Why do Newsletter url's take so long to load

citricsquid

Well-Known Forumite
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.

Advertising is far more effective when they have know who they're advertising to, that's why Facebook advertising is so effective. I completely understand people may have privacy concerns, or that they may not wish to see adverts, or they may be concerned about malware, and I respect that, but there's quite a simple solution... don't go to those websites. Everybody is happy then, you don't have to sell out your privacy and the website operators don't have to pay to deliver their website to people who aren't providing revenue.

You have control, you choose which websites you visit. I chose to visit staffordforum.com today in the knowledge that I am tracked here by Facebook and Google. If I didn't like that this forum allowed Facebook to track me then I'd refuse to visit it, and write an email to the administrator explaining why. Maybe the administrator refuses to remedy my concerns, in which case maybe I start my own stafford forum without Facebook tracking? Maybe people show that there is demand for a stafford forum that doesn't track people?

You have options, many options, and I don't really believe it's fair that one of them is to continue visiting the website while blocking things that the website operators intended to be delivered to you in return for providing the service.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I agree with the above, in all cases except auto playing videos. They should at least have to check if you're on WiFi first rather than 3g, I'm sure that could easily be added to a browser in the same way location data is. Some people still have very small data limits.

Like I said, I always bounce if this happens, but by the time you know your data has already took a hit. Same goes for pages that are 90% advert to 10% content, I'm gone. By all means play an advert before a video I choose to watch, but not alongside 2 paragraphs of text that bear no relation to the link I clicked.
 

SharkBait

Member (lol "member")
Advertising is far more effective when they have know who they're advertising to, that's why Facebook advertising is so effective. I completely understand people may have privacy concerns, or that they may not wish to see adverts, or they may be concerned about malware, and I respect that, but there's quite a simple solution... don't go to those websites. Everybody is happy then, you don't have to sell out your privacy and the website operators don't have to pay to deliver their website to people who aren't providing revenue.

You have control, you choose which websites you visit. I chose to visit staffordforum.com today in the knowledge that I am tracked here by Facebook and Google. If I didn't like that this forum allowed Facebook to track me then I'd refuse to visit it, and write an email to the administrator explaining why. Maybe the administrator refuses to remedy my concerns, in which case maybe I start my own stafford forum without Facebook tracking? Maybe people show that there is demand for a stafford forum that doesn't track people?

You have options, many options, and I don't really believe it's fair that one of them is to continue visiting the website while blocking things that the website operators intended to be delivered to you in return for providing the service.

I'm honestly at a loss.

  • If those sites* were more selective about the 'trackers' they subscribed too and actually provided quality content as opposed to link bait, I might be inclined to agree.
  • If facebook had at least admitted sooner they were continuing to track the sites people visit even when they had signed out of Facebook, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If facebook admiited sooner that they were tracking people who didn't have facebook accounts, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If companies were more transparent about with whom they are sharing the data they collect about you, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If companies were not storing and sharing the data they collect their website users/visitors in all four corners of the globe, without telling users where it is, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If companies really meant it when they say they anonymise your data, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If the social networks were honest about how enabling people to log-in to sites like StaffordForum using their authentication mechanisms is a ruse to collect yet more data, then I might agree.
  • If our mobile phones were not constantly war driving for Google, Apple and Microsoft, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If companies were more careful with our data and not subjecting use to breaches, day after day, then I might be inclined to agree.
  • If the global Internet companies actually recognised and abided by our law and jurisdiction, then I might be more inclined to agree.
  • If some of these global Internet companies were not actively spending $billions lobbying Governments to get laws changed to suit themselves, whilst stripping away my intellectual property rights, I'd be inclined to agree.

At the end of the day, I own my hardware. If I don't want to waste processing power, memory and electricity running scripts which might help facebook and Google but don't help me, that's my prerogative. Incidentally, I don't use Google products personally and I don't use Facebook.

Denying content to visitors who run add blocking/script blocking software is a trivial exercise for the curators of these websites and services.

And BTW, Do you remember the Internet before it became so commercialised?

