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

The Verge's web sucks

blog.lmorchard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#81

Post by look_lookatme »

manigandham wrote: post #76
danboarder wrote: post #3

Wow. From the article, an example post on the Verge "downloaded 12MB - a little over 7MB in that is JavaScript" and a refresh of the page with things cached still downloaded 8MB again. And key here -- the article HTML content itself was 75k, the rest is ad network Javascript. (apparently over 20 different companies) I don't like tracking scripts either but why can't the ad networks get together and create a shared sc…

This is complicated because of how ad networks work and all the layers involved. We have somewhat of a standard called RTB (real-time bidding) where an exchange will see each impression and run an auction in 100ms for each ad slot and then take the winning bid and render it on the page. That was easy and efficient when it was just an image. Now ad formats have become more "engaging" and require javascript tags to run…

> So now the exchange tag wont just load an image but load more JS tags to render the ad.

Not to mention that more and more this javascript is spent calculating whether an ad is being viewed are not and phoning that data back home. Ad providers do this in different ways and it's not uncommon to see them send down a full jQuery build with their ad.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#82

Post by manigandham »

look_lookatme wrote: post #81
manigandham wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is complicated because of how ad networks work and all the layers involved. We have somewhat of a standard called RTB (real-time bidding) where an exchange will see each impression and run an auction in 100ms for each ad slot and then take the winning bid and render it on the page. That was easy and efficient when it was just an image. Now ad formats have become more "engaging" and require javascript tags to run…

> So now the exchange tag wont just load an image but load more JS tags to render the ad. Not to mention that more and more this javascript is spent calculating whether an ad is being viewed are not and phoning that data back home. Ad providers do this in different ways and it's not uncommon to see them send down a full jQuery build with their ad.

Yes, I mentioned all this in the other paragraphs.

Ad networks have a lot of work put into the backend systems but the frontend stuff that runs in the browser has been ignored for a long time. Even Google still uses things like Document.Write for putting more tags on the page, something that was obsolete about 6 years ago.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#83

Post by vvanders »

mdevere wrote: post #56
cheshire137 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's this about comments? Do their articles not have comments and a form at the bottom anymore?

Temporarily disabled by default but they turn them on for certain articles. They claimed this was because comments had become too negative. It is possible they are genuinely just trying to protect the mental health of their staff who are usually the targets of more aggressive comments but somehow I doubt it.

It seemed to happen after they posted the SpaceX article(www.theverge.com/2015/6/29/8863121/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-explosioauses) that was poorly thought through. They got some criticism(but not abusive) feedback in the comments.

They started deleting comments in that thread and it all went downhill from there once people realized posts were being removed.

Kinda a shame, I liked Topolsky & Co but I don't visit it nearly as much after that.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#84

Post by rampantprint »

yabatopia wrote: post #48
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen other mobile browsers support blocking 3rd party content yet. I think that's mainly because Google is the other major phone manufacturer, and their main source of income is that exact 3rd party content. Apple isn't burdened by that - they want to sell phones and keep them the best. Blocking 7 MB of JS that isn't the content the user wants is a good optimization.

Ghostery has its own mobile browser on Android, blocking ads and trackers.

iOS also has a Ghostery app, but it has a less than optimal user experience. The UI is confusing. They bury essential options in the share icon, options that have nothing to do with sharing.

I'm not sure if the Android version is as bad as the iOS version.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#85

Post by Eric_WVGG »

mr_sturd wrote: post #28

Nilay Patel has the audacity to say that the mobile web sucks [0]. No. It's just your website that sucks, mate. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9002721/the-mobile-web-su...

I wrote an angry rant on the Verge forums in response to his article — http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9003677/re-the-mobile-web-.... Perhaps the language was too pointed (the thread got shut down), but I just couldn’t get over his arrogance — “But we can't fix the performance of Mobile Safari” — when the performance problem is PROVABLY the publisher’s fault.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#86

Post by nowey »

fencepost wrote: post #63
jeremiep wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've replaced Adblock with uBlock and uMatrix and couldn't be happier. It seems to have a smaller footprint in the browser and better results at filtering away unwanted requests. The only thing that would make this perfect is if they would also run on my Android phone.

uBlock Origin at least runs in Firefox on Android; I rarely use Chrome on it so can't speak to that.

i uninstalled chrome and facebook, replaced with ff and tinfoil. much better battery life. only google apps i have is play music, google and translate (im rooted)

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#87

Post by talmand »

untog wrote: post #73
mr_sturd wrote: post #28

Nilay Patel has the audacity to say that the mobile web sucks [0]. No. It's just your website that sucks, mate. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9002721/the-mobile-web-su...

No, it isn't. The mobile web does suck, and I say this as someone who works making mobile web sites every day. While Nilay's article is a bit hit and miss, it still seems pretty undeniable to me that the mobile web experience is inferior to native apps.

As someone who builds mobile sites every day I disagree, mobile web does not suck. It's not accurate to blame mobile web when someone attempts to make it work in a way it wasn't intended, as a native app replacement. It's not a tool's fault if someone insists on using it incorrectly. A hammer isn't bad for hammering nails because a wrench is a better choice, over the hammer, for removing bolts.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#88

Post by devioustree »

At lot of replies to that Verge article seem to be addressing the click-bait title and not the content. The content is concerned with why an old Macbook (with comparable specs to a new iPhone) will handle the web much better than said iPhone.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#89

Post by talmand »

nly wrote: post #72
wiremine wrote: post #50

As a consultant, I only see web site producers making an effort to curb poor web practices when Google forces them to: Google's move to boost mobile-friendly design in the rankings has driven us a TON of responsive design work. I wonder if that is going to be what it takes to fix today's bloat problems: Google takes the hammer to sites that too much advertising cruft. Otherwise, I don't see business makers seeing muc…

I don't think any of this is appropriate for a search engine. I want a search engine to find me the best results for my query based on content, even if it's ad-riddled.

Especially with changing rankings based on whether it's mobile friendly or not. Marking it as mobile friendly is one thing, reducing its rank is another.

Re: The Verge's web sucks

#90

Post by honestcoyote »

noelsusman wrote: post #70
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen other mobile browsers support blocking 3rd party content yet. I think that's mainly because Google is the other major phone manufacturer, and their main source of income is that exact 3rd party content. Apple isn't burdened by that - they want to sell phones and keep them the best. Blocking 7 MB of JS that isn't the content the user wants is a good optimization.

Android supports it in many different forms. If you're rooted you can block pretty much every ad in all apps, but even without root Firefox on Android supports adblocking extensions and there are alternative browsers focused on ad blocking and privacy. Also to be fair you can already block ads on iOS if you jailbreak your phone.

No jailbreak needed.

https://www.weblockapp.com/

Post reply on HN