The internet has become annoying. Will it get better or worse?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 montyjohn 09 Mar 2023

The internet has slowly been annoying me more and more. It's just becoming a bit of a pain to use.

I'll find something I want to read and click on it.

  • Pop up, please sign up to our free mailing list. Sod off, go away. Click no.
  • Cookies. Do you want to manage your cookie options or accept all? I don't want to manage them, I want this message to go away so accept all please. Have my data.
  • Big advert with a teeny tiny X in the corner. If I can get this X in one hit the video won't play and I won't upset my fellow train passengers.
  • Article disappears. Wait what? Please register to read this article. Oh FFS I'm going to stare out the window.

This happened to me today when trying to read about that hydrogen eating enzyme thing someone else mentioned in another thread and appears to be a more and more common experience I have these days.

Is this just what the internet is like now, or is it likely to get better?

1
In reply to montyjohn:

It's not just you, it's shit. It wasn't meant to be this way and should never have got this bad. Here are some things that help take the edge off:

  • 12ft.io
  • Ghostery
  • Pi-hole
  • Behind the overlay
  • Reader mode
  • container tabs

Any web designers reading this should know who to blame for this arms race.

Post edited at 21:00
 henwardian 09 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

It's going to get worse.

Much

Much

Worse.

The content you are consuming requires money to produce and host on the interweb. If you are not prepared to pay for every site and article you visit (which is fair enough) then that money has to come from somewhere. So the webosphere throws adverts at you. So you become adept at mentally totally filtering out the adverts and clicking exactly where you need to in 15 milliseconds. So the blagoweb needs to make adverts harder to circumnavigate and force you to "watch" them for some minimum period of time... Which, naturally, you do not, you look away or you mentally tune out again.... and on and on the vicious cycle goes.

Installing one or more adblockers on your browser will help a lot, god help you if you are using your phone rather than a proper computer though.

The central problem is that nobody has yet come up with a workable system to get a fraction of one penny income per page you look at, other than via advertising. So advertising it is, all the way to the bottom of the bottomless pit.

I don't know what the future is for paywalls. Like you, I come up against them when I idly decide to have a wee look into something, but there is absolutely no way I'm interested enough to pay for the article in question, let alone some sort of subscription to the site.

 Tony Buckley 09 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

Yes.

No.

Back in the days of printed media, if you didn't want to look at an advert you didn't have to.  These days alas, if someone has something that you're interested in you've just got to pay for it with your time, which has been pre-sold to an advertiser carefully selected from the wealth of personal data the sites you visit have sucked up from you without you noticing or with full consent to the terms and conditions that are made available to you, provided you can read nanometric font sizes.

I've gone back to shouting at pigeons.  It seems to help.

T.

 ianstevens 09 Mar 2023
In reply to Tony Buckley:

Back in the days of printed media you had to pay for the media itself, providing some revenue. Paywalls are the only equivalent to this. It sucks, but content costs money to produce, and needs to paid for. Paywalls or ads, which do you prefer?

 Tony Buckley 09 Mar 2023
In reply to ianstevens:

It's an interesting point.  Back in the day, someone had to buy the paper or magazine, but it could be, and was, read by others.

These days, not so much.  

T.

In reply to ianstevens:

Ads. But if they flicker or jump around I'm not clicking on them. Ever.

And when a website is happy to serve its content unadulterated to a search bot but not to a human I don't hesitate to lie about what I am. 

Edit: 

>content costs money to produce

I'd argue that a Google streetview screen shot and a string of Twitter quotes probably doesn't compare to what a news article cost in the days of printed media.

Post edited at 21:43
In reply to montyjohn:

> Is this just what the internet is like now, or is it likely to get better?

Worse. It's the monetization of the internet. The free market, and all that; must be good, surely...?

 MeMeMe 09 Mar 2023
In reply to captain paranoia:

There's a great article by Cory Doctorow about the Enshitification of Internet Platforms - https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

 balmybaldwin 09 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

I know what you mean.  Some websites just make themselves unusable due to these ads.  I can't see how this helps anyone. It just means I'm not going to use their site so neither the website advertisers or me are happy.

OP montyjohn 09 Mar 2023
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> 12ft.io

I got as far as checking this first suggestion out and it's brilliant. I'll slowly work my way through the rest.

