6 ms·

One of the replies has the most plausible reason for this really weird prompt: They want to appear to be giving you the choice to not have inline ads, but the i

One of the replies has the most plausible reason for this really weird prompt: They want to appear to be giving you the choice to not have inline ads, but the inline ads are more profitable.

wolpoli 5y ago
This is it. I also find myself accidentially interacting with inline ads more than banner ads.
ezekg 5y ago
Add this to the list of dark patterns big tech employs to make you a more profitable product.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  Is this a dark pattern? "see inline ads, or see bigger ads" seems like a pretty straightforwardly-presented choice. Its like other ad servers' "use your data for targeted ads or see more ads, which will be untargeted". How else would you present the tradeoff to the user? How is the presence of the tradeoff any more of a "dark pattern" than if they had simply turned on inline ads with no option to avoid it?
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    It is most definitely a dark pattern. It's a choice, that is not a choice: the swindler's "pick a card, any card" trick. Presented in the most cynical, self-serving, and manipulative, fashion. As UX goes, it's nothing but execrable.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > It's a choice, that is not a choice How? I laid out precisely what the choice is in my comment, but I'll lay it out here again: smaller, inline ads vs larger, out-of-mailbox ads. There are positives and negatives to both. The only sense in which this is "not a choice" is that you will be served ads regardless, but "free service has ads" is not "a new dark pattern", in any way.
      - inopinatus 5y ago
        The self-serving venom dripping from this followup is a testament to what a toxic choice it is that’s being given. Are you by any chance a Microsoft product manager? If you think we’ll all kiss the corporate boot and accept the limited range of options offered, think again. The better choice is the one not presented. Hint: it’s obscenely visceral.
        wutbrodo 5y ago
        Lol, calm down buddy, drink a glass of water. I dislike Microsoft quite a bit, despise ads, and pay or block to minimize my exposure to them. But believe it or not, not everyone is simple-minded enough to think that it's impossible to be incorrect as long as you're rooting for the right "side". There's a group of people (let's call them "adults") who are capable of discussing reality in more detail than "hurr durr ads bad". The claim I responded to was that the choice of ad format was a new dark pattern, which is a specific claim that's independent of your feelings about ads overall.
        inopinatus 5y ago
        I have said nothing about feelings, nor included an opinion about ads in general. For someone this supercilious, you sure make a lot of bad assumptions en route. The only person to have used the phrase “new dark pattern”, by the way, is you. So if you want to argue whether it’s new or not, go right ahead: you’re just arguing with yourself. If you want to argue it’s not a dark pattern, then good luck on the next zebra crossing. I’m not your “buddy”, either.
        wutbrodo 5y ago
        > The only person to have used the phrase “new dark pattern”, by the way, is you. From the comment I responded to: "Add this to the list of dark patterns". (You don't _add_ existing instances of a category to a list enumerating that category) As it seems the only thing worse than your emotional continence is your reading comprehension, I should probably take my leave of this "conversation". I hope your day goes better than it has been.
  - nullandvoid 5y ago
    The anti pattern here is that the lamen clearly can't distinguish the ads from actual emails, hence the EU stepped in. Instead of just moving to a different ad delivery mechanism (right option) they are still trying to push the inline option (which is objectively "worse" for most users, but good for bottom line) as the best choice, using language that make the "good choice" seem like a stupid option (slower and less space). Hence the language and design here certainly reads like an anti pattern to me.
    - tzs 5y ago
