ontheway

report/sections/03_results.tex

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 
 %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pdf/01_3rdparty.pdf}
 
+This section introduces all the findings in this work. The main priority is the variable \texttt{tracking\_hints}, as the work tries to identify relationships between trackings and cookies. Every graph in this work is filtered for \texttt{tracking\_hints=yes}. Meaning the tables retrieved are larger than those visualized in this work. 
+
 \begin{figure}[h]
     \centering
     \includegraphics[
@@ -14,6 +16,11 @@
 \end{figure}
 
 
+The first figure, \autoref{fig:resul:02_browser}, illustrates the distribution of tracking hints across browsers and search engines. DuckDuckgo appears to be the Search~Engine that caches and identify most hints to tracking. Bing and Brave appear to conservative addressing any tracking hints. While only on DuckDuckGo and Google, the choice of web-browser seem to play a crucial role. Chromium addresses more hints to tracking in Google than Firefox does.
+
+
+Furthermore, request cookies counts and response cookies counts will be presented in the Results below, which will be the main focus of the following results.
+
 \begin{figure}[h]
     \centering
     \includegraphics[
@@ -24,6 +31,11 @@
 \end{figure}
 
 
+Figures~\ref{fig:resul:03_proxy_request} and~\ref{fig:resul:04_proxy_response} illustrate the cookie counts for each tracking hint. DuckDuckGo and Brave show no cookies across all \texttt{tracking\_hints}. In contrast, only Bing and Google use cookies on entries identified as tracking hints.
+
+
+
+
 \begin{figure}[h]
     \centering
     \includegraphics[
@@ -33,6 +45,9 @@
     \label{fig:resul:04_proxy_response}
 \end{figure}
 
+
+
+
 \begin{figure}[h]
     \centering
     \includegraphics[