Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mister Rog]

I am getting increasingly irritated (not difficult  ) by websites increasingly filling their pages with large images and video. Is this on the assumtion that visitors are too thick to read ? The real meat of most news items can usually be expressed in one well written paragraph, but instead we have to endure images that are often library pictures and slow loading buffering video. The actually "News" therefore takes longer to get across.

Ah of course, this is all about website designers makes sites "Rich" and "engaging". 'dangle berries' !

Back in the dial-up Dark Ages, many websites had a "Text Only" option. I for one would like to see this brought back for many sites.

Grumpy-old-git-rant over   

 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Saves them employing real journalists. 

[Varche]

Takes no account of those folk with limited bandwidth Internet or those accessing say BBC content from abroad. In the latter case you can read the item but not play the video (unless you have some fancy software installed that err gets around the problem)

[tunnie]

People using adblockers, so it's a way of getting arouns it, it's harder to filter out ads in video clips.

[Sir Tigger KC]

I totally with Rog on this, as it really gets my goat when you try and read an article but you have to wait for the video to load! 

And then when it finally does start to play you have Nicola Bloody Sturgeon ranting about mandates  and how we'll rue the day!   

Meanwhile in this time I could have read what Wee Krankie was moaning about and moved on to the next article! 

[Kevin Wood]

Yep, BBC et al have completely lost the plot. The whole point of online news is that you can catch up with it quickly when away from home. If I want to sit through news at 10, I have a TV for that. These days it's a mess, with half the stories in text, half in video, etc. If you don't have a net connection that can support video it's as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

.. or maybe half their journalists are now illiterate so they have to be shoved in front of a camera?

People using adblockers, so it's a way of getting arouns it, it's harder to filter out ads in video clips.

The web isn't usable without ad blockers, so they'd better get used to them.

[aaronjb]

The web isn't usable without ad blockers, so they'd better get used to them.

Have you not noticed an increasing number of sites blocking your access if you have an ad blocker enabled? A lot of IT industry sites are already and a number of news outlets.. you just get a big fat FO until you disable it..

[Mister Rog]

The web isn't usable without ad blockers, so they'd better get used to them.

Have you not noticed an increasing number of sites blocking your access if you have an ad blocker enabled? A lot of IT industry sites are already and a number of news outlets.. you just get a big fat FO until you disable it..

Yep, but so far there is always an alternative.

I do completely understand the need for sites to have advertising, but I get really peeeed off when adverts soak up all my bandwidth (which is very slow) and completely take over the page I am on, plus of course the subject of the advert is usually light years away from anything that would even remotely interest me. So . . . . . I use an ad blocker

[TheBoy]

People still believe that all information and services on "the internet" should be free.  Somebody has to pay a fortune for the servers it all runs on, staffing, general business overheads etc.

The current models are subscriptions or ads.

Unfortunately, the ad companies have utterly shot themselves in the feet by allowing ads through their networks that are slow, inefficient and resource intensive.  So people use ad blockers.

Problem with ad blockers is that the content provider loses their income, and the business is then unviable.  So they obviously want to protect that by "encouraging" (forcing) users to not run such blockers.

[tunnie]

Smart Ad's is where the action is, dynamically inserted adverts into a Live or VOD stream. (customer can't tell the difference vs normal ad) - Targeted to customers, can offer more info links as needed.

[Kevin Wood]

People still believe that all information and services on "the internet" should be free.  Somebody has to pay a fortune for the servers it all runs on, staffing, general business overheads etc.

The current models are subscriptions or ads.

Unfortunately, the ad companies have utterly shot themselves in the feet by allowing ads through their networks that are slow, inefficient and resource intensive.  So people use ad blockers.

Problem with ad blockers is that the content provider loses their income, and the business is then unviable.  So they obviously want to protect that by "encouraging" (forcing) users to not run such blockers.

All true. How they fund their sites is not my problem, however, and I'm less likely to go poking around changing my browser settings and risking all sorts of bandwidth hogging malware appearing than just clicking the next result down in my search results.

[TheBoy]

Smart Ad's is where the action is, dynamically inserted adverts into a Live or VOD stream. (customer can't tell the difference vs normal ad) - Targeted to customers, can offer more info links as needed.

That be because you work in TV.

Its the webpage ads that cause the most nuisance to most users.

[TheBoy]

People still believe that all information and services on "the internet" should be free.  Somebody has to pay a fortune for the servers it all runs on, staffing, general business overheads etc.

The current models are subscriptions or ads.

Unfortunately, the ad companies have utterly shot themselves in the feet by allowing ads through their networks that are slow, inefficient and resource intensive.  So people use ad blockers.

Problem with ad blockers is that the content provider loses their income, and the business is then unviable.  So they obviously want to protect that by "encouraging" (forcing) users to not run such blockers.

All true. How they fund their sites is not my problem, however, and I'm less likely to go poking around changing my browser settings and risking all sorts of bandwidth hogging malware appearing than just clicking the next result down in my search results.

Its a compromise.  Some businesses think its beneficial to give non paying visitors (or to use The Register's perfect description, freetards) a piss off pill though.

As you know, I'm pretty vocal about keeping OOF ad free, as being a member of so many that have integrated inline ads, I know how frustrating they can be, especially on slower PCs (and I get bored constantly changing blocker settings, so tend to keep blockers off).

OOF is on its 7th server (in under 11yrs, since we were booting off our paid for hosting), with last 5 being expensive Proliants. Its on its 3rd network switch (and needs replacing, Netgear PoS), and Christ knows how many routers. Granted, more than just OOF uses that stuff, but I would dread to tot up the cost...

[Mister Rog]

Smart Ad's is where the action is, dynamically inserted adverts into a Live or VOD stream. (customer can't tell the difference vs normal ad) - Targeted to customers, can offer more info links as needed.

I would have hoped that if the customer is actually paying, then there would be no advertising. Or am I wrong ? I don't use any subscription service so I don't actually know.

[TheBoy]

Smart Ad's is where the action is, dynamically inserted adverts into a Live or VOD stream. (customer can't tell the difference vs normal ad) - Targeted to customers, can offer more info links as needed.

I would have hoped that if the customer is actually paying, then there would be no advertising. Or am I wrong ? I don't use any subscription service so I don't actually know.

Most mainstream pay tv broadcasts still have ads.