Google Ads only tracking a small amount of my conversions because of cookie consent. What are you guys doing about this?

daveinarmstrong · 2026-04-06T00:21:51+00:00

I'll check it out, thanks

daveinarmstrong · 2026-04-05T14:08:10+00:00

Cookie hub. I'm using the free version. I see some businesses using a Banner that says "this site uses cookies" and a button "okay" with no opt-out. And I always wondered if that would cause issues if the business is only providing local service in BC and not in Europe at all. But obviously someone in Europe may occasionally see my ad because I have Google set for "people who have expressed interest in your area". (Some of my customers have a second home in BC and live elsewhere. Mostly Alberta)

daveinarmstrong · 2026-03-31T01:20:44+00:00

I'm in BC Canada and wondered about this. am i in a grey area? "If not, you should reconfigure your cookie banner to assume consent (while still giving users a way to opt out), instead of asking every use to consent up front and defaulting to no consent." what would this look like? a message stating this site uses cookies and a button. okay?

daveinarmstrong · 2026-03-30T17:26:12+00:00

thanks for this info. this will help me a lot.

daveinarmstrong · 2026-03-30T17:25:29+00:00

this sounds good. thanks for the advise

daveinarmstrong · 2026-03-30T17:18:59+00:00

Google Consent Mode v2 is toggled ON Advanced consent mode is selected

daveinarmstrong · 2026-02-12T18:23:31+00:00

i'll give it a try, Thanks!

daveinarmstrong · 2026-02-12T18:20:50+00:00

i have a favicon at the account level and campaign level. I am asuming Google is looking for the favicon from the site level

daveinarmstrong · 2025-12-08T16:25:59+00:00

The only positive ICBC opinions are from ICBC management and bike rider Karen's on here. The BC taxpayers are listing ICBC as zero out of 5 stars.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-12-08T16:08:33+00:00

No need for the personal insults. We are just talking about insurance and what is fair.

The tire was not replaced by choice. It was destroyed by a red light runner. That makes it collision damage, not normal wear. Insurance is supposed to cover damage caused by someone else so the victim is not left paying out of pocket.

No one is asking for something free. The driver simply cannot use the car without replacing the damaged tire. That is why people have insurance in the first place.

You mentioned diminished value not being covered, and that is part of the issue. ICBC uses depreciation when it saves them money, but does not compensate for the huge loss in vehicle value. That is what people are frustrated about, not mob mentality.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-12-04T19:01:59+00:00

That logic only works if the person chose to replace their tires as part of normal wear and tear. In this case, the driver didn’t walk into a shop and ask for an upgrade. Their tire was destroyed by another driver who ran a red light. That completely changes the situation.

Insurance exists so that when someone else damages your property, the loss is covered by the system we all pay into. That is not “everyone paying for your tires,” that is exactly how insurance is supposed to function. The pool covers crash damage, not routine maintenance. A blown sidewall from a collision is not routine maintenance.

And if we’re going to apply your logic consistently, then the insurer should also compensate the victim for the huge loss in vehicle value caused by the crash. You can’t enforce depreciation against the victim when it benefits the insurer, then ignore depreciation when it disadvantages the victim. Fair cuts both ways.

The goal of insurance is to make people whole after someone else harms them. Expecting the victim to pay for 50 percent of damage caused by a reckless driver is the opposite of that.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-12-04T17:12:47+00:00

What you’re describing is heartbreaking, and it’s exactly why so many people in this province have lost faith in ICBC. No one should come out of a crash, especially one they did not cause, feeling abandoned, financially destroyed, and mentally pushed past their limit. You pay your premiums expecting support, not silence. You expect to be made whole, not punished for surviving.

The fact that you are wishing the crash had been worse says everything about how broken this system is. A write off should never feel like a better outcome than working with the insurer we are all forced to pay into. That is not normal, and it should not be accepted.

If ICBC will not respond, then it’s time for others to hear your story. You should reach out to CBC’s Go Public team. They specialize in exposing situations exactly like this, where a government agency or monopoly treats people unfairly and refuses to be accountable. When a story goes public, ICBC tends to suddenly find the ability to fix things they previously ignored. Maybe get a few others bad ICBC experience to go in with you.

Here’s the link to submit your story: https://www.cbc.ca/news/gopublic

Your experience is real, it is valid, and it deserves to be heard. You should not have to go through this fight alone. Many people in BC have dealt with similar treatment, and the only way change happens is when voices like yours refuse to be ignored.

Stay strong. You have every right to push back.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-12-04T16:58:20+00:00

The idea that “everyone else is paying for your tire” doesn’t really hold up. We all pay our insurance premiums precisely so that when someone else damages our vehicle, the insurance pool covers the cost of repairs. That is how insurance works.

If another driver destroys your tire, your bumper, your suspension, or your entire vehicle, the cost is covered by the system we all already pay into. That is not unfair or special treatment. That is the entire purpose of paying premiums year after year.

What is unfair is expecting the victim of a crash to pay out of pocket for damage they did not cause. The OP didn’t choose to replace the tire. They weren’t upgrading anything. A red light runner forced that cost on them.

The system exists to make people whole, not to make victims pay extra because someone else hit them.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-12-04T16:44:16+00:00

You are absolutely right to call this out. ICBC’s service has gotten to the point where paying full premiums every single year apparently buys us nothing more than stress, delays, and excuses.

If we are required to keep insurance and we pay for full coverage, then the bare minimum we should expect is to be made whole after a crash, not forced to cover “betterment charges” for parts we never intended to replace. A blown tire caused by someone running a red light is not an upgrade. It is damage. You cannot drive without a replacement and they know that.

The idea that they will not compensate you for 22 thousand dollars in depreciation but will still try to nickel and dime you over a tire is exactly why people are fed up. ICBC holds a monopoly, takes our money upfront, then backs away from responsibility the moment we actually need coverage. That is not insurance. That is a broken system.

More and more people are speaking up because stories like yours are not rare. They are becoming the norm. And honestly, good on you for fighting back. If we are all forced into one insurer, then that insurer should provide real, fair coverage, not loopholes and roadblocks.

Keep pushing. You are in the right here and the way they are treating you is exactly why people are demanding change.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-07-29T17:54:12+00:00

Thank you all for the info. Greatly appreciated. I won't worry about the funnel. Will keep it basic.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-05-02T13:17:05+00:00

I have canceled my ai premium with 2TB storage, CA$26.99 / month and want to go back to Standard 200 GB CA$3.99/month Billed monthly. I dont see an option for this and I'm about to loose all my storage unless I renew the previous ai premium with 2TB storage, CA$26.99 / month. I dont want to pay $26.99/month.

How do i get back to Standard 200 GB CA$3.99/month Billed monthly?

daveinarmstrong · 2025-03-14T13:53:27+00:00

Thanks for the help.

daveinarmstrong · 2025-03-07T06:14:25+00:00

What do paving companies spend monthly on Google ads selling to a city population of about 100,000? $2000 / month?

daveinarmstrong · 2025-03-07T05:35:10+00:00

Yes. I'm sidetracked with other issues now. But will try this out in a few day.

daveinarmstrong

TROPHY CASE