6 ms·

If someone from the Economist tech team happens to read this: i had to click away 4 different nag pop-ups before i was able to even read the articles headline.

If someone from the Economist tech team happens to read this: i had to click away 4 different nag pop-ups before i was able to even read the articles headline. Cookie consent (thanks EU), some user experience survey, a newsletter sign up, and a overlay ad for your paid subscription service. Stop this bullshit, it is unacceptable.

matkins 8y ago
Perhaps your ad blocking extension is not correctly configured? I didn't see any of that, but I've enabled additional lists (they come by default with uBlock Origin, just not enabled; you merely have to mark a few checkboxes.)
- sparkling 8y ago
  By "popup", i dont mean a extra browser window, but in-page overlays
korm 8y ago
The state of news sites is well known to everyone on HN. It's not nice to have this same comment pop up every time instead of discussing the article. There are article outlining services and add-ons you can use. I really don't mean to offend, I just think it would be better for HN if this wasn't one of the first comments on every thread.
- rusk 8y ago
  > There are article outlining services and add-ons But - should all this extra gear be necessary? It's fine for you and me, and everyone else here who understands all this stuff but what about the rest of the general population? I think GP's point is fair, if you view it as constructive feedback rather than a criticism of the publication. I personally enjoy the economist but tend to steer clear of the online experience. Now that's me, who is knowledgeable enough to work around the various glitches. What about the rest of the potential readership. This poor quality of execution is costing the economist circulation, therefore advertising revenue, and probably potential subscribers.
- aikah 8y ago
  > The state of news sites is well known to everyone on HN. It's not nice to have this same comment pop up every time instead of discussing the article. This is a technology website, I find UX discussion pretty relevant since all these news sites have horrible UX, and it should be pointed out each time they fail at basic UX. They don't need 50 nag screens. They could put most of them on the side or the top of their page, including GDPR notices. The reason why they use these invasive and annoying nag screens is that browsers ended up blocking all these annoying window based pop ups at first place. Online news media just can't learn their lesson.
  - korm 8y ago
    I just don't think the online news media will learn anything from tangential HN discussions so we might as well do away with these types of comments and either discuss the article's content or not visit the link at all. I think that's the proper etiquette, unless of course there's something exceptional worth noting. I too wish this terrible UX was an exception, don't get me wrong.
- qubax 8y ago
  I disagree. I get that there are a lot of media employees here, but it would be better if people stopped defending such practices. And it isn't every thread. It's usually the most egregious examples that people point out.
  - korm 8y ago
    I didn't defend anything and I'm not a media employee. I complained about a common type of comment that is low effort and doesn't advance discussion, in my opinion at least.
pwg 8y ago
In my case, with NoScript blocking all javascript (and cookies also blocked) I got the full article appearing with no nag pop-ups (the nag pop-ups are almost always javascript based) or any other irritant. The article was fully readable, and mouse wheel scrolling worked perfectly to scroll through the full text. So you have the ability to "stop this bullshit" yourself, at least for the Economist's current page design.
ktosobcy 8y ago
If you are on Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/in-page-pop-up-reporter/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/in-page-pop-u...
eafkuor 8y ago
> Stop this bullshit, it is unacceptable. You are getting a free article, having to put up with those popups seems acceptable to me
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  That's not how the power dynamic works. The Economist is being given advice which will keep sparkling reading their content. They can live without the content, but the Economist cannot live without readers.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    But can it live without freeloading readers? I don’t know the answer to that but it’s certainly not as simple as ‘sparkling having a dramatic power over the publisher. If he won’t pay for subscriptions and he won’t view their ads (nor participate in the governmental mandates he can vote on) why should the economist serve him content at all?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      Will it convert any freeloaders into subscriptions by nagging them with 4 popups before they can even read the content?
- qubax 8y ago
  It's not free. People are paying the economist with their time.
kentosi 8y ago
You know what's worse? I actually paid to become a member last week and I STILL see ads! A HUGE banner ad up the top and two big ads along the right hand side. Guess who'll be cancelling his fledgeling subscription?
megaman8 8y ago
I wasn't even able to get to the article without using copy and paste trick to view the darn thing in my text editor.

