with the charade....

....world still spinning.

Live in EU, half of traffic is EU, haven't bothered at all with the charade....

Not bothered or just compliant without the extra hoop that Google want us to jump through?

I've been compliant for more than three years and the click thru rate is still about 0.000whatever%

No one gives a flying duck about it.

Was I supposed to do something? I read about it, figured it wasn't worth the effort since it was a law originating in the EU, while I'm in the US. Should we have to comply with laws in Brazil, Angola and New Zealand as well?

I did nothing. Nothing changed. Happy New Year (if we make it).

I got caught up in hysteria created about this here on WW. I finally buckled and complied.
I've noticed little overall effect. I just show the banner ( static page bottom) for 20 seconds or so.
As it disappears my sharing icons become visible. So it kind of draws attention to them, which isn't a bad thing.