4 ms·

>Porn was always actual web hi-tech with good engineering, not these joke-level “tech” giants. Can’t remember a single time they’d screw up basic ui/ux, content

>Porn was always actual web hi-tech with good engineering, not these joke-level “tech” giants. Can’t remember a single time they’d screw up basic ui/ux, content delivery or common sense. Well, I do remember the myriad of shady advertisement tactics that porn sites use(d), like popups, popunders, fake content leading to other similar aggregation sites, opening partner website instead of content, poisoning the SEO results as much as they can, and so on. Porn is not the tech driver people make it up to be, even the popular urban legend around the Betamax vs VHS is untrue, and so is that they drive internet innovation. There is a handful of players who engineer a high quality product, but it's hardly representative to the industry as a whole. Many others create link farms, dummy content, clone websites, false advertisement, gaming the search results, and so on. Porn is in high demand, it's a busy scene, and so, many things happen related to it, and that's about it. The current state of snappy top-level results is I think the result of competition. If one site's UX is shitty, I think the majority of the viewers would just leave for the next one, as there is a deluge of free porn on the internet. So, the sites actually have to optimize for retention. These other websites have different incentives, so the optimized state is different too. The user is, of course, important, but if they also have shareholders, content providers, exclusive business deals, monopoly, then they don't have to optimize for user experience that much.

wruza 3y ago
I generally agree and understand. The reasoning is fine. But comments like this make me somewhere between sad and contemptuous towards the field. This neutral explanation supports the baseline that no professional can vocalize anywhere and retain their face. I'm talking youtube focus & arrows issues here, not rocket science. Container alignment issues [1], scrolling issues [2], cosmic levels of bloat [$subj], you name it. Absolutely trivial things you can't screw up if you're at all hireable. It's not "unoptimized", it's distilled personal/group incompetence of those who ought to be the best. That I cannot respect. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabDCV4ccQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabDCV4ccQs -- scroll to comments and/or switch between default/theater mode if not immediately obvious [2] half of the internet, especially ux blogs
- npteljes 3y ago
  Yeah, it's not my favorite experience either, and I found it really hard to be indifferent, especially in my earlier years. The goal is almost never a perfect product. And it's also a result of many people's involvement, who often have different values than I do, or what I expect of them.

wruza 3y ago

I generally agree and understand. The reasoning is fine. But comments like this make me somewhere between sad and contemptuous towards the field. This neutral explanation supports the baseline that no professional can vocalize anywhere and retain their face. I'm talking youtube focus & arrows issues here, not rocket science. Container alignment issues [1], scrolling issues [2], cosmic levels of bloat [$subj], you name it. Absolutely trivial things you can't screw up if you're at all hireable. It's not "unoptimized", it's distilled personal/group incompetence of those who ought to be the best. That I cannot respect. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabDCV4ccQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabDCV4ccQs -- scroll to comments and/or switch between default/theater mode if not immediately obvious [2] half of the internet, especially ux blogs

npteljes 3y ago
Yeah, it's not my favorite experience either, and I found it really hard to be indifferent, especially in my earlier years. The goal is almost never a perfect product. And it's also a result of many people's involvement, who often have different values than I do, or what I expect of them.