3 ms·
Off-topic: as a paying newyorker.com subscriber I resent the fact that the New Yorker uses page-covering video ads, and I resent the fact that they're incompete
by Tloewald 12y ago
Off-topic: as a paying newyorker.com subscriber I resent the fact that the New Yorker uses page-covering video ads, and I resent the fact that they're incompetently implemented even more (they're borked on mobile devices that are zoomed or in landscape mode).
- adnam 12y agoTry using readability.com
- Tloewald 12y agoI don't want to block ads (I can use reader view in safari which is effectively the same thing).
- IkmoIkmo 12y agoNo disagreement on crappy readability and accessibility. Never an excuse for that, it's just dumb, bad to users and even bad for business. But if you're implying 'shouldn't get ads' because you pay... I can get a sub at $4 a month. Don't think that quite covers costs. So I can certainly imagine how they'd still show me ads even if I pay and accept that. The sub is geared not for removal of ads, but rather the option of reading more than the limited few articles a month you can read for free. (which is extremely easy to circumvent as they have no login system but that's another story).
- Tloewald 12y agoI'm happy -- well, not incensed -- to get ads that are well-implemented. I'm paying $4/month and purposely chose not to get a physical copy (which was offered for free). It's depressing if I'm not covering their costs and then some. The New Yorker's online ads are increasingly obtrusive, including ads in the article body that are seemingly designed to be clicked accidentally (which doesn't benefit the advertiser).