4 ms·

I had trouble reading the whole article on mobile; screen-eating ads and forced scrolling to the bottom. But what I read just reads like a lengthy ad. Also, "

I had trouble reading the whole article on mobile; screen-eating ads and forced scrolling to the bottom. But what I read just reads like a lengthy ad. Also, "only"? I know it's HuffPo, but come on. How about electronics? Where am I going to find a few 74-series logic chips in person? How about materials like PTFE? None of my local plastics stores carry it. Sorry, am I sounding like an ass? I feel like that was sort of an ass-y thing to write. But these 'submarine' pieces really bug me.

morganvachon 9y ago
> "I had trouble reading the whole article on mobile" I had trouble reading it period. It was overflowing with superfluous flowery prose, in other words[1], it was too wordsmith-y for its own good. It's a HuffPost piece about the advantages of buying glasses online in 2017, it doesn't have to sound like a tabloid magazine article from 1896 to draw in the modern reader. [1] It was at a point early in the article where the author felt the need to say "in other words" and provide a dumbed down version of his previous sentence that I decided to stop reading for my own sanity. Next time, leave the thesaurus on the shelf please.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  Not only that, but his "synonyms" weren't really. A nose isn't a proboscis, and "bespectacled avoidance" isn't avoidance of wearing glasses, it's an avoidance that is, itself wearing glasses. Absurd.
lisper 9y ago
> But what I read just reads like a lengthy ad. What would a positive product review that didn't read like a lengthy ad look like?
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  That's sort of the problem with modern advertising, isn't it? Ideally advertising would earnestly connect people with products that might improve their lives. No harm, no foul. But the industry is currently so ubiquitously predatory and deceptive that any sort of advertising sets off blaring klaxons in my head. At least, when/if I recognize it as an ad.
  - lisper 9y ago
    > when/if I recognize it as an ad. But that is exactly what I'm asking: how do you tell the difference between an ad and a positive review written in good faith? In particular, how do you tell the difference between the kind of advertising you yearn for, that "earnestly connect[s] people with products that might improve their lives" and a positive review written in good faith? And if you can't tell the difference between the two, then what exactly is the problem? My point is that while I agree with you that modern advertising mostly sucks, I thought this article was pretty useful. I wear glasses, but I've never bought them on line because I was under the impression that Warby-Parker was the only game in town and I hate their frames (I like rimless metal frames and WP only had plastic the last time I looked). This article prompted me to take another look, and in particular it led me to two sites that have exactly the kind of frames I like at less than half what I paid at my optometrist. So this article was tremendously useful to me. Why should I care if it was an ad?
    - ataturk 9y ago
      I tried buy my eyeglasses online and because nobody mentioned the little issue of pupillary distance, the frames and lenses I got were useless. Money down a rathole. Costco sorted me out. I'm sure now that I know all the details of not only my Rx but also pupillary distance, I probably could order some glasses online, but once bitten, twice shy for now.
    - leggomylibro 9y ago
      Well, that's probably a good and healthy point of view. I think that I'm too cynical in many areas of life. But I have been trained to see 'ad = bad', and I've been jaded with how ads have seeped into every part of every form of media. I guess I'm willing to forego the occasional good-but-unsolicited recommendation in favor of caution, which might not be the best attitude. But it's still an attitude that I have. Chalk it up to the bad actors.

morganvachon 9y ago

> "I had trouble reading the whole article on mobile" I had trouble reading it period. It was overflowing with superfluous flowery prose, in other words[1], it was too wordsmith-y for its own good. It's a HuffPost piece about the advantages of buying glasses online in 2017, it doesn't have to sound like a tabloid magazine article from 1896 to draw in the modern reader. [1] It was at a point early in the article where the author felt the need to say "in other words" and provide a dumbed down version of his previous sentence that I decided to stop reading for my own sanity. Next time, leave the thesaurus on the shelf please.

StavrosK 9y ago
Not only that, but his "synonyms" weren't really. A nose isn't a proboscis, and "bespectacled avoidance" isn't avoidance of wearing glasses, it's an avoidance that is, itself wearing glasses. Absurd.

lisper 9y ago

> But what I read just reads like a lengthy ad. What would a positive product review that didn't read like a lengthy ad look like?

leggomylibro 9y ago
That's sort of the problem with modern advertising, isn't it? Ideally advertising would earnestly connect people with products that might improve their lives. No harm, no foul. But the industry is currently so ubiquitously predatory and deceptive that any sort of advertising sets off blaring klaxons in my head. At least, when/if I recognize it as an ad.
- lisper 9y ago
  > when/if I recognize it as an ad. But that is exactly what I'm asking: how do you tell the difference between an ad and a positive review written in good faith? In particular, how do you tell the difference between the kind of advertising you yearn for, that "earnestly connect[s] people with products that might improve their lives" and a positive review written in good faith? And if you can't tell the difference between the two, then what exactly is the problem? My point is that while I agree with you that modern advertising mostly sucks, I thought this article was pretty useful. I wear glasses, but I've never bought them on line because I was under the impression that Warby-Parker was the only game in town and I hate their frames (I like rimless metal frames and WP only had plastic the last time I looked). This article prompted me to take another look, and in particular it led me to two sites that have exactly the kind of frames I like at less than half what I paid at my optometrist. So this article was tremendously useful to me. Why should I care if it was an ad?
  - ataturk 9y ago
    I tried buy my eyeglasses online and because nobody mentioned the little issue of pupillary distance, the frames and lenses I got were useless. Money down a rathole. Costco sorted me out. I'm sure now that I know all the details of not only my Rx but also pupillary distance, I probably could order some glasses online, but once bitten, twice shy for now.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Well, that's probably a good and healthy point of view. I think that I'm too cynical in many areas of life. But I have been trained to see 'ad = bad', and I've been jaded with how ads have seeped into every part of every form of media. I guess I'm willing to forego the occasional good-but-unsolicited recommendation in favor of caution, which might not be the best attitude. But it's still an attitude that I have. Chalk it up to the bad actors.