      From the link in another comment about the EU ruling it didn't sound like the issue was that users couldn't distinguish ads from emails. It was that the EU has decided that if the ads appear in the inbox then they count as direct marketing, which must be opted into. I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Unless they went totally overboard on the number of ads all it would do would mean maybe a little bit more scrolling on average to get through the inbox. Having a separate ad section would be a lot more distracting and would likely reduce the space available for displaying the messages that I do read.
      - autoexec 5y ago
        > I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Inline is certainly the worst option for most users. If the ad is always displayed in the same location (a location separated from what you're there to read: your emails) it can be ignored. As big and distracting as they'll try to make it, most people will eventually tune it out entirely, because they already know nothing they care about will be there. The term for this is "Banner Blindness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) and it means that most people will spend very little time paying attention to the ad. Inline ads are mixed in with the content you care about (your emails). You say yourself that you'd be forced to skim over them along with everything else that you're forced to evaluate to determine if you actually care about that message or not. That means every time one shows up you'll be forced to determine if what you're seeing is an advertisement or an email that you may or may not care about. You won't be able to become blind to the ads because that would cause you to miss important messages you want to read. Ads, legitimate messages you care about, and legitimate messages you don't care about, they will all need to be evaluated and that will require you to read the ad the same way you are forced to read the sender/subject lines of the email in your inbox you don't care about. Microsoft knows that inline ads are more effective. It's why they are pushing them so hard. Microsoft wouldn't try to manipulate people into selecting an option that wasn't advantageous for Microsoft. They aren't looking out for your best interests. They are looking out for themselves at your expense. Any time they seem to be steering you toward something, that's a warning sign that you should be extra careful.
Forge36 5y ago
I'd go with whichever option is easier to block :) Very glad I'm not using web-outlook (hotmail?) for my e-mail.
- gordaco 5y ago
  I still use my 20 years old hotmail address (OK, I don't really use it anymore... but I still get some mail from newsletters I'm subscribed to), but I read it from thunderbird so I never need to use the ad-ridden web interface. Then again I would not see the ads anyway. In the case of the tweet we're discussing, I would probably have opted for the "bigger ads" which seems more easily removed by uBlock origin.
  - distances 5y ago
    You can set mail forwarding from that address. Just have log in couple of times a year so they won't delete the account.
gnicholas 5y ago
The prompt also claims that Outlook may load slower with a banner ad on the side instead of inline ads. Maybe the ad would load slower, but who cares? Presumably the reason they're pushing people toward inline ads is they're harder for adblockers to block?
- bayindirh 5y ago
  If I know Microsoft enough, they'll inadvertently require the ad frames to load completely before mail content to start loading. You know, bugs are inevitable.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Can’t really be mad at the profitable parts of the UI getting preference.
- altairprime 5y ago
  They’re simply more profitable, as users otherwise would not voluntarily scroll through and view (ignore) ads.
srtjstjsj 5y ago
_jal 5y ago
The inevitable problem for the copy writers for this sort of thing is that the correct choice is always the one they're discouraging.
wutbrodo 5y ago
Let alone weird, this isn't even novel. Five years ago, one of FB/Google/Twitter framed the advertising data option as "we use your data to show you ads" vs "see more ads, which will also be less relevant to you".

