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

The 49MB web page

thatshubham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 389 posts

Re: The 49MB web page

#21

Post by CalRobert »

hilbert42 wrote: post #11

These days the NYT is in a race to the bottom. I no longer even bother to bypass ads let alone read the news stories because of its page bloat and other annoyances. It's just not worth the effort. Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load…

Do you think youtube will continue to make it possible to use alternate clients, or eventually go the way of e.g. Netflix with DRM so you're forced to use their client and watch ads?

Re: The 49MB web page

#22

Post by alpinisme »

hilbert42 wrote: post #11

These days the NYT is in a race to the bottom. I no longer even bother to bypass ads let alone read the news stories because of its page bloat and other annoyances. It's just not worth the effort. Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load…

What does playing fair mean in this context? It would be one thing if you were a paid subscriber complaining that even paying sucks so you left, but it sounds like you’re not.

Re: The 49MB web page

#24

Post by Crowberry »

I hate this trend of active distraction. Most blogs have a popup asking you to subscribe as soon as you start scrolling.

It’s as if everyone designed their website around the KPI of irritating your visitors and getting them to leave ASAP.

Re: The 49MB web page

#25

Post by scared_together »

Bratmon wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten tired of these "Journalists shouldn't try to make their living by finding profitable ads, they should just put in ads that look pretty but pay almost nothing and supplement their income by working at McDonalds" takes.

In the case of the New York Times, they have subscriptions and many are willing to pay for their work - but their subscriptions are not ad-free.

Re: The 49MB web page

#26

Post by bigfatkitten »

galphanet wrote: post #19

This is just the top of the iceberg. Don't get me started on airlines websites (looking at you Air Canada), where the product owner, designers, developers are not able to get a simple workflow straight without loading Mb of useless javascript and interrupt the user journey multiple times. Give me back the command line terminal like Amadeus, that would be perfect. How can we go back to a Web where websites are designe…

> How can we go back to a Web where websites are designed to be used by the user and not for the shareholders?

Or for developers to pad their CV.

Re: The 49MB web page

#27

Post by h4ch1 »

jopsen wrote: post #15
h4ch1 wrote: post #7

This rubbish also exists disproportionately for recipe pages/cooking websites as well. You have 20 ads scattered around, an autoplaying video of some random recipe/ad, 2-3 popups to subscribe, buy some affiliated product and then the author's life story and then a story ABOUT the recipe before I am able to see the detailed recipe in the proper format. It's second nature to open all these websites in reader mode for m…

Good sites do exist. It's just that they drown.

True, these ad heavy cooking sites also dabble extensively in SEOmaxxing their way to the top.

Re: The 49MB web page

#29

Post by hilbert42 »

bsjshshsb wrote: post #6
Bratmon wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten tired of these "Journalists shouldn't try to make their living by finding profitable ads, they should just put in ads that look pretty but pay almost nothing and supplement their income by working at McDonalds" takes.

49MB or homelessness? There is surely other options.

Solution, see my post. ;-)

Re: The 49MB web page

#30

Post by appreciatorBus »

hilbert42 wrote: post #11

These days the NYT is in a race to the bottom. I no longer even bother to bypass ads let alone read the news stories because of its page bloat and other annoyances. It's just not worth the effort. Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load…

> Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load pages without JavaScript.

No.

"savvy" web surfers are a rounding error in global audience terms. Vast majorities of web users, whether paying subscribers to a site like NYT or not, have no idea what a megabyte is, nor what javascript is, nor why they might want to care about either. The only consideration is whether the site has content they want to consume and whether or not it loads. It's true that a double digit % are using ad blockers, but they aren't doing this out of deep concerns about Javascript complexity.

Do what you have to do, but no one at the NYT is losing any sleep over people like us.

Post reply on HN