3 ms·

None of that is a dark pattern. A dark pattern is an UI design that motivates users to use the program/site in a way profitable to the site, but contrary to us

by onli 10y ago

None of that is a dark pattern. A dark pattern is an UI design that motivates users to use the program/site in a way profitable to the site, but contrary to users' interest. To trick people, see http://darkpatterns.org/ http://darkpatterns.org/. Redirecting to the whole page instead of the link is just a hotlink protection (as debatable as that is for an image hoster). Animated overlays in mobile is just shitty advertising and UX. But no dark pattern here. I saw that multiple times here on HN now that people misuse the term. It's a pity, the original idea is something to be aware of, and diluting what dark pattern means hinders that awareness.

tomtomtom777 10y ago
> A dark pattern is an UI design that motivates users to use the program/site in a way profitable to the site, but contrary to users' interest. Doesn't this definition cover all advertising ?
- onli 10y ago
  No. Advertising can also just provide information. It is also not an UI.
  - conceit 10y ago
    It's a UI element and a UI with just one element is an UI already, so an UI-element is itself an UI. Let's argue semantics on a Site for Hackers.
    - onli 10y ago
      Advertising is a verb (or a genre). It is not an ad. An ad itself can use dark patterns (good example: the skype ads looking like UI elements) – but that does not make advertising itself one.
      - conceit 10y ago
        Ad is short for advertisement, but I pull the "I'm not a native speaker" card.
shawabawa3 10y ago
> Redirecting to the whole page instead of the link is just a hotlink protection Sounds like something that's profitable to the site but against the users' interest to me
- onli 10y ago
  But not a deception triggering an action on the user side.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    The deception is really in the URL. If I see an address ending with .jpg, I expect it to load a raw JPEG, and I have some implicit expectations following that that are being broken if the site serves HTML instead. Also, it's actually much simpler than the discussion makes it to be. Just look at the big picture. The user wants a picture, free of irrelevant or harmful bullshit. The site promises that raw image, by means of providing what looks like a direct URL. Then, it does not deliver on the promise, serving the irrelevant and/or harmful bullshit along with the picture. It's pretty clear that one side is trying to exploit the other one.
lmm 10y ago
Having links that used to be hotlinks no longer be hotlinks is a dark pattern; also URLs that look like hotlinks (ending in .jpg or similar) but aren't. I'd argue that serving ads sometimes but not always is a dark pattern (particularly if they use cookies or similar to never serve ads to the original uploader).
- onli 10y ago
  Again, no. A dark pattern is an UI that makes the user do something he does not want. The best example is linkedin trying to get people to spam their contacts with invites. The pre-checked "subscribe to the newsletter" checkbox is a dark pattern. Same is the checkbox you need to check to not subscribe to the newsletter. A hotlink is no user interface, changing its behaviour is not a dark pattern. Serving ads never is one (though ads itself can use dark patterns), regardless whether the uploader sees them or not. Those are different kind of tricks that have (edit: almost) nothing to do with what the term dark pattern describes. Edit: I'd argue that links that used to be hotlinks not being hotlinks can maybe be part of a dark pattern. If an UI tried to get people to share a site, and the people do that only because they think the links are hotlinks, then that UI could be a dark pattern and the non-hotlinks a part of that. But the dark pattern is then the UI presenting the hotlink, the "share this image directly" widget, not the hotlink itself.
  - shawabawa3 10y ago
    I just disagree with your definition of dark pattern then
    - onli 10y ago
      It is not mine, it is the definition. Have a look at http://darkpatterns.org/ http://darkpatterns.org/, the video and the library, to see how it is defined.
      - pricechild 10y ago
        I think that was his point, different people can define the same word in multiple ways. Just because you/your favourite source says one thing, doesn't mean everyone else agrees, for better or worse.
Shivetya 10y ago
using reddit on mobile when viewing imgur content was horribly painful with their app spam covering the top
- onli 10y ago
  That is quite possible :) I'm not disputing that.
shostack 10y ago
Here's a screenshot of their Share UI: http://i.imgur.com/6J3CvKD.png http://i.imgur.com/6J3CvKD.png There is something labeled very clearly as a "Direct Link." When I paste that link into my browser, I go to the image file. If people are posting the Direct Link and it is indeed redirecting to the full site (per the claims), then that is most certainly a very dark pattern if not an outright example of blatantly lying to their users. So in this case it is very much about the UI and what is presented to the user at the time they are grabbing the URL.
- onli 10y ago
  That's actually a good point and argumentation. I tried to explain above of why that does not feel right to mix it in as dark pattern, but it gets muddy and based on the votes people don't seem to understand it, or just don't find it convincing. Short, adjusted for here: I'm not convinced people would not share and click those links anyway even if it were correctly labeled. But the widget looking like this is a good point against that argumentation of mine. > if not an outright example of blatantly lying to their users. That of course. Hotlink protection for an image hoster when even providing official direct link is in any case a deception, maybe a lie. Please don't mistake my argumentation against the use of the dark pattern term as a defense of the behavior.