Many thanks 

 flatlandrich 09 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

It's what the internet is like now and it'll probably just get worse. 

I've become more cynical about it as time goes on. I'm sure for a lot of sites like the one you describe, the situation is now reversed. The adverts aren't there to fund the content, the content is only there to get you to watch adverts for their profit.  

 LastBoyScout 09 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

Probably my major frustration is search engines.

If I search for something specific, what I really DON'T want to see is the results clogged up with a load of completely unrelated rubbish.

Yes, there are some tricks to filter this, but it's still a bit hit and miss - Amazon is still the WORST for this, by far!

In reply to montyjohn:

Also worth knowing about

 jasonC abroad 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

 

> Any web designers reading this should know who to blame for this arms race.

I hope you aren't blaming the people who build and design websites. As one of the these people I can tell you it's usually the people who make the decisions.  I've spent plenty of time arguing against any sort of pop up window to no avail.  A lot of companies don't really think of the user, it's more about the money.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

> It just means I'm not going to use their site so neither the website advertisers or me are happy.

Maybe you accidentally* go to, or forced to go to by default, their websites though and by doing they put cookies on your device and gather yet more information to track you around internet? Some cookies claim to persist for a year on your device if not deleted; that a huge amount of data they are able to gather and not just about you.

* eg using a large “X” and another tiny almost hidden small hard to see “x”, where the obvious X takes you to the website and doesn’t close the advert.

I’ve got a phone app, free so compulsory advert at start and any changes made to settings, but it has now got some adverts that by closing them down (they take the whole screen up) automatically takes you to their website or app store. Even if you close the website before looking it’s still placed cookies.

The latest I’ve noticed is in one advert you need to force three “x” closures - original, redirection to the website/app store and a final on another advert then showing. Now getting to stage I will probably abandon this app soon. Meantime I find it easier to close the whole app and reopen if I want to adjust it’s settings!

 timjones 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

If my memory serves me correctly all of those things are far easier than travelling to the newsagents to buy a magazine that they probably didn't have on the shelf before carrying it all the way back home and having to physically turn the pages whilst reading.

Then  you would have to repeat the entire cycle for any sources or references that we wanted to check.

There never has been a truly "free lunch".

3
In reply to jasonC abroad:

> I hope you aren't blaming the people who build and design websites. 

Build, no. Design, yes, absolutely, 100%.

https://userinyerface.com/ is not supposed to be an aspiration.

 timjones 10 Mar 2023
In reply to jasonC abroad:

>  

> > Any web designers reading this should know who to blame for this arms race.

> I hope you aren't blaming the people who build and design websites. As one of the these people I can tell you it's usually the people who make the decisions.  I've spent plenty of time arguing against any sort of pop up window to no avail.  A lot of companies don't really think of the user, it's more about the money.

Do Web designers do their work for free?

3
 Robert Durran 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It's not just you, it's shit. It wasn't meant to be this way and should never have got this bad. Here are some things that help take the edge off:

> 12ft.io

> Ghostery

> Pi-hole

> Behind the overlay

> Reader mode

> container tabs

Apart from everything Montyjohn said, about the most annoying thing in the world is casual advice which is utterly meaningless to anybody who isn't a tech nerd

16
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Apart from everything Montyjohn said, about the most annoying thing in the world is casual advice which is utterly meaningless to anybody who isn't a tech nerd

Not really. There are many more annoying things. For example, people who can't be arsed to do a simple Google search.

Post edited at 09:07
4
 Hooo 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Robert Durran:

Did you actually try any of LSRH's suggestions? The 12ft.io home page has a concise explanation of what it's about, so there is no requirement to be a tech nerd.

Post edited at 09:11
3
 Hooo 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

It's shit and it's getting worse. It's why I spend most of my time on UKC!

 Robert Durran 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Hooo:

Well ok, but past experience of trying to implement any of this stuff usually brings me close to smashing up my laptop in a violent apoplectic rage. My instinct these days is to not even try.

8
OP montyjohn 10 Mar 2023
In reply to timjones:

> If my memory serves me correctly all of those things are far easier than travelling to the newsagents to buy a magazine that they probably didn't have on the shelf before carrying it all the way back home and having to physically turn the pages whilst reading.

