Please let this not be the future of reading on the web • Hacker News Board

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#71

Post by AndrewDucker » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:22 PM UTC

tincholio wrote: post #50

bambax wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More than 2 pages? That's a back button. Well, that should be a "Read Later" button (or, at the very least, looking for a "Print" button).

I think he referred to the forced pagination for increased ad prints, not the actual length of the article (although of course sometimes the "printer friendly" view solves this, in which case looking for the "Print" button can be helpful).

If I see an article split over multiple pages I hit the "Read Later" button which then punts it into ReadItLater, which concatenates them all into one page.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#72

Post by drumdance » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:29 PM UTC

absconditus wrote: post #67

citricsquid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly why it can't be considered a good option and why it is "bad" for the wider internet. The Deck being selective is saying "we know adverts suck, so if you're actually good you can be in our super neat actually good system!" so instead of solving the problem of bad adverts, they're just ignoring it and saying that the sites they like can be in their small network that doesn't have the problem. Their enti…

Is your concern that the millions of sites with bad content will not have many options?

No, it's that thousands of sites with good content will only have crappy options.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#73

Post by rbarooah » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:34 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #55

scriptproof wrote: post #31

There was a statement of Matt Cutts at PubCon saying Google will penalyze pages with too much ads above the fold. Expect to see that.

I can see this becoming the subject of antitrust action. Penalizing other people for advertising rather than relevance when they themselves make their money through advertising is going to be a problem.

It would be nice to hear why people disagree with this enough to vote it down. I'm no fan of advertising and would like to see cleaner sites more often, but that doesn't mean there isn't a conflict.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#74

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #34

tallanvor wrote: post #12

Well, which would we prefer? Seeing the ads, or having to pay for access to each site? Personally, as annoying as ads are, I still prefer them being there to the content not being available at all.

I'm happy to pay for great content - avoid link-bait titles, avoid stupid tiresome "fanboy" flames, use long form content. I leave ads turned on. There are some ads that just make me close the tab even if I haven't got the content - almost anything with sound will cause an instant tab close.

Flashblock is a must for me. An unexpected sound from an ad is the equivalent of a coworker running up behind me and slapping the back of my head.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#75

Post by gergles » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:51 PM UTC

nicksergeant wrote: post #51

Why don't we start by trying to raise the quality and therefore effectiveness of ads on the Internet? A fundamental shift in how ads work and what they're trying to do needs to be done. The ads you see on websites right now are remnants from the newspaper, nearly identical to their print counterparts. Creating a "prettier ad network" or "other way to be profitable" is only patchwork. We need to completely rework the…

"Solving this" implies that there are users who like, value, and want advertising. I don't feel that there are that many people who do.

The better thing to solve is "how can websites make money without ads"? How did TV networks stay on the air before commercial breaks? Maybe a similar model can be applied.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#76

Post by artmageddon » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:53 PM UTC

spooneybarger wrote: post #59

artmageddon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the advertisements don't get in the way of the content - editors wouldn't allow that. Also, the only way the ads can harm you is if they're coated with cocaine or some other drug :)

I suggest you pick up a copy of the New York Post and other NYC 'tabloid' style papers before making a blanket statement like "editors wouldn't allow that."

Fair point; I wasn't thinking of those kind of publications.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#77

Post by jerf » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:54 PM UTC

qjz wrote: post #60

EwanToo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely right, but at the same time if you do pay, you have some (perhaps small) leverage over the content provider to try and ensure the advertising remains of a tolerable quality.

In practice, it seems that advertiser dollars always trump subscriber fees.

I am hopeful that as the providers become more directly connected to the consumers and it becomes increasingly feasible to deal with them directly, instead of at an arms length in aggregate as was the only option up until now, that we can cut out what is ultimately functioning as a middleman in the relationship, the advertiser. You know how the internet feels about middlemen than aren't adding much value.

Even if I just had the option of outbidding the advertiser I'd be happy.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#78

Post by artmageddon » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:56 PM UTC

absconditus wrote: post #68

artmageddon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the advertisements don't get in the way of the content - editors wouldn't allow that. Also, the only way the ads can harm you is if they're coated with cocaine or some other drug :)

Can you really think of no other ways in which ads might harm someone?

I could, yes - but I was lightly referencing the fact that opening up a newspaper and seeing an ad that I don't care for means I can move past it or ignore it, whereas with a computer it could mean having to spend time running a malware scan because the ad was hosted by a malicious provider.

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#79

Post by billswift » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 4:57 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #54

randallsquared wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No horizontal scroll bar at 800 x 600? That's a back button. Did you mean "Horizontal scroll bar at 800 x 600? That's a back button?" I'm not sure how content fitting nicely in 800px is a drawback.

Changed from "No horizontal scroll bar at 800 x 600?" to "No horizontal scroll bar to get beyond right fold?" Do people even realize that some of their content becomes unavailable on certain browsers and at certain resolutions. Thanks.

My eyes are going a bit as I get older, so I have been enlarging print so I can read it more comfortably (with the amount I read, that is important). I am really tired of web designers that still can't automatically resize text areas. Some pages go off the right side of my 21 inch screen with only moderate enlargement (I only use 1.25 diopter reading glasses for textbooks, I feel sorry for people with serious eye problems trying to read most pages).

Re: Please let this not be the future of reading on the web

#80

Post by dasil003 » Wed, Nov 23, 2011, 5:18 PM UTC

drumdance wrote: post #72

absconditus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your concern that the millions of sites with bad content will not have many options?

No, it's that thousands of sites with good content will only have crappy options.

Ads are a race to the bottom though. The Deck recognized that exclusivity is the only way to create an oasis, and I'd rather have that oasis than have nothing at all.

To effect wider change what's necessary is for users to start to value content and be willing to pay for it. If the major pubs could make money from the readers than they would be inclined to improve their experience. However, mass-market readers have never really been willing to pay the full cost of quality content, so don't hold your breath.