*We all know the sites I mean. Invariably, most of them load up so many scripts they crash my phone anyway, which makes me very unlikely to visit them again.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
I am amazed by the utterly incompetent way that all this data on me is used - I would struggle to remember an occasion that I've received any online advert that has any relevance to me - some of them are utterly bizarre, to be honest.

eBay frequently suggests, on the basis of my last purchase, that I purchase the exact same item again - not a similar one from somebody else, but the item that I have just purchased from the same seller. It will also frequently suggest that I might be interested in an item that I am already 'watching'. Etc.

It does, however, give me some confidence that the Big Brother society has little competence in how it actually spies on people.

My 'favourite' advert was one that both I and a friend on Facebook got, as a result of us posting about the fact that he was going to Birmingham for the first time in many years - "Vouchers for 100 things to do in Birmingham before you die". He was actually going there to start his chemotherapy and did see the amusing side of it, luckily.....


A few days ago, I saw an advert on the back of an Arriva bus, for a school that I had never heard of - it turned out to be near Leicester.
 

citricsquid

Well-Known Forumite
Denying content to visitors who run add blocking/script blocking software is a trivial exercise for the curators of these websites and services.

Except it isn't, it's an arms race between ad blocking software developers and publishing companies. Denying service to people who use ad blockers is very difficult, because ad blocker developers are actively circumventing any blocks put in place. If it was something users like you were willing to accept then the ad blocking software could inform each website that it's blocking adverts, except they don't... I wonder why they don't?

At the end of the day, I own my hardware. If I don't want to waste processing power, memory and electricity running scripts which might help facebook and Google but don't help me, that's my prerogative.

I accept that it's your hardware and you can choose what is and isn't ran on your hardware, I'm not arguing that point, what I'm arguing is that your choice should begin and end at deciding to type "www.staffordforum.com" into your address bar. After you choose to visit a site, you should understand that you're choosing to run whatever they deliver to you, and if you don't want to run what they deliver to you then you can choose not to visit that website. There are quite a few websites on the internet that I actively refuse to visit because of decisions they've made about the way they deliver their website, a very easy choice to make.

The corner shop near my apartment sells a loaf of bread at a premium over Sainsbury's, a loaf can be bought for £1 in Sainsbury's or £1.20 at the corner shop. I don't agree with that premium so my choice is to go to Sainsbury's and buy the loaf for £1, nobody would ever defend me walking into the corner shop and taking the loaf of bread and giving them £1 instead of their £1.20 list price... so why isn't it the same on the internet? You have a choice not to visit a website, just like I have a choice not to buy bread from the corner shop.

And if you want to make this "it's my hardware" argument, why doesn't that argument also apply to the website operators? Why aren't they allowed to say "it's my hardware, I'm only delivering the website to you if you load these scripts"? Ad blocking software is actively developed to mislead websites into thinking advertisements haven't been blocked.
 

Noah

Well-Known Forumite
Straightforward ads are fine, videads are a pain in the arse. No-one has the right to spy on me, load beacons or track me round the internet, no-one has a right to deal in information about me and as far as I am concerned blocking that sort of thing is an act of war against those who try. As far as Im am concerned Citrus Squid, you are talking a load of money grubbing bollock, and just repeating the same old garbage
 

citricsquid

Well-Known Forumite
As far as Im am concerned Citrus Squid, you are talking a load of money grubbing bollock, and just repeating the same old garbage

I have a lot of experience running websites, I've created websites used by tens of millions of people that were some of the most popular websites in the UK. I have a lot of experience in this field and speak from a position of understanding. Personally I don't "like" adverts and I choose to run my own websites without advertisements and tracking when it's feasible, but... I'm acutely aware of just how expensive it can be to own and operate websites and how, unfortunately, advertisements are necessary. I'm not arguing in favour of tracking or advertisements, I'm arguing that your choices should be "visit" or "don't visit", not "visit without payment".