I tell you they're not comparable.

With a newspaper, they had a medium, and they made it as good as they could at the lowest price possible to encourage you to buy it. They actively tried to make it better to increase revenue.

With the internet, there's this brilliant platform, but it's being made as bad as possible whilst still technically usable to increase revenue.

This may seem like a bit of a tangent, but it reminds me of the direction BMW are going for example. They will sell you a car with heated seats, but disable them unless you give them more money. They have something good and they deliberately make it worse to charge you more money.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well ok, but past experience of trying to implement any of this stuff usually brings me close to smashing up my laptop in a violent apoplectic rage.

Maybe that would be for the best...

2
OP montyjohn 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Robert Durran:

> the most annoying thing in the world is casual advice which is utterly meaningless to anybody who isn't a tech nerd

I beg to differ. I give you the milk foil tab that breaks off when you pull it. That's the most annoying thing in the world.

 Robert Durran 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Hooo:

Apologies. I know you are trying to be helpful, but that often makes it worse for technophobes.

1
 Hooo 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Robert Durran:

It's annoying, I'll give you that. It's one of the many stupid annoyances of everyday life, necessary to get around the fact that everything is driven by cutting baseline costs and extracting profit surreptitiously. Like flying Ryanair, or moving to a new insurance company every year to avoid the renewal ripoff.

 bouldery bits 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

Gold rush California. Modern California.

The internet is taking the same journey but far more quickly. 

 ExiledScot 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

Worse, then better in a few decades when it's eventually regulated, they'll look back with amazement that we allowed democracy to be corrupted, encourage so much hate, share masses of false information and ruin so many childhoods. 

3
 Rob Parsons 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It's not just you, it's shit. It wasn't meant to be this way and should never have got this bad. Here are some things that help take the edge off:

> 12ft.io

How does 12ft.io retrieve the cached copy from Google?

1
 JRS81 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

Totally agree that it's getting worse. I appreciate that people need to make money to keep providing content, but agree that the way they go about it is extremely frustrating (I have completely given up on any local news website - they all seem to be built on the same platform and it's now become almost unusable).

The comparison to printed media is interesting - in the past you would pay for a magazine and probably read the whole thing (and it should be noted that the cost to make/print/distribute is surprisingly low for these things - it's the cost of journalism/photographers that makes up most of the price), but these days we tend to jump from site to site and consume one article here and another there, so we're unlikely to want to pay a similar price for one website. When it comes to newspapers, I think regular readers tend to be fairly loyal, so the paywall model works there, and likewise for professional journals where you have a captive audience. For casual browsers though, a paywall for an entire site just doesn't work.

Perhaps the answer would be some sort of online wallet that you could pre-pay, and then have a system where you could pay a micro-charge (a few pence maybe) to view just one article. It would give more than the peanuts that adverts and pop-ups pay to the site creator, and if it stripped the site of adverts and pop-ups for the reader as a result it would be great. It could be pretty expensive if you're the sort of person who can waste extended periods of time browsing multiple sites though! The other problem would be that you'd probably end up with multiple different providers for the service and you'd end up needing multiple accounts in order to be able to browse freely. It would end up being like any attempt to follow a specific sport that's spread across multiple TV services, or the way that online streaming sites have proliferated and you now need multiple subscriptions to watch what used to be contained withing Sky/Netflix/Prime. 

 Rob Parsons 10 Mar 2023
In reply to JRS81:

> ... I have completely given up on any local news website - they all seem to be built on the same platform and it's now become almost unusable ...

Most local newspapers are now published by the 'Reach' group (for the full list, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reach_plc_titles) and, as you say, it certainly shows on their web offerings, which I agree are almost unusable.

 Neil Williams 10 Mar 2023
In reply to henwardian:

I think it's a real shame that nobody ever developed a viable micropayments system.  I'd rather pay say 2p-5p to read a news article than have it splattered with excessive advertising, but often subscribing is excessive if i just want to read one.  Though the downside of that would be making clickbait even worse.

The big sites seem to manage it OK (e.g. Faceache advertising may be mildly irritating but isn't disruptive to using the platform) as does UKC, but the likes of Reach media is awful.

Post edited at 10:13
 timjones 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

> I tell you they're not comparable.

