3 ms·

And it also monetizes like crazy. The product team there recognises it's a problem, but it's hard to argue with millions in revenue at stake. All sites start

And it also monetizes like crazy. The product team there recognises it's a problem, but it's hard to argue with millions in revenue at stake. All sites start out idealistic, and then start making compromises in order to survive. The actual flight product itself at TripAdvisor isn't too bad (apart from auto-selecting Orbitz as an alternative search so they can do some flag-planting). It's the main site that does all the pop-unders and in-line pop-ups. Try going direct to flights - http://www.tripadvisor.com/Flights http://www.tripadvisor.com/Flights

danilocampos 16y ago
Windows monetizes like crazy, too. As did Blockbuster. As do highway robbers. Companies can monetize at the expense of goodwill all they want. It doesn't impress anyone but their accountants and investors. Meanwhile, users grow resentful. Companies with a user product should value the user first and configure their business accordingly — it's just the only viable long term play. If you do crappy things to the user for short term cash, that becomes your long term play because you become dependent on the money. And in the long term, you lose to the guy who doesn't treat users like crap. Edit: >All sites start out idealistic, and then start making compromises in order to survive. And if Zappos had taken this advice and compromised by screwing their customers for cash, would they have sold for a billion dollars? I mean, a billion dollars, all for not being a dick to users or cutting corners at their expense. Thats the value of ideals you won't compromise.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- timcederman 16y ago
  You can't provide a single counter example and pretend it's the rule. Have you built a product like these and dealt with these tensions? It's a really hard problem to balance for 99% of companies. Because a few get away with it doesn't mean it's right for everyone else (or that those that get away with it are intrinsically better). You lose your argument when you resort to ad hominem stuff like "highway robbers". Working on a large consumer internet site is full of necessary compromises.

danilocampos 16y ago

Windows monetizes like crazy, too. As did Blockbuster. As do highway robbers. Companies can monetize at the expense of goodwill all they want. It doesn't impress anyone but their accountants and investors. Meanwhile, users grow resentful. Companies with a user product should value the user first and configure their business accordingly — it's just the only viable long term play. If you do crappy things to the user for short term cash, that becomes your long term play because you become dependent on the money. And in the long term, you lose to the guy who doesn't treat users like crap. Edit: >All sites start out idealistic, and then start making compromises in order to survive. And if Zappos had taken this advice and compromised by screwing their customers for cash, would they have sold for a billion dollars? I mean, a billion dollars, all for not being a dick to users or cutting corners at their expense. Thats the value of ideals you won't compromise.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
timcederman 16y ago
You can't provide a single counter example and pretend it's the rule. Have you built a product like these and dealt with these tensions? It's a really hard problem to balance for 99% of companies. Because a few get away with it doesn't mean it's right for everyone else (or that those that get away with it are intrinsically better). You lose your argument when you resort to ad hominem stuff like "highway robbers". Working on a large consumer internet site is full of necessary compromises.