Users don't really visit websites anymore - they sit on facebook/google/Reddit/hacker news. So you have to REALLY market to those few people you get from Google search results... as Google really wants you to BUY those users from them - not write good content to get them (even though that's what they say to do..)
one day you can be doing well with google - making enough money a day to pay for your hosting and then next day, serps change and your traffic tanks and you then spend more money to try and correct it and you start copying what others say works - email lists, live chats, exit ads, moore mobile ads - you pray you start earning high CPMs and you start looking to arbitrate - find cheap traffic to hopefully pay less than what you earn to get more traffic and you start falling for fiverr deals that are fake an SEO tricks that penalyze you in the end and before you know it, you're 20k in debt running a website that most people leave within 30 seconds and even though you may have solved thousands of people problems my helping them fix something, learn something, do something or expereince something they choose to create a facebook post or tweet about it rather than comment or join your community - so those big giants earn a LOT more revenue on publisher backs.. for the average deal, facebook and google will earn 80 plus bucks a year on what you do, but us lowly publishers will spend more than that per user to try and ink out some successs
and in the end, the irony is that a website set up to show how bad the industry is will end up with more links, more traffic, more google juice, and higher link authority than a publisher with thousands of hours of work put in being creative, helpful and insightful..
and you wonder why the web is getting so painful :)
I'm not usually one to point out spelling errors, but this mistake is so serendipitous given your usage of it.
penalize + paralyze = penalyze? Somebody call up them Merriam-Webster folks!
Or put it another way: people get this awesome, always updating, huge library about anything.
And they can't even spend a few seconds of effort to get the content.
How do you buy traffic from Google? Ads? Are you saying that "great content" does not work? That great content if i find it at the top of the results has also been paying for ads for those keywords?
but will better quality content without ads get ranked higher than worse quality with ads?
This algorithm approach to everything means its not just google controlling who gets to be "top" but facebook/twitter does the same - if you're not already at the top then the algorithm diminishes your reach - you don't show up on searches, you don't show up on followers of your page, you don't show up on your followers twitter streamline unless you're trending - and for the most part to trend you need status or to pay to play...
its tough... but what it really means is google/facebook/twitter don't create any content whatsoever but they monetize it by controlling it algorithmically and you have to generally pay to play to perform well - buy facebook ads, twitter ads, google ads.
more often then not, the higher the ranked content is in google - the more ads you will see because they're monetizing the crap out of that position.. ironically if you're a publisher and you do google Adsense (their ad network) and you choose to embrace their automatic ad platform they inject so many ads on your website that its almost saddening - and again, they control this algorithmically.
Might need to add a "nuke" like option.
Well, at least some engineers are good at what they do?
I've never seen a website handle that combo well. 100% of the time you'll click an anchor and have to scroll down slightly
Exactly, I hate the bait-and-switch of chat windows.
"Oh hey there, do you have any questions?" pops up after a couple minutes on the site, then you reply with a question and you get "We will respond to you within a couple hours, you are important to us".
I think it erodes your user's trust in you.
People like to build and show off these "helpful" assistants as AI tech, but how much do they actually get used?
"Oh awesome, yeah I have a question about using XYZ"
and then the system would instantly reply, "Please enter your email here and we will get back to you. <Company Name> typically responds within 3 hours."
> What happens if I'm not home when the shipment arrives?
I received exactly the answer I was looking for.
I have also seen chat windows that display an "Away Message" showing that you won't receive a response right away before you type anything at all, which isn't deceptive.
Also, you can actually select the text on the site. Would be much better clicking the mouse linked somewhere or triggered an event.
Sad that I’ve turned into one of Pavlov’s dogs and that very reasonable methods of increasing functionality have been abused so much that they are no longer useable.
Ive seen most prompts before. I know what pressing cancel or ok on each one does without thinking. And if I dont know what it does, I have to pause and figure out the consequence of each button.
And when I watch other people use computers, they will close things, and I ask them "what was that" they often respond "I dont know, I didnt ask for it, so I closed it." There seems to be a persuasive misunderstandig that dismissing a prompt will leave everything in its previous state, and that it cant make any changes.
To me there's nothing wrong with that attitude though. One of the best lessons you can teach someone when they're browsing the internet is;
If some website is asking for permission to do something or wants you to download something that you didn't ask for. Then DON'T do it.
thinks akin to "by closing this box or clicking ok, you are enabling autosave."
