Why do Newsletter url's take so long to load

Amerlan

Amerlan

Well-Known Forumite
Not just Staffordshire Newsletter, ( for example, this one. http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....been-ditched/story-29649674-detail/story.html ) but I have noticed that most newspaper sites, even with my super fast Fruit & Fibre broadband it takes forever to load up.
I suspect it is loading all sorts of background rubbish, but I am not getting any warning messages from my security software.
So, just what are they loading up that takes so long? and is there anything I can do to speed up the page load?
Using Firefox on Win10 via Virgin BB.
 
D

DMUK

A few posts under my belt
40 odd ads/trackers etc on a single page. Blocking these with Ad Block Plus seems to help.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 14.07.25.png
    Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 14.07.25.png
    230.4 KB · Views: 352
Amerlan

Amerlan

Well-Known Forumite
Thanks for the replies. I am familiar with both Ad-block and ghostery. but as I am running Firefox which has ad blocking built in I had assumed it would already be covered? Obviously not, so I will check out other blocking software as suggested above.
 
Noah

Noah

Well-Known Forumite
Amerlan said:
Thanks for the replies. I am familiar with both Ad-block and ghostery. but as I am running Firefox which has ad blocking built in I had assumed it would already be covered? Obviously not, so I will check out other blocking software as suggested above.
Click to expand...

I use Firefox, but I still use Adblock Plus, NoScript & Ghostery.
 
Amerlan

Amerlan

Well-Known Forumite
Thanks for the great advice.
I have installed the browser extensions recommended and the pages do load so much faster.
 
citricsquid

citricsquid

Well-Known Forumite
:(

As much as advertisements can suck, they're there for a reason. The cost of operating websites can be high, the newsletter have staff to pay and servers to run.

If a website has too many advertisements and they make your computer lag, or you don't like other ways that a website is run, then you should not visit the website. Software like AdBlock is unreasonable. If a shop was charging £5 for a loaf of bread you'd just go elsewhere... you wouldn't take the bread without paying. Viewing advertisements on a website is the payment for using the website, viewing websites without viewing advertisements is much like taking a loaf of bread from a shop without paying.

If you refuse to visit a website because of the way that the website is ran then that sends a direct message to the website, their traffic will decrease, and eventually if enough people take a stand they'll be forced to evaluate their decisions -- which may lead to a rethink on their advertising strategy, or it may not -- whereas if you continue visiting the websites with adblock, the website is forced to invest in ways to bypass adblock... which introduces a cat and mouse game between advertisement blocking software and publishers.
 
Amerlan

Amerlan

Well-Known Forumite
On the other hand some advertisers hijack the purpose of the original page by invading and otherwise overlaying the webpagepage and just prompting people to go elsewhere, thus destroying the message contained on the original page. AdBlock's stated aim is to get advertisers to promote their product without hijacking or otherwise defacing the original webpage. I have no problem with straightforward ads but I do hate the ones that spoil my viewing of the original web page. I have set the filters on my version so that it will allow non invasive advertising, and for me that is a happy medium I am prepared to accept.
 
S

SharkBait

Member (lol "member")
citricsquid said:
:(

As much as advertisements can suck, they're there for a reason. The cost of operating websites can be high, the newsletter have staff to pay and servers to run.

If a website has too many advertisements and they make your computer lag, or you don't like other ways that a website is run, then you should not visit the website. Software like AdBlock is unreasonable. If a shop was charging £5 for a loaf of bread you'd just go elsewhere... you wouldn't take the bread without paying. Viewing advertisements on a website is the payment for using the website, viewing websites without viewing advertisements is much like taking a loaf of bread from a shop without paying.

If you refuse to visit a website because of the way that the website is ran then that sends a direct message to the website, their traffic will decrease, and eventually if enough people take a stand they'll be forced to evaluate their decisions -- which may lead to a rethink on their advertising strategy, or it may not -- whereas if you continue visiting the websites with adblock, the website is forced to invest in ways to bypass adblock... which introduces a cat and mouse game between advertisement blocking software and publishers.
Click to expand...

The flipside of that, as I'm sure you know is the invasion or privacy with the tracking of users from one site to another. Why is it Facebook's concern what other sites I visit? Or Google's for that matter?

Not only that, but there's such a thing as malvertising. It's not unheard of for bad actors to place advertisements which exploit the browser in order to compromise peoples devices. It's safer browsing with these adverts disabled.

Adblockers put people back into control. People can permit adverts on the sites they trust, rather than accepting them willy nilly.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
tek-monkey said:
The thing I hate is auto playing videos, if on a phone they hammer your bandwidth without your permission. Even on a PC if I hit a page and audio starts playing I close the page immediately, by all means show an ad but I should be able to choose if I listen to something.
Click to expand...
It intrigues me that grown adults, who may well have done some sort of course in marketing, think that they can persuade you to part with money for some utterly random product by the simple act of irritating you whilst you're trying to read something.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Gramaisc said:
It intrigues me that grown adults, who may well have done some sort of course in marketing, think that they can persuade you to part with money for some utterly random product by the simple act of irritating you whilst you're trying to read something.
Click to expand...
My auto reaction is always to close the page, ensuring that not only is the cost of their ad wasted but so is everything else on that page. The same goes for sites that stretch one small story across multiple ad filled pages, as soon as I see that 'continued on the next page' after less than 3 sentences again I'm gone.

There is a huge difference between using ads to fund an articles publishing costs, and using an article specifically to raise ad revenue. You quickly learn to spot the difference, and I'd have no issue using an ad blocker on the latter but they are rarely worth the effort anyway. A lot of money can be made from slinging shite at bored people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top