> and then...okay, what? Sounds like a good reason. But one that doesn't (in his opinion, explicitly stated shortly after -- and also, for what it's worth, in

> and then...okay, what? Sounds like a good reason. But one that doesn't (in his opinion, explicitly stated shortly after -- and also, for what it's worth, in mine) apply to the particular behaviour he was criticizing. > But you've clearly identified a positive ROI technique for keeping people on your site. But also one that (in his opinion, and for what it's worth also mine) is likely to annoy and/or confuse users, which means two things. 1. If you happen to care about users' welfare as well as about your "positive ROI" -- in other words, if you see them as people rather than as tools to be manipulated in a way that brings you the most benefit -- then their annoyance and/or confusion is a reason not to use the technique. (It might be outweighed by that "positive ROI", but it's a reason.) 2. Even if you do see your users only as tools for increasing your profits or mindshare or whatever, annoying and/or confusing them may have bad long-term consequences. They may stay on your site longer right now, as you intend -- but they may also be that bit more likely to abandon you for some other site that doesn't annoy or confuse them so much. So by using this technique you might be taking short-term gains at long-term cost. (It seems to me that while #2 is a bit subtle and might well be too weak an effect to matter much, #1 is really obvious. I am confused at your professed confusion.)