The study of dog point following has been increasingly popular, at least partially due to the initial claims that dogs outperform apes and the suggestion that our domestication process caused dogs to have a biological capacity to communicate with humans. We take the view that dog pointing is more complicated than was initially reported, and in this study, we explore several potential variables that may make a difference. Our variables include point type (ipsilateral (same-side) vs contralateral (cross-body) points), position (standing vs seated), and distance (proximal vs distal). We find that most dogs follow ipsilateral points while less than half of the dogs in our sample follow contralateral points, and that position and distance also affect dogs’ success. We suggest that dogs acquire ipsilateral points via associative mechanisms, but that contralateral points require the dogs to understand the humans’ communicative intent.