matkins 8y ago

Perhaps your ad blocking extension is not correctly configured? I didn't see any of that, but I've enabled additional lists (they come by default with uBlock Origin, just not enabled; you merely have to mark a few checkboxes.)

sparkling 8y ago
By "popup", i dont mean a extra browser window, but in-page overlays

korm 8y ago

The state of news sites is well known to everyone on HN. It's not nice to have this same comment pop up every time instead of discussing the article. There are article outlining services and add-ons you can use. I really don't mean to offend, I just think it would be better for HN if this wasn't one of the first comments on every thread.

rusk 8y ago
> There are article outlining services and add-ons But - should all this extra gear be necessary? It's fine for you and me, and everyone else here who understands all this stuff but what about the rest of the general population? I think GP's point is fair, if you view it as constructive feedback rather than a criticism of the publication. I personally enjoy the economist but tend to steer clear of the online experience. Now that's me, who is knowledgeable enough to work around the various glitches. What about the rest of the potential readership. This poor quality of execution is costing the economist circulation, therefore advertising revenue, and probably potential subscribers.
aikah 8y ago
> The state of news sites is well known to everyone on HN. It's not nice to have this same comment pop up every time instead of discussing the article. This is a technology website, I find UX discussion pretty relevant since all these news sites have horrible UX, and it should be pointed out each time they fail at basic UX. They don't need 50 nag screens. They could put most of them on the side or the top of their page, including GDPR notices. The reason why they use these invasive and annoying nag screens is that browsers ended up blocking all these annoying window based pop ups at first place. Online news media just can't learn their lesson.
- korm 8y ago
  I just don't think the online news media will learn anything from tangential HN discussions so we might as well do away with these types of comments and either discuss the article's content or not visit the link at all. I think that's the proper etiquette, unless of course there's something exceptional worth noting. I too wish this terrible UX was an exception, don't get me wrong.
qubax 8y ago
I disagree. I get that there are a lot of media employees here, but it would be better if people stopped defending such practices. And it isn't every thread. It's usually the most egregious examples that people point out.
- korm 8y ago
  I didn't defend anything and I'm not a media employee. I complained about a common type of comment that is low effort and doesn't advance discussion, in my opinion at least.

pwg 8y ago

In my case, with NoScript blocking all javascript (and cookies also blocked) I got the full article appearing with no nag pop-ups (the nag pop-ups are almost always javascript based) or any other irritant. The article was fully readable, and mouse wheel scrolling worked perfectly to scroll through the full text. So you have the ability to "stop this bullshit" yourself, at least for the Economist's current page design.

ktosobcy 8y ago

If you are on Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/in-page-pop-up-reporter/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/in-page-pop-u...

eafkuor 8y ago

> Stop this bullshit, it is unacceptable. You are getting a free article, having to put up with those popups seems acceptable to me

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
That's not how the power dynamic works. The Economist is being given advice which will keep sparkling reading their content. They can live without the content, but the Economist cannot live without readers.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  But can it live without freeloading readers? I don’t know the answer to that but it’s certainly not as simple as ‘sparkling having a dramatic power over the publisher. If he won’t pay for subscriptions and he won’t view their ads (nor participate in the governmental mandates he can vote on) why should the economist serve him content at all?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Will it convert any freeloaders into subscriptions by nagging them with 4 popups before they can even read the content?
qubax 8y ago
It's not free. People are paying the economist with their time.

kentosi 8y ago

You know what's worse? I actually paid to become a member last week and I STILL see ads! A HUGE banner ad up the top and two big ads along the right hand side. Guess who'll be cancelling his fledgeling subscription?

megaman8 8y ago

I wasn't even able to get to the article without using copy and paste trick to view the darn thing in my text editor.