Dear Newsweek, is that the end of the article??? Oh, wait…