by onli 10y ago

tomtomtom777 10y ago

> A dark pattern is an UI design that motivates users to use the program/site in a way profitable to the site, but contrary to users' interest. Doesn't this definition cover all advertising ?

onli 10y ago
No. Advertising can also just provide information. It is also not an UI.
- conceit 10y ago
  It's a UI element and a UI with just one element is an UI already, so an UI-element is itself an UI. Let's argue semantics on a Site for Hackers.
  - onli 10y ago
    Advertising is a verb (or a genre). It is not an ad. An ad itself can use dark patterns (good example: the skype ads looking like UI elements) – but that does not make advertising itself one.
    - conceit 10y ago
      Ad is short for advertisement, but I pull the "I'm not a native speaker" card.

shawabawa3 10y ago

> Redirecting to the whole page instead of the link is just a hotlink protection Sounds like something that's profitable to the site but against the users' interest to me

onli 10y ago
But not a deception triggering an action on the user side.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  The deception is really in the URL. If I see an address ending with .jpg, I expect it to load a raw JPEG, and I have some implicit expectations following that that are being broken if the site serves HTML instead. Also, it's actually much simpler than the discussion makes it to be. Just look at the big picture. The user wants a picture, free of irrelevant or harmful bullshit. The site promises that raw image, by means of providing what looks like a direct URL. Then, it does not deliver on the promise, serving the irrelevant and/or harmful bullshit along with the picture. It's pretty clear that one side is trying to exploit the other one.

lmm 10y ago

Having links that used to be hotlinks no longer be hotlinks is a dark pattern; also URLs that look like hotlinks (ending in .jpg or similar) but aren't. I'd argue that serving ads sometimes but not always is a dark pattern (particularly if they use cookies or similar to never serve ads to the original uploader).

onli 10y ago
Again, no. A dark pattern is an UI that makes the user do something he does not want. The best example is linkedin trying to get people to spam their contacts with invites. The pre-checked "subscribe to the newsletter" checkbox is a dark pattern. Same is the checkbox you need to check to not subscribe to the newsletter. A hotlink is no user interface, changing its behaviour is not a dark pattern. Serving ads never is one (though ads itself can use dark patterns), regardless whether the uploader sees them or not. Those are different kind of tricks that have (edit: almost) nothing to do with what the term dark pattern describes. Edit: I'd argue that links that used to be hotlinks not being hotlinks can maybe be part of a dark pattern. If an UI tried to get people to share a site, and the people do that only because they think the links are hotlinks, then that UI could be a dark pattern and the non-hotlinks a part of that. But the dark pattern is then the UI presenting the hotlink, the "share this image directly" widget, not the hotlink itself.
- shawabawa3 10y ago
  I just disagree with your definition of dark pattern then
  - onli 10y ago
    It is not mine, it is the definition. Have a look at http://darkpatterns.org/ http://darkpatterns.org/, the video and the library, to see how it is defined.
    - pricechild 10y ago
      I think that was his point, different people can define the same word in multiple ways. Just because you/your favourite source says one thing, doesn't mean everyone else agrees, for better or worse.

Shivetya 10y ago

using reddit on mobile when viewing imgur content was horribly painful with their app spam covering the top

onli 10y ago
That is quite possible :) I'm not disputing that.

shostack 10y ago

Here's a screenshot of their Share UI: http://i.imgur.com/6J3CvKD.png http://i.imgur.com/6J3CvKD.png There is something labeled very clearly as a "Direct Link." When I paste that link into my browser, I go to the image file. If people are posting the Direct Link and it is indeed redirecting to the full site (per the claims), then that is most certainly a very dark pattern if not an outright example of blatantly lying to their users. So in this case it is very much about the UI and what is presented to the user at the time they are grabbing the URL.

onli 10y ago
That's actually a good point and argumentation. I tried to explain above of why that does not feel right to mix it in as dark pattern, but it gets muddy and based on the votes people don't seem to understand it, or just don't find it convincing. Short, adjusted for here: I'm not convinced people would not share and click those links anyway even if it were correctly labeled. But the widget looking like this is a good point against that argumentation of mine. > if not an outright example of blatantly lying to their users. That of course. Hotlink protection for an image hoster when even providing official direct link is in any case a deception, maybe a lie. Please don't mistake my argumentation against the use of the dark pattern term as a defense of the behavior.