Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Bullshit Web (2018)

pxlnv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#21

Post by lisper »

dilyevsky wrote: post #19
Cyberdog wrote: post #10

It's an old, old argument, but very true. My first Internet-capable computer had a 14.4k modem - that's a theoretical speed of 14,000 kilo bits per second. But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower or less usable than it is now, and that was before ad blockers were really a thing. And some of the technologies that we have now but not then could theoretically have made sites load even faster; PNG i…

> But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower or less usable than it is now We have very different memories then. I very clearly remember everything but very simple html taking forever to transfer over 56k connection

Same here. I have very clear memories of dismissing the WWW as useless for exactly this reason. Those memories are 30 years old so they may not be entirely accurate, but the principle of embarrassment [1] lends them some support if you buy into that sort of thing.

[1] https://cafn.us/2010/12/10/terminology-principle-of-embarras...

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#22

Post by thekingofrome »

andrewvc wrote: post #3

What’s the point of loading a page in 500ms if the real problem people are dealing with is a glut of content and fierce competition for our attention. I wonder if a slower web might be a better web in many ways. Reduced page load speeds increase engagement. What if I want to decrease engagement with the internet?

Loading a webpage slower isn't going to do anybody any good, especially not when someone is trying to complete important tasks.

If someone wants to decrease engagement with the internet then they should use it less.

If your problem is with the attention economy and media overload, then your problem is more likely with apps and sites that are specifically tailored to addict the user, rather than the fast speeds that admittedly enable them.

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#23

Post by nocman »

UIUC_06 wrote: post #11

tl;dr which ironically is a good summary of all the bullshit on the Web. Ages ago, I got tired of having these discussions with a certain class of programmer: me : it really sucks that X does Y by default. certain class : yeah, it does, but there's a switch you can set to turn that off. me : I don't want to spend time learning how to configure X. certain class : (puzzlement)

Just because someone suggests a way to work around a problem doesn't mean that they aren't also annoyed by the problem.

There are some problems you do not have a viable way to attack at the root, and you just have to deal with them. Often other people control the thing you would have to change, and will not be persuaded to do it your way.

I understand the desire to not have to learn something just to be able to remove an annoyance, but isn't having that option better than not being able to remove the annoyance at all?

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#24

Post by ineedasername »

>A story at the Hill took over nine seconds to load

The Hill is what finally pushed me to install an ad blocker. Before that it didn't bother me too much to get served ads etc that I filtered out of my awareness anyway, but The Hill was unusable.

So, I installed an ad blocker and immediately realized how negligent I had been-- in terms of quality of web browsing experience-- in not doing so earlier. The Hill loaded near instantly. Massive improvements all around on other sites as well. As in the article, It felt similar to upgrading from dialup to a Cable modem.

Unfortunately it seems sites have upped their game in adblocker arms races and the gains I achieved when I first installed it are incrementally being chipped away as things become ever so slightly slower, tick.. tick.. tick... tick... As time goes by.

Suggestions? Is there something more I can do? Besides simply disabling JavaScript which breaks many site from usability.

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#25

Post by tonymet »

Google made a solid attempt at improving web performance and usability with AMP and offering preferred ranking - and hacker news mostly skewered them for it.

Publishers need to be compelled to improve performance but the current model encourages bloat

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#26

Post by sacrosanct »

Worth browsing the web with Lynx for a week just to see how convoluted the modern web has become. Roughly 10% of sites are viewable in Lynx and have a simple enough layout. Lynx due to it being text based also filters out all the AD-Tech, trackers, and JS bloat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#27

Post by mistersquid »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #7
andrewvc wrote: post #3

What’s the point of loading a page in 500ms if the real problem people are dealing with is a glut of content and fierce competition for our attention. I wonder if a slower web might be a better web in many ways. Reduced page load speeds increase engagement. What if I want to decrease engagement with the internet?

What if I want to shop for my groceries without waiting 10 seconds for Costco's app to load and then NOT have the "Grocery" button jump up half a page just as I'm about to tap it because a deals section below it just got finished dynamically loading?

> What if I want to shop for my groceries without waiting 10 seconds for Costco's app to load and then NOT have the "Grocery" button jump up half a page just as I'm about to tap it because a deals section below it just got finished dynamically loading?

Drive to Costco?

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#28

Post by leeoniya »

Cyberdog wrote: post #10

It's an old, old argument, but very true. My first Internet-capable computer had a 14.4k modem - that's a theoretical speed of 14,000 kilo bits per second. But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower or less usable than it is now, and that was before ad blockers were really a thing. And some of the technologies that we have now but not then could theoretically have made sites load even faster; PNG i…

it would feel a lot faster if you could live with viewing max res 640x480 or 800x600 images on your 4k display

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#29

Post by Topgamer7 »

dilyevsky wrote: post #19
Cyberdog wrote: post #10

It's an old, old argument, but very true. My first Internet-capable computer had a 14.4k modem - that's a theoretical speed of 14,000 kilo bits per second. But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower or less usable than it is now, and that was before ad blockers were really a thing. And some of the technologies that we have now but not then could theoretically have made sites load even faster; PNG i…

> But on the whole I don't really remember the web being slower or less usable than it is now We have very different memories then. I very clearly remember everything but very simple html taking forever to transfer over 56k connection

I just turned off image loading by default and would right click and select load image.

Generally pages loaded great.

Re: The Bullshit Web (2018)

#30

Post by javajosh »

Maybe if you paid for your content it would suck less. The problem is no-one wants to pay for content, so they have to pay for it with ads, which means satisfying the true customer, the advertiser. Google tried, for a while, non-cruft ads, but eventually the demand for more sensational advertising is what drives most of this cruft.

Another driver, which is something front-end devs can do something about, is to stop shipping 20MB bundles to the browser, stop using 10MB of fonts, and stop front-loading 200MB of images. Ignorant use of powerful tools that make adding more and more resources to your project feel basically free are a big contributor, at least in the webapp space. (Classic CMS software also accretes cruft, but generally more slowly over time.)

Post reply on HN