As I've said, if you don't like tracking etc. then you can choose not to visit websites that do track, and reach out to them and explain that you're not comfortable with their choices and they've lost your custom until they adjust the way they operate. I've had people reach out to me about that before, one of my websites used to embed Facebook buttons (for liking) but after talking with someone about it I made the decision to drop the buttons (in favour of plain links) because the cost (tracking, speed, user discomfort) wasn't worth it. A conversation caused a change!

I think there's a big disconnect between users and operators of websites, a lot of users don't seem to understand that visiting a website has a tangible cost. Delivering a website to a million people costs less than delivering the same website to ten million people. Advertisements support that, and yes businesses make profit from the advertisements they deliver... but the same is true in the physical world. A loaf of bread isn't £1 because that's what revenue is needed to break even, so why is it "money grubbing" for a website to profit but acceptable for Hovis to make profit off of a loaf of bread (where food is something you need to live! and most websites are a luxury).
 
Last edited:

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I have to say I'm in agreement with citricsquid here, websites cost money to operate. You don't pay, the advertisers do. If the adverts stop working (i.e. are blocked) they stop spending and the site goes down. I don't use an ad blocker at all, I use a popup blocker as its part of chrome and besides opening new windows is taking the pee a bit. Anything that is in the portal I open I either accept or leave the page. In the case of auto playing videos with audio I always leave the page immediately.
 

Jonah

Spouting nonsense since the day I learned to talk
It's easy to say "visit another website" but in practice it's not easy.
 

Jonah

Spouting nonsense since the day I learned to talk
Because until websites stop using full screen 'hostage' ads or pop ups or ads where you cannot see the close box or auto-play videos or dodgy dating site ads then I will continue to use ad blockers.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Because until websites stop using full screen 'hostage' ads or pop ups or ads where you cannot see the close box or auto-play videos or dodgy dating site ads then I will continue to use ad blockers.

Then I suspect you will see a move towards interactive ads, where the ad contains the button to continue the article. I hate ads, but I don't expect people to create and publish content for me at their own cost.
 

SharkBait

Member (lol "member")
If 'the industry' didn't use such intrusive practices, people wouldn't resort to using ad-blocking software.

I'm not denying that the infrastructure required to host web sites and services for large volumes of users isn't expensive. After all, my job is provisioning and maintaining such infrastructure.

I'm not opposed to websites/services that do offer advertising that's appropriate and relevant to the material that's hosted on them. But when you hit a website and upwards of 75% of the payload is advertising/tracker related, it's simply getting out of hand.

Web authors who want to raise revenue should throw up a paywall and provide value for money.
Or ask for donations.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
If 'the industry' hadn't resorted to such intrusive practices, people wouldn't resort to using ad-blocking software.

I'm not denying that the infrastructure required to host web sites and services for large volumes of users isn't expensive. After all, my job is provisioning and maintaining such infrastructure.

I'm not opposed to websites/services that do offer advertising that's appropriate and relevant to the material that's hosted on them. But when you hit a website and upwards of 75% of the payload is advertising/tracker related, it's simply getting out of hand.

Web authors who want to raise revenue should throw up a paywall and provide value for money.
Or ask for donations.

I tend to find the pages that contain more than 25% ads are usually just regurgitated guff from elsewhere on the web anyway, and not worth reading. I'd be interested to see examples of proper articles being covered with ads, as in my experience mostly they stick to side ads. Apart from yahoo, they suck donkey balls.
 

SharkBait

Member (lol "member")
I've just visited staffordshirenewsletter.com and had a look at it's payload. Ordering each download by size and I'd guesstimate over 80% of it is advertising or tracker related. 384 discrete requests in total.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Side-ads are OK - they're like 'real' adverts that you see, or don't see, all around the place. They pay for what's going on for 'free'.

Pop-up things that block you from seeing the page you're trying to look at are like cold calls - and are dumped immediately, if I can find the close button, if there even is one.

Whilst targeting the wrong customer is a bit daft, spending money to irritate potential (non)customers is beyond stupid.

I can only suppose that the marketing professionals feel that they have to do it, because their competitors are - the same mentality that brings Christmas goods out ever earlier each year.
 
Top