4 ms·

As a predominantly frontend developer, I sometimes (just for giggles) check to see the page load of pages I visit. It always dismays me to see a site's own reso

As a predominantly frontend developer, I sometimes (just for giggles) check to see the page load of pages I visit. It always dismays me to see a site's own resources only take 200-500kb of bandwidth... and then all the ads and associated requests take another 25MB. It's quite common and I keep thinking there must be a better way..

abritinthebay 9y ago
Well, there is - but consumers prefer free + ads to micro-payments or subscriptions. Granted there has been pushback recently but that's usually due to gross abuse of ads. The only realistic way that I see forward are the ad networks (and this includes Google) setting lower maximum payload sizes for ads. Obviously sites can push back on quality and size but it's a hard metric to track consistently given how ad networks serve things.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  ~~consumers~~ (nay, citizens) prefer to have no ads or subscription costs etc. The fact is: ad-based model just puts the burden on those most susceptible to advertising. It's similar enough to funding schools through state lotteries in that the money comes from somewhere or the results go underfunded, and if you accept state-run lotteries or anything that looks even slightly like today's ad-based internet, you are talking about a funding source that is deeply and fundamentally unethical.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    You say that, but time after time user behavior shows they'll go to the ad supported version. See also: mobile. You have to totally gameify things to get micropayments to work. I mean, if you want that for websites, sure... but if you think clickbait is bad now...
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      "but" is not appropriate. You aren't contradicting anything I said. I'd agree with you completely, but your points are only "and" from my post, not "but".
- virmundi 9y ago
  There are no micro payments out there that would support the site. You'd need to charge something like 0.0005 cents per view. No currency exchange supports something small. In reality, it would make people money. The consumer could limit their account to $20/m. On the other hand, micropayment would freeze out poor people.
  - odbol_ 9y ago
    No, poor people would just see ads because they can't pay to remove them. Although I guess that's not a great target market...

abritinthebay 9y ago

Well, there is - but consumers prefer free + ads to micro-payments or subscriptions. Granted there has been pushback recently but that's usually due to gross abuse of ads. The only realistic way that I see forward are the ad networks (and this includes Google) setting lower maximum payload sizes for ads. Obviously sites can push back on quality and size but it's a hard metric to track consistently given how ad networks serve things.

quadrangle 9y ago
~~consumers~~ (nay, citizens) prefer to have no ads or subscription costs etc. The fact is: ad-based model just puts the burden on those most susceptible to advertising. It's similar enough to funding schools through state lotteries in that the money comes from somewhere or the results go underfunded, and if you accept state-run lotteries or anything that looks even slightly like today's ad-based internet, you are talking about a funding source that is deeply and fundamentally unethical.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  You say that, but time after time user behavior shows they'll go to the ad supported version. See also: mobile. You have to totally gameify things to get micropayments to work. I mean, if you want that for websites, sure... but if you think clickbait is bad now...
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    "but" is not appropriate. You aren't contradicting anything I said. I'd agree with you completely, but your points are only "and" from my post, not "but".
virmundi 9y ago
There are no micro payments out there that would support the site. You'd need to charge something like 0.0005 cents per view. No currency exchange supports something small. In reality, it would make people money. The consumer could limit their account to $20/m. On the other hand, micropayment would freeze out poor people.
- odbol_ 9y ago
  No, poor people would just see ads because they can't pay to remove them. Although I guess that's not a great target market...