I would say that if the aim is to may information widely available they are comparable.

We have access to far more information , far more easily then ever more.

Why get sniffy just because we have to make a few clicks to access it?

4
 The New NickB 10 Mar 2023
In reply to timjones:

Personally, I don’t mind adverts on here, I don’t mind adverts on YouTube and know that there is a premium option without adverts if I wish. I don’t mind adverts.

I have actually taken to going to the newsagent and buying a paper copy of my local paper, instead of trying to use the Reach website. Maybe the website is deliberately that bad for this very reason.

OP montyjohn 10 Mar 2023
In reply to timjones:

> Why get sniffy just because we have to make a few clicks to access it?

I guess I just want to see a continuous improvement from the perspective of the user.

For example, going form a paper, to the internet. Great improvement. At least it was.

But now we are seeing a continuous worsening from the perspective of the user experience.

I'd like things to get better with progress, not better then worse.

But let's see what AI brings. This will hopefully allow us to get answers without visiting sites directly. Maybe sites will have to create a nicer user experience to attract us there. Or somebody someone will find a way to make more money out of AI making that even more horrid to use. Who knows.

 Harry Jarvis 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

> But let's see what AI brings. This will hopefully allow us to get answers without visiting sites directly. 

How much would you be willing to pay for such a service? Even if you don't personally go a particular website and some AI genie does the work for you, there are still costs involved. 

 Neil Williams 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> How much would you be willing to pay for such a service? Even if you don't personally go a particular website and some AI genie does the work for you, there are still costs involved. 

At the moment nothing, because without being able to confirm what the source actually is the information has no value because it could be (and often is) rubbish.  I'm not sure how AI is going to solve that one.

 Luke90 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

My money is on AI making the internet experience broadly worse. Some of the more questionable internet publishers are already starting to use it for article generation and cutting back on the number of writers they employ. It will be really cheap to generate huge numbers of low-quality articles of questionable accuracy on almost any topic, which presents a whole new challenge to quality content. There will still be people who want to see it, but the potential deluge of content farm crap could make it even more difficult to find.

OP montyjohn 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Luke90:

Potential future regulation. All AI generated content has to be clearly labelled as such.

Potential search engine options. Exclude AI content form my search.

I expect neither of these will happen however.

 mondite 10 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

> But let's see what AI brings. This will hopefully allow us to get answers without visiting sites directly.

How? That would need it to be constantly grabbing data and so would be less chtgpt and more just a webscraper.

There is already a conflict between the providers and intermediaries in terms of the search engines (with on/off attempts in various countries to have google and co pay the newspapers websites) and anything further on those lines would just lead to paywalls being stuck up to block the AI (assuming they dont obey robot.txt).

 mondite 10 Mar 2023
In reply to Luke90:

> My money is on AI making the internet experience broadly worse. Some of the more questionable internet publishers are already starting to use it for article generation and cutting back on the number of writers they employ.

Clarkesworld magazine (publishes scifi fiction)recently had to pause submissions since they were being bombarded with "AI" generated stories and needed some time to figure out an answer.

Definitely going to be more of it around. Should be amusing when they use it for scenarios it isnt designed for.

OP montyjohn 10 Mar 2023
In reply to mondite:

> How? That would need it to be constantly grabbing data and so would be less chtgpt and more just a webscraper.

Do you not think it's the natural progression that as AI becomes more mainstream, it's data model will use more and more up-to-date information.

Chat GTP uses data that I think is 2 years old.

I expect they will soon get that down to 1 year.

How about 1 month, a day one day perhaps?

> There is already a conflict between the providers and intermediaries in terms of the search engines (with on/off attempts in various countries to have google and co pay the newspapers websites) and anything further on those lines would just lead to paywalls being stuck up to block the AI (assuming they dont obey robot.txt).

The outcome of this will be interesting.

 Offwidth 12 Mar 2023
In reply to montyjohn:

I checked if John Naughton had any good recent articles...and lo

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/11/users-advertisers-we-...

OP montyjohn 12 Mar 2023
In reply to Offwidth:

Here's an innovation idea. A search engine that prioritises user friendly clean websites.

I would use it now if it existed.

I'm sure somebody could work out a business model for it.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...