If the website or application is popping up constant unimportant dialogs, then the user is trained to quickly dismiss them...
Could it be that the model you describe doesn't fit the mental model of a typical human very well? Could the cause of this "pervasive misunderstanding" be bad design, rather than dumb users?
Read your prompts before closing them isnt the same as "the users have a pervasive misunderstanding." Its usually panic. Its "im not a computer person so Im not even going to try reading this."
Have you ever had the conversation:
"This came up on my pc, what do I do"
"What does it say"
The only thing you've got wrong is page load time and overall responsiveness. This needs at least a couple more MB of JS.
Can find a short overview of it here: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2018/08/beyond-th...
As it stands today, it's too much work to set site-specific cookie privileges.
The problem is that it's not a technical problem, but a political. No matter how technically elegant your spec, it doesn't change anything about the underlying conflict of interest: Website operators want to collect personal data and show ads, while users want to keep personal data to themselves and don't want to see ads.
So trying to solve this via any kind of web standard is asking the website operators to act against their own interests. If you have no enforcement or incentive, you will end up with a standard that is either toothless (P3P, DNT with opt-in) or simply ignored (DNT with opt-out).
GDPR (and the cookie law before) do have enforcement, which is why web sites can't ignore them - instead they fight back with a barrage of popups.
Honestly though I think it's sites being dumb and storing the choice in a session cookie or something because you've not agreed to storing cookies
Hell, if you've got a marketing team dependent on stuff like Google Tag Manager, then have them throw it in there. Job done. Not great for the users.
I enjoy the result of releasing this experience into the wild.
Few entities, like Google and FB, took over the internet and crafted the landscape to their advantage. They monopolized ads revenue, search traffic, and more importantly, they are actively spying on the general public, taking away any possible advantages from publishers. The result is a dearth of advertising money for publishers and regulations aimed at destroying any attempt to take over these behemoths.
When was the last time you saw GFPR notice on Facebook or Google? Do you think publishers enjoy having "Please Donate" pop-ups? When was the last time you heard of investment rounds in online publishers?
In the olden days we had websites and blog networks being born, Gawker, Weblogs Inc, TechCrunch network, political networks, etc etc. And what do we have now? Central stations with fake news shenanigans and retarded memes. While publishers, including your local newspaper and your favorite websites, are struggling. And that's the story behind all these popups.
wish there was a way that people would realize that getting back to smaller communities and supporting publishers is actually a good thing
"Every website in 2018" by @darylginn
edit: which is something to do with the 'UX Live' channel on telegram which OP also mentions
1. Do you want to receive notifications: Business or marketing request
2. Your privacy/cookie warning: Likely legal requirement.
3. Age requirement: I'll assume it's an 18+ site, so requested by legal dept.
4. Subscribe to our newsletter: Marketing request
5. Disable adblock: Business request
6. Donate: Business request.
7. Did you find what you were looking for: UX request
8. Something went wrong: Engineering
Are you talking about the EU privacy and data protection directives? Because they have an exception for Authentication, Session and Security Cookies as well as several other types of cookies which are necessary for the function of the site.
A user that is logged in should not need to see this either.
Alright, who actually told them that this was a thing they could do? Own up.
It's not really MBAs running the show - its the sad fact that content is so centralized and monetized by the giants that independent publishers have to result to this stuff on a large scale to remain competitive... if you don't install trackers you don't earn premium CPMs on your ads and if you don't earn premium CPMs you start building email lists and then you start spamming people to sell crap and doing exit popups and constant reminders to subscribe now and crap like that.
content publishing is largely copycat - what works or what drives revenue pops up everywhere or becomes a pattern that publishers can subscribe to in order to ink out some revenue to pay for crap.
I run a small travel blog and i spend a lot of money on good fast page loads, global cdn, high performance/fast loading website and it pains me to have to have ads/trackers/facebook connect and crap like that but i'd love some feedback on how to do something different that people would actually support - or how to do ads in a way that doesn't scare people off...
just using google tag manager i see 40% of my traffic runs adblock.... i'd break even if this weren't true but that's the reality we face so lots of insane measures of trying to monetize a visit means the web just by and large becomes worse and worse...
How about either:
A) A traditional product or service, where you can skim some money off the top.
