5 ms·

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

by 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.

by korm 8y ago

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.