221–230 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To be fair, they could have operated a simple and effectively profitable business How? I don't see a way from Imgur to monetize on sharing images directly.
Datamining. What FB is doing. Sell the info.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, no. A dark pattern is an UI that makes the user do something he does not want. The best example is linkedin trying to get people to spam their contacts with invites. The pre-checked "subscribe to the newsletter" checkbox is a dark pattern. Same is the checkbox you need to check to not subscribe to the newsletter. A hotlink is no user interface, changing its behaviour is not a dark pattern. Serving ads never is…
I just disagree with your definition of dark pattern then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, no. A dark pattern is an UI that makes the user do something he does not want. The best example is linkedin trying to get people to spam their contacts with invites. The pre-checked "subscribe to the newsletter" checkbox is a dark pattern. Same is the checkbox you need to check to not subscribe to the newsletter. A hotlink is no user interface, changing its behaviour is not a dark pattern. Serving ads never is…
> Edit: I'd argue that links that used to be hotlinks not being hotlinks can maybe be part of a dark pattern. If an UI tried to get people to share a site, and the people do that only because they think the links are hotlinks, then that UI could be a dark pattern and the non-hotlinks a part of that. But the dark pattern is then the UI presenting the hotlink, the "share this image directly" widget, not the hotlink its…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's it, quite exactly. I think it's more that when people see stats for lots of eyeballs they too often think "if we monetize those to the max, think of the money we could make" and then that shifts into thinking they're leaving money on the table.
The thing is, while there is huge demand for image hosting sites, that demand is really low "quality". After all, we're talking about sites hosting memes and screenshots from games, not original works of art created after tens and hundreds of hours of laboring in Photoshop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of image upload sites does this, start out good and eventually add a lot of crap to monetise. Does it mean they cut their throat or does it mean the creator just set himself up for a life of money? Genuine question, maybe this is just a way to become rich, maybe these shitty upload sites make enough money that they simply pick this way instead of keeping it pure.
My guess is that imgur started out profitable but that ended when gifs became popular. /r/all is about 50% gifs nowadays. The low bandwidth of an image host makes it possible to allow hotlinking but that doesn't work with videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Datamining. What FB is doing. Sell the info.
Data mining what exactly? Unless you know what in the image, it's hardly interesting that a user with browser fingerprint X viewed some image with a random hash or name.
If I can see you viewed an image referred from /r/woodwork I might offer you some woodworking tools and drive up the conversation rate of my advertisements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On iOS, they override the swipe-from-left-to-go-back gesture and instead use it to cycle you through new images.
That's an OS gesture. It can't be overridden. If it cycles you to another image, you did't begin your swipe far enough to the left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
test link: http://i.imgur.com/PhY2HUP.jpg is this happening for anyone in thread? maybe try holding down CTRL and hammering the link to see if it's a probability thing? I have never seen the behavior being described.
Result: http://i.imgur.com/86BlJiS.png There does appear to be some kind of heuristic at work here. For example, following the above link results in the traditional behavior for me, but following your link leads to the full imgur page. EDIT: Ah-ha, figured it out. 1. Click on an i.imgur.com link 2. If it takes you to the full page, right click on the image and click "Open in new tab" 3. The original i.imgur.com link…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
test link: http://i.imgur.com/PhY2HUP.jpg is this happening for anyone in thread? maybe try holding down CTRL and hammering the link to see if it's a probability thing? I have never seen the behavior being described.
Result: http://i.imgur.com/86BlJiS.png There does appear to be some kind of heuristic at work here. For example, following the above link results in the traditional behavior for me, but following your link leads to the full imgur page. EDIT: Ah-ha, figured it out. 1. Click on an i.imgur.com link 2. If it takes you to the full page, right click on the image and click "Open in new tab" 3. The original i.imgur.com link…