4 ms·

There is only a title page that I cannot scroll in chrome. I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the sto

by IncRnd 9y ago

There is only a title page that I cannot scroll in chrome. I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xelxebar 9y ago
FWIW, it's somewhat readable for my work JavaScript disabled.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  Thanks! I can't read it in chrome with JS disabled, but I can read the first box if I go into dev tools. Then I can scroll when the mouse is over the text box.
colonelxc 9y ago
You have the right to prevent your browser from downloading certain content, or running certain scripts (in this case ads). The site also has the right to prevent you from viewing their content without compensation (in this case, through ads). Of course it is probably not intentional on their part, they probably have never tested with an adblocker. Even if they were aware of the issue, I can't imagine it being very high priority.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  And?
  - jaquers 9y ago
    > I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story. Then don't. What are you complaining about?
    - strathmeyer 9y ago
      Correctly making webpages is of concern here.
      - briandear 9y ago
        How do those who code the webpage for te Boston Globe get paid for correctly making webpages? Once an adblocker is involved, it seems to hardly be fair to complain about page quality. It’s like a stowaway complaining about the in flight movie.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        You write that as if my comment was the only one from someone with difficulty loading the webpage.
        jaquers 9y ago
        I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers. So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        > I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers That's not true. Others can view it in safari with adblocker on, in lynx, in ff with noscript, etc. The problem isn't an adblocker but that the site doesn't work with commonly found browsers. > So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? That's a far better question. When I made my comment, the page was 100% comments about people not being able to read the webpage. There were about 10 comments at the time. So, the page that I posted to was a list of all the ways that people tried to read the webpage and couldn't. In that way, my comment, and every other comment on the hn page, were made to list how the web page didn't work in order for someone to find a way that the page could be viewed, without people having to change their browsing configurations. That continued until someone one person posted how to use textise and another used archive.is to view the page. Normally I use archive.org or google cache instead of archive.is, but this site wasn't in those caches at the time. > Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Except that nobody disputes the points in the post. It was a truism, which is why I responded, "And?" > Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work. The issue isn't the adblocker but a poorly coded site that doesn't work in all browsers. You are making assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm not hostile to a website making money. That's just a strawman.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  My work firewall prevents a lot of things from coming through. In this case, I can get to the content itself, but background images don't scroll properly, and such. Maybe they've got ads, maybe not. I can't tell. What I can tell is that they've stupidly over-complicated "display text and pictures on a scrolling page". As a work-around, I'm looking at their content through some kind of archive site that someone else in the thread posted. If they'd just hosted their own stuff, it would've come through, ads and all.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    It's not just unecessarily complicated, it makes the page unpleasant and hard to read.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  You're assuming that the problem is caused by ad blockers, not by over-reliance on JavaScript, insufficient testing, or other poor web design. Anti-adblocker software usually announces itself, in my experience; the goal is to get people to turn off their ad blockers, not leave entirely.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    I have seen many websites which core functionality is broken by adblockers. The Vodafone website in the U.K. is a good example, you can't login to the client area with an ad blocker on. Just plain bad design, not necessarily malice.
hondo77 9y ago
Works fine in Safari; AdBlock turned on.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  Thanks!
sleavey 9y ago
Add to that, there's a popup asking for my email address for their mailing list as soon as I start to scroll. Seriously, has anyone ever entered their email address in order to get rid of a popup instead of clicking "X"? Is there a more sinister purpose to these boxes? I note that users without Nuke Anything (or similar) installed in their browser will have to click whatever button the designer chose, and its associated tracking code, to close the popup.
- briandear 9y ago
  I really hate that too; but apparently the conversion rates and return on those things is huge.
KGIII 9y ago
See also: https://www.textise.net/ https://www.textise.net/ It's remarkably handy and I use it more often than I'd expect.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  It also works quite well to read the article through Lynx.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I do sometimes browse in Lynx. I'm not even ashamed to admit it. I also will sometimes use a browser that is graphical but doesn't support much, such as Midori. If you're a Windows user, there is an obscure browser called OffByOne and I used to use that one on a regular basis. For much of my browsing, I don't need much more than text. Sometimes, I do like images. I'll use a lightweight browser for that. On my tablet, like I am now, I have zero non-default apps installed, and don't intend to add any. So, I'll make use of the linked site, or similar, when I find a page that I want to see and it won't behave well for Safari. It's kind of nice to browse the web with one of the lightweight browsers. Links2 also works, as does elinks, for lightweight experiences. I think both have Windows builds and links2 can be found pre-compiled with https support - I'm pretty sure. OffByOne is the one I generally recommend. I don't think it has ever actually had a security vulnerability. I'm not sure how many people use it, but it probably totals in the double digits! I don't actually remember how I found OffByOne? I think I may have been looking to include a basic browser in an application I was making for myself. They do have a free stand-alone product, but it wasn't open source when I last looked. That was ages ago.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  This works great! Thanks for sharing it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by IncRnd 9y ago

There is only a title page that I cannot scroll in chrome. I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xelxebar 9y ago

FWIW, it's somewhat readable for my work JavaScript disabled.

IncRnd 9y ago
Thanks! I can't read it in chrome with JS disabled, but I can read the first box if I go into dev tools. Then I can scroll when the mouse is over the text box.

colonelxc 9y ago

You have the right to prevent your browser from downloading certain content, or running certain scripts (in this case ads). The site also has the right to prevent you from viewing their content without compensation (in this case, through ads). Of course it is probably not intentional on their part, they probably have never tested with an adblocker. Even if they were aware of the issue, I can't imagine it being very high priority.

IncRnd 9y ago
And?
- jaquers 9y ago
  > I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story. Then don't. What are you complaining about?
  - strathmeyer 9y ago
    Correctly making webpages is of concern here.
    - briandear 9y ago
      How do those who code the webpage for te Boston Globe get paid for correctly making webpages? Once an adblocker is involved, it seems to hardly be fair to complain about page quality. It’s like a stowaway complaining about the in flight movie.
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        You write that as if my comment was the only one from someone with difficulty loading the webpage.
        jaquers 9y ago
        I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers. So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        > I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers That's not true. Others can view it in safari with adblocker on, in lynx, in ff with noscript, etc. The problem isn't an adblocker but that the site doesn't work with commonly found browsers. > So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? That's a far better question. When I made my comment, the page was 100% comments about people not being able to read the webpage. There were about 10 comments at the time. So, the page that I posted to was a list of all the ways that people tried to read the webpage and couldn't. In that way, my comment, and every other comment on the hn page, were made to list how the web page didn't work in order for someone to find a way that the page could be viewed, without people having to change their browsing configurations. That continued until someone one person posted how to use textise and another used archive.is to view the page. Normally I use archive.org or google cache instead of archive.is, but this site wasn't in those caches at the time. > Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Except that nobody disputes the points in the post. It was a truism, which is why I responded, "And?" > Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work. The issue isn't the adblocker but a poorly coded site that doesn't work in all browsers. You are making assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm not hostile to a website making money. That's just a strawman.
khedoros1 9y ago
My work firewall prevents a lot of things from coming through. In this case, I can get to the content itself, but background images don't scroll properly, and such. Maybe they've got ads, maybe not. I can't tell. What I can tell is that they've stupidly over-complicated "display text and pictures on a scrolling page". As a work-around, I'm looking at their content through some kind of archive site that someone else in the thread posted. If they'd just hosted their own stuff, it would've come through, ads and all.
- cm2187 9y ago
  It's not just unecessarily complicated, it makes the page unpleasant and hard to read.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
You're assuming that the problem is caused by ad blockers, not by over-reliance on JavaScript, insufficient testing, or other poor web design. Anti-adblocker software usually announces itself, in my experience; the goal is to get people to turn off their ad blockers, not leave entirely.
- cm2187 9y ago
  I have seen many websites which core functionality is broken by adblockers. The Vodafone website in the U.K. is a good example, you can't login to the client area with an ad blocker on. Just plain bad design, not necessarily malice.

hondo77 9y ago

Works fine in Safari; AdBlock turned on.

IncRnd 9y ago
Thanks!

sleavey 9y ago

Add to that, there's a popup asking for my email address for their mailing list as soon as I start to scroll. Seriously, has anyone ever entered their email address in order to get rid of a popup instead of clicking "X"? Is there a more sinister purpose to these boxes? I note that users without Nuke Anything (or similar) installed in their browser will have to click whatever button the designer chose, and its associated tracking code, to close the popup.

briandear 9y ago
I really hate that too; but apparently the conversion rates and return on those things is huge.

KGIII 9y ago

See also: https://www.textise.net/ https://www.textise.net/ It's remarkably handy and I use it more often than I'd expect.

ekianjo 9y ago
It also works quite well to read the article through Lynx.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I do sometimes browse in Lynx. I'm not even ashamed to admit it. I also will sometimes use a browser that is graphical but doesn't support much, such as Midori. If you're a Windows user, there is an obscure browser called OffByOne and I used to use that one on a regular basis. For much of my browsing, I don't need much more than text. Sometimes, I do like images. I'll use a lightweight browser for that. On my tablet, like I am now, I have zero non-default apps installed, and don't intend to add any. So, I'll make use of the linked site, or similar, when I find a page that I want to see and it won't behave well for Safari. It's kind of nice to browse the web with one of the lightweight browsers. Links2 also works, as does elinks, for lightweight experiences. I think both have Windows builds and links2 can be found pre-compiled with https support - I'm pretty sure. OffByOne is the one I generally recommend. I don't think it has ever actually had a security vulnerability. I'm not sure how many people use it, but it probably totals in the double digits! I don't actually remember how I found OffByOne? I think I may have been looking to include a basic browser in an application I was making for myself. They do have a free stand-alone product, but it wasn't open source when I last looked. That was ages ago.
IncRnd 9y ago
This works great! Thanks for sharing it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]