One of the replies has the most plausible reason for this really weird prompt: They want to appear to be giving you the choice to not have inline ads, but the inline ads are more profitable.

wolpoli 5y ago

This is it. I also find myself accidentially interacting with inline ads more than banner ads.

ezekg 5y ago

Add this to the list of dark patterns big tech employs to make you a more profitable product.

wutbrodo 5y ago
Is this a dark pattern? "see inline ads, or see bigger ads" seems like a pretty straightforwardly-presented choice. Its like other ad servers' "use your data for targeted ads or see more ads, which will be untargeted". How else would you present the tradeoff to the user? How is the presence of the tradeoff any more of a "dark pattern" than if they had simply turned on inline ads with no option to avoid it?
- inopinatus 5y ago
  It is most definitely a dark pattern. It's a choice, that is not a choice: the swindler's "pick a card, any card" trick. Presented in the most cynical, self-serving, and manipulative, fashion. As UX goes, it's nothing but execrable.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > It's a choice, that is not a choice How? I laid out precisely what the choice is in my comment, but I'll lay it out here again: smaller, inline ads vs larger, out-of-mailbox ads. There are positives and negatives to both. The only sense in which this is "not a choice" is that you will be served ads regardless, but "free service has ads" is not "a new dark pattern", in any way.
    - inopinatus 5y ago
      The self-serving venom dripping from this followup is a testament to what a toxic choice it is that’s being given. Are you by any chance a Microsoft product manager? If you think we’ll all kiss the corporate boot and accept the limited range of options offered, think again. The better choice is the one not presented. Hint: it’s obscenely visceral.
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        Lol, calm down buddy, drink a glass of water. I dislike Microsoft quite a bit, despise ads, and pay or block to minimize my exposure to them. But believe it or not, not everyone is simple-minded enough to think that it's impossible to be incorrect as long as you're rooting for the right "side". There's a group of people (let's call them "adults") who are capable of discussing reality in more detail than "hurr durr ads bad". The claim I responded to was that the choice of ad format was a new dark pattern, which is a specific claim that's independent of your feelings about ads overall.
        inopinatus 5y ago
        I have said nothing about feelings, nor included an opinion about ads in general. For someone this supercilious, you sure make a lot of bad assumptions en route. The only person to have used the phrase “new dark pattern”, by the way, is you. So if you want to argue whether it’s new or not, go right ahead: you’re just arguing with yourself. If you want to argue it’s not a dark pattern, then good luck on the next zebra crossing. I’m not your “buddy”, either.
        wutbrodo 5y ago
        > The only person to have used the phrase “new dark pattern”, by the way, is you. From the comment I responded to: "Add this to the list of dark patterns". (You don't _add_ existing instances of a category to a list enumerating that category) As it seems the only thing worse than your emotional continence is your reading comprehension, I should probably take my leave of this "conversation". I hope your day goes better than it has been.
- nullandvoid 5y ago
  The anti pattern here is that the lamen clearly can't distinguish the ads from actual emails, hence the EU stepped in. Instead of just moving to a different ad delivery mechanism (right option) they are still trying to push the inline option (which is objectively "worse" for most users, but good for bottom line) as the best choice, using language that make the "good choice" seem like a stupid option (slower and less space). Hence the language and design here certainly reads like an anti pattern to me.
  - tzs 5y ago
    From the link in another comment about the EU ruling it didn't sound like the issue was that users couldn't distinguish ads from emails. It was that the EU has decided that if the ads appear in the inbox then they count as direct marketing, which must be opted into. I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Unless they went totally overboard on the number of ads all it would do would mean maybe a little bit more scrolling on average to get through the inbox. Having a separate ad section would be a lot more distracting and would likely reduce the space available for displaying the messages that I do read.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      > I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Inline is certainly the worst option for most users. If the ad is always displayed in the same location (a location separated from what you're there to read: your emails) it can be ignored. As big and distracting as they'll try to make it, most people will eventually tune it out entirely, because they already know nothing they care about will be there. The term for this is "Banner Blindness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) and it means that most people will spend very little time paying attention to the ad. Inline ads are mixed in with the content you care about (your emails). You say yourself that you'd be forced to skim over them along with everything else that you're forced to evaluate to determine if you actually care about that message or not. That means every time one shows up you'll be forced to determine if what you're seeing is an advertisement or an email that you may or may not care about. You won't be able to become blind to the ads because that would cause you to miss important messages you want to read. Ads, legitimate messages you care about, and legitimate messages you don't care about, they will all need to be evaluated and that will require you to read the ad the same way you are forced to read the sender/subject lines of the email in your inbox you don't care about. Microsoft knows that inline ads are more effective. It's why they are pushing them so hard. Microsoft wouldn't try to manipulate people into selecting an option that wasn't advantageous for Microsoft. They aren't looking out for your best interests. They are looking out for themselves at your expense. Any time they seem to be steering you toward something, that's a warning sign that you should be extra careful.

Forge36 5y ago

I'd go with whichever option is easier to block :) Very glad I'm not using web-outlook (hotmail?) for my e-mail.

gordaco 5y ago
I still use my 20 years old hotmail address (OK, I don't really use it anymore... but I still get some mail from newsletters I'm subscribed to), but I read it from thunderbird so I never need to use the ad-ridden web interface. Then again I would not see the ads anyway. In the case of the tweet we're discussing, I would probably have opted for the "bigger ads" which seems more easily removed by uBlock origin.
- distances 5y ago
  You can set mail forwarding from that address. Just have log in couple of times a year so they won't delete the account.

gnicholas 5y ago

The prompt also claims that Outlook may load slower with a banner ad on the side instead of inline ads. Maybe the ad would load slower, but who cares? Presumably the reason they're pushing people toward inline ads is they're harder for adblockers to block?

bayindirh 5y ago
If I know Microsoft enough, they'll inadvertently require the ad frames to load completely before mail content to start loading. You know, bugs are inevitable.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Can’t really be mad at the profitable parts of the UI getting preference.
altairprime 5y ago
They’re simply more profitable, as users otherwise would not voluntarily scroll through and view (ignore) ads.

srtjstjsj 5y ago

_jal 5y ago

The inevitable problem for the copy writers for this sort of thing is that the correct choice is always the one they're discouraging.

wutbrodo 5y ago

Let alone weird, this isn't even novel. Five years ago, one of FB/Google/Twitter framed the advertising data option as "we use your data to show you ads" vs "see more ads, which will also be less relevant to you".