B) User donations: Patreon, Kickstarter, etc
I'm open to more ideas, but these are already in the wild, and are already working just fine.
a) always assumes people are writing to sell something - do we not like creative writing, journalism and such?
Adblocks also tend to block patreon and kickstarter buttons/links as well...
I love Creative writing, journalism, etc. In fact, I've paid quite a bit of money via Patreon and Kickstarters for creative pursuits. The creators didn't sell anything to me. I'm not sure what you mean by this.
And if your only method for asking your users for donation money is buttons/links, then you should change it up. Plug it in your media, in your speeches, etc.
i'm not asking you what products or services i should offer, i'm asking what makes people embrace something enough to actually support it.
I can't point to any specific trigger, but I notice that I get drawn to certain creators. If I start to recognize their name/brand, and I look at their past work, I get a sense of "I want to support that".
A good example is Complexly: https://complexly.com (sorry that their website is awful)
I started getting videos sent to me by friends, and recommendations on youtube. After watching a few, I looked through their catalog, and relatively quickly and easily saw what they were creating, and I thought "I want more of that in the world".
They had a Patreon link readily available, and mentioned in the videos that Patreon was one of the ways that they funded themselves.
I know that's not a great answer, but everyone's trigger will be different.
I think for me it boils down to a few variables:
Do you have a good product that I would pay for, but aren't forced to? Am I excited for your next product, even if it ends up vastly different from your other products?
Do you consistently put out good material? (and by this I include: is your product full of ads/tracking?)
Is your income transparent?
Do you encourage people to share your work, even if you aren't going to directly make money off of every fan? Do I get the impression that you'd rather me share it with 1000 people who won't pay, or 5 people who will pay?
Do you make it easy for me to pay you, in whatever form is convenient to me?
Nobody ever fits all of this criteria perfectly (I can criticize Complexly all day long), but they have a solid product that they give to everyone, and have relatively low friction for taking my money.
Also, I'd say it's a false dichotomy of "monetize" vs. "use every dark pattern and brings-browsers-to-their-knees script".
Countless times I've clicked on a link/article, only to go through this crap, and/or have it bring my browser on a most recent generation iDevice to a crawl, and given up/closed. I'm still happy to look at ads on free content (and yes, every now and then, click on one), provided I can actually see them.
BTW, these aren't "Dark patterns" - they're industry standards - whether we like it or not. Are users interested in preserving independent media or are they mostly fine just getting what facebook and google think they should get?
I think what a lot of people are ignoring is that users support these terrible sites and that the good ones that don't join these patterns eventually just fade to oblivion
web "Surfers" need to change their behaviors just as much as content creators... if not more so - because the industry is just following the what the readers actually do...
I agree that the consumers should change their behavior, but there aren't a lot of options for supporting good news. I can't say I've ever seen a news site that was good enough that I'd actually pay money for.
"Want more content like this in your inbox?"
I may have considered it if you allowed me to actually read the content first, but I certainly don't now.
For more real-life examples, just try searching for some cake recipes. Cooking web sites all have this.
That should never have been architected that way. It annoys me the most because its the freaking browser that is being an annoying little shit. My browser shouldn't be part of the problem it should be the solution.
Tell the marketing department that it's a bad idea then have to do it anyway
The flashing app icons, seemingly on every interaction, .. I mean for real.
desktop > mobile > app
I wish they'd just concentrate on one good experience.
- please turn off ad blocking
- GDPR: Consent to all these things: y/n (N)
- -- choose from 6 confusing choices
- -- back
- -- try again
I noticed that when redeeming a Play Card, I still had to fill in an address and phone number.
yet those that cheat the system or have the money to "pay to play" dominate it... just not sure that they're actually making any money.
In a good sense, that was actually not bad for a 2018 website.
Use NLP to modularize the T&Cs and create some sort of authorization system to manage consents to various setups so we don't need to do it over and over. Plus, it could be an unique identification system!
Just be sure to decentralize it.
> You Can't Visit This Website
> According to the California Law §28, Hague Convention and > Maritime Law, we can't show the content of this website to > people who have not reached 18 years age.
I'm not sure what it was but I'm glad I didn't click that I was over 18.
just for example - asking HOW/WHAT to change got me downvoted here... how can the creative publishing industry survive if it's being punished for asking what would be better?
* (weird) scroll animation effects, like paragraphs appearing out of nowhere etc.
* Disqus/other comment section loading (with screwing other elements position)