281–290 of 568 posts
This phenomenon is not limited to BS web. Back when virtualization was the new wave, everyone raved at the money/space/energy savings from running multiple virtual machines on a single server. It was great. Then what happened? Many folks went nuts, spinning up VMs for any and everything, and suddenly needed to spend more money on more physical servers to run more VMs, and an infinite loop. Bloat from convenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because when I go to use a website its an interaction between me and them, I never want any third party involvement. Allow requests to subdomains but nothing outside that.
Use noscript then.
Without any decent weight behind it, there would be no incentive for people to build their software to actually respect the user and they would continue serving a broken application.
Much like browsers slowly boiling site owners by displaying sites as insecure if they don't have any encryption, a similar effort could be made to stop websites handing visitors around like the town bicycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hilariously, the New York times tries both: you get five or so article reads (with shitloads of tracking), and then you have to pay to read more per month. But if you're paying, the pages don't load any different. You're paying to be mined.
I agree in theory. However, I haven't noticed the slowness in their website and the ads are well done and blend in with the webpage. They may have to redesign/rearchitect their whole website to get what you are asking for. It should be noted that traditional newspapers include ads alongside news content and no one complains. In fact people used to sift through the Sunday NYT simply for the ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the content is directly related to user behavior. If they see no one reads the style section, they'll cut it and move resources to financial news. If they didn't have tracking they'd never know that, be wasting resources and having a comparatively inferior product. They can't do UX anaylsis, nothing.
For the first, it's sufficient enough to just look at the number of page requests. For the second, I never got explained to me how UX analysis really works for news sites. Isn't it enough to put 2 or 3 people in a room and show them a few variations of the UI? There isn't really much to publishing text, images, and a few graphs. Graphs are a very well explored field, I don't think you can learn more about them by jus…
However the result will usually be a lot of dark patterns. For instance, that's why you get popup to ask you to register.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the content is directly related to user behavior. If they see no one reads the style section, they'll cut it and move resources to financial news. If they didn't have tracking they'd never know that, be wasting resources and having a comparatively inferior product. They can't do UX anaylsis, nothing.
For the first, it's sufficient enough to just look at the number of page requests. For the second, I never got explained to me how UX analysis really works for news sites. Isn't it enough to put 2 or 3 people in a room and show them a few variations of the UI? There isn't really much to publishing text, images, and a few graphs. Graphs are a very well explored field, I don't think you can learn more about them by jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this rant, you should go the next step: All you need to 'fix' this is a fast loading news website that gets enough paid subscribers to earn enough margin from subscriptions that you can pay for a news staff, an office, and various overheads. That is a longish way of saying that 99.9% of the overhead in any modern web site can be traced almost entirely to the mechanisms by which that web site is attempting to e…
> That is a longish way of saying that 99.9% of the overhead in any modern web site can be traced almost entirely to the mechanisms by which that web site is attempting to extract value from you for visiting/reading. Well, that and the fact that front-end developers just can't seem to exist without pulling in hundreds of kilobytes, or even megabytes, of JS libraries. You actually don't need all that crap to serve adv…
While I sympathize with this sentiment, this is also the entire history of computing in a nutshell. Moore's Law has driven us orders of magnitude beyond where we were when personal computers first came into existence; but Wirth's law[1] has kept pace. The laptop I'm typing this on right now has 8 GB of RAM, and that's already become pathetically tiny, pretty much the minimum viable for a consumer PC; I have to keep checking my memory usage or I'll spill over into swap (on a mechanical drive) and have to wait several minutes while my computer recovers.
Performance in computer applications fundamentally doesn't improve. Stuff gets prettier, sure, and applications do more. But things will still run about as slowly as they always have, sometimes a little worse. (There are exceptions - some things like loading programs from tape, or loading things from an HDD once SSDs were invented, were so painfully slow compared to their replacement that you'd have to actively try to write slow code to get anywhere near that performance.) It's ease of programming, flexibility, and freedom of design (in aesthetics and interface) that the advance of computing technology has always enabled. And all of those are extremely valuable in their own way, and can make applications genuinely better - even allowing qualitatively new things to come into existence that wouldn't have been feasible before - even if they don't run faster or take up less of your memory.
(To understand why, think about the development of - say - computer games since the 90s. For all that we mock poorly optimized games, how inaccessible would game development be if we required them to be coded as efficiently as Carmack built Doom? For all that mindlessly chasing "better graphics" has ballooned costs and led developers to compromise on gameplay, how many games simply couldn't be translated to 90s-era graphics without fatally compromising the experience? How many projects would never have been started if we set the skill floor for devs so high that a hobbyist couldn't just download Unity and start writing "shitty" code?)
(Or think about something like Python. Python is a perfect example of something that allows devs to massively sacrifice performance just to make programming less work. If we kept our once-higher-by-necessity standards for efficient usage of resources, something like Python's sluggish runtime would be laughable. But I think you, and I, and everyone else can agree that Python is a very good thing.)
[1] "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away."
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Moby Dick is 1.2mb uncompressed in plain-text. That's lower than the "average" news website by quite a bit--I just loaded the New York Times front page. It was 6.6mb. that's more than 5 copies of Moby Dick, solely for a gateway to the actual content that I want. A secondary reload was only 5mb. I then opened a random article. The article itself was about 1,400 words long…
How many times did you read moby dick online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think thats a meaningful comparison. Moby Dick is a book, written by 1 guy and maybe an editor or two. NYT employs 1,300 people. When you read a book all you get is the text. NYT has text, images, related articles, analytics, etc. Moby Dick doesn't have to know what pages you read. NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that…
> NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that with javascript tracking pixels (Server logs aren't good enough). Nonsense. I subscribe to the NYT so that I can read the news. Nothing about that necessitates tracking which users read which articles. If the NYT uses page view data for anything other than statistics for their advertisin…