4 ms·

This site first nagged me to join their newsletter and then locked the second half of the article behind an email harvester. This is toxic behavior from a cont

This site first nagged me to join their newsletter and then locked the second half of the article behind an email harvester. This is toxic behavior from a content provider, please do not drive traffic to this site.

raphaelb 9y ago
There is a link on the email collection ad that says "Continue without an email address".
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  It’s still obnoxious behavior that IMO should not be rewarded with a share. On my device, the “ad” was offscreen. Highly suboptimal UX. I saw the "Continue without an email address" prompt and thought “fuck them”, crashing my attention sphere like that. And forcing me to scroll-scan to get my place back. The web is full of startup how to stories; I’ll just wait for the next one to pop up on HN.
  - raphaelb 9y ago
    I mean that's fair enough, but do you have the same complaint about companies like NYTimes or other paywalled content? I only mentioned it because numerous people seemed to be very offended by it which seemed a bit odd to me considering you can just close it, but maybe that's just me.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      > do you have the same complaint about companies like NYTimes or other paywalled content? Not the person you're responding to, but: yes, of course.
    - CodeWriter23 9y ago
      NYT doesn’t force me to lose my place in the middle of reading. They have the mini bar at the bottom and when you’re out of free reads for the month, they are up front about it and don’t let you read a word. They also don’t offer to spam me in exchange for reading the article.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
askafriend 9y ago
I don't understand this reasoning which I ultimately write off as entitlement. They produced the content. They think it's valuable enough to put behind an (annoying) interaction that allows them to grow their newsletter. You don't think it's that valuable and you don't even want to find out if it is or not. That's 100% fine. Just don't read the article. It's not your content, and you're not entitled to an ad-free version of it just because you're on the internet. It's not your site. It's not your content. But then you go and call the site "toxic" and call for a boycott? On what basis? If the content is actually good, then I personally would be inclined to support the site.
- semanticist 9y ago
  I'm not entitled to an ad-free version, but equally they're not entitled to my attention, or my email address. In an ideal world we give each other a bit of value and everyone comes out ahead, but if one side takes the piss it's entirely reasonable for the other side to call them out on it, refuse to participate, and highlight their behaviour for others.
  - edoceo 9y ago
    Um, you give them your attention when you click their link. They aren't entitled, you gave it away.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      In exchange for the promise of an interesting article, which they have failed to deliver on.
      - edoceo 9y ago
        That's called buyers remorse. When a product or service fails to meet your expectations sometime it's just crap, not toxic. It's amazing how much anger/vitriol a small little modal can generate. Don't you have a back button? Otherwise if you want the thing someone is offering in a simple quid-pro-quo take the deal or don't. Otherwise all you a really shouting about is that you think the price is too high.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I wonder if the nascent web annotations protocol offers a vector for pre-emptively flagging this sort of crap.

raphaelb 9y ago

There is a link on the email collection ad that says "Continue without an email address".

CodeWriter23 9y ago
It’s still obnoxious behavior that IMO should not be rewarded with a share. On my device, the “ad” was offscreen. Highly suboptimal UX. I saw the "Continue without an email address" prompt and thought “fuck them”, crashing my attention sphere like that. And forcing me to scroll-scan to get my place back. The web is full of startup how to stories; I’ll just wait for the next one to pop up on HN.
- raphaelb 9y ago
  I mean that's fair enough, but do you have the same complaint about companies like NYTimes or other paywalled content? I only mentioned it because numerous people seemed to be very offended by it which seemed a bit odd to me considering you can just close it, but maybe that's just me.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    > do you have the same complaint about companies like NYTimes or other paywalled content? Not the person you're responding to, but: yes, of course.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    NYT doesn’t force me to lose my place in the middle of reading. They have the mini bar at the bottom and when you’re out of free reads for the month, they are up front about it and don’t let you read a word. They also don’t offer to spam me in exchange for reading the article.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

askafriend 9y ago

I don't understand this reasoning which I ultimately write off as entitlement. They produced the content. They think it's valuable enough to put behind an (annoying) interaction that allows them to grow their newsletter. You don't think it's that valuable and you don't even want to find out if it is or not. That's 100% fine. Just don't read the article. It's not your content, and you're not entitled to an ad-free version of it just because you're on the internet. It's not your site. It's not your content. But then you go and call the site "toxic" and call for a boycott? On what basis? If the content is actually good, then I personally would be inclined to support the site.

semanticist 9y ago
I'm not entitled to an ad-free version, but equally they're not entitled to my attention, or my email address. In an ideal world we give each other a bit of value and everyone comes out ahead, but if one side takes the piss it's entirely reasonable for the other side to call them out on it, refuse to participate, and highlight their behaviour for others.
- edoceo 9y ago
  Um, you give them your attention when you click their link. They aren't entitled, you gave it away.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    In exchange for the promise of an interesting article, which they have failed to deliver on.
    - edoceo 9y ago
      That's called buyers remorse. When a product or service fails to meet your expectations sometime it's just crap, not toxic. It's amazing how much anger/vitriol a small little modal can generate. Don't you have a back button? Otherwise if you want the thing someone is offering in a simple quid-pro-quo take the deal or don't. Otherwise all you a really shouting about is that you think the price is too high.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I wonder if the nascent web annotations protocol offers a vector for pre-emptively flagging this sort of crap.