3 ms·
He's not just complaining about there being ads. He's complaining about the site being unusable for reading. If you haven't run into the unclosable popovers on
by rsanders 13y ago
He's not just complaining about there being ads. He's complaining about the site being unusable for reading. If you haven't run into the unclosable popovers on a mobile web site, you're luckier than I am on any given day. If I can't see the article when I first load the page, and if the page then self-destructs behind the popover of doom, I will stop going to that site. There was revenue to be had from me, but not if I know the site is broken.
- jmduke 13y agoMy argument is that its not outside the realm of possibility that the decision was made -- either via intuition or data -- that the additional value captured by popovers is larger than the value lost by people who bounce as a result of the popovers.
- klochner 13y agoThey're getting no value from popovers on mobile devices, so it is either incompetence or insufficient bandwidth to design well for mobile.
- yesplorer 13y agoyou are not in a position to say they get no value from popovers on mobile devices. For all you know like the OP is trying to say, they might have done the hard math and decided that this is the way they want to say. I'm not saying it is the best but rather they might be fully aware of what they are doing
- pyrocat 13y ago> "that the additional value captured by popovers is larger than the value lost by people who bounce as a result of the popovers." and that, children, is how you know you've lost your soul.
- davidp 13y ago"Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
- rhizome 13y ago"...but don't rule out malice."