|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 28, 2018 8:42:23 GMT -6
Does anyone else avoid clicking on links to the largest media entities because of how long it may take to load? I'm talking about sites like ESPN, USAToday, CNN, etc. They tend to load their sites with tons of pop up videos, flashy fancy ads, and other extra goodies. Often times, when I do click links to these sites, I end up with a huge delay while it loads, and sometimes the story won't load at all because things get all stalled up.
This just now happened to me when I decided, against my habit, to click on a story about the new XFL on USA Today. I never even read the story because it got all gummed up before the text loaded. It made me realize that I have developed this more or less unconscious habit of avoiding sites like that.
Is this just me? I've never seen this habit discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by TakeMeBackto2008 on Jan 28, 2018 14:30:03 GMT -6
Glad it's not just me. Now I kind of wish I hadn't punched my computer a handful of times. Of course, following Ball State sports is enough to make me do that anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 28, 2018 16:17:04 GMT -6
The faster internet, fast graphics processors, and gigabit data makes this wonderful set of web features possible. Having an older machine really makes it bad. I'll assume you are not surfing in a coffee shop on an old computer though. To answer, yes, I get annoyed too!
It is the reason people use ad blockers and browser add-ins like Noscript and uMatrix. But that often means the site won't load, or function quite right. At least you can see what is causing problems and sometimes allow what has to be allowed. Pain in the ass to do that, but you have a choice.
If you don't do something what's worse than the ads you see after the slow down is the number of web bugs, tracking software and cookies set which you never see but which invade privacy. Also worse than the ads you do see, the same technology may lead you to advertising that is essentially malware.
The websites usually are designed to force a lot of that added material or you can't get to the content. It's good, not bad design from their point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by gocardsgo on Jan 28, 2018 16:24:54 GMT -6
I use adblocker and do not have an issue with any of the sites you mentioned
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jan 29, 2018 7:24:41 GMT -6
I use adblocker and do not have an issue with any of the sites you mentioned Seconded. 30 ads get blocked just on the front page of the Star Press website. USA Today only has about 17. ESPN isn't as bad, but the layout demands a lot of the CPU and connection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 8:22:52 GMT -6
Does anyone else avoid clicking on links to the largest media entities because of how long it may take to load? I'm talking about sites like ESPN, USAToday, CNN, etc. They tend to load their sites with tons of pop up videos, flashy fancy ads, and other extra goodies. Often times, when I do click links to these sites, I end up with a huge delay while it loads, and sometimes the story won't load at all because things get all stalled up.
This just now happened to me when I decided, against my habit, to click on a story about the new XFL on USA Today. I never even read the story because it got all gummed up before the text loaded. It made me realize that I have developed this more or less unconscious habit of avoiding sites like that.
Is this just me? I've never seen this habit discussed.
Is your modem 300 baud, or 1200 baud? Are you on AOL, Earthlink or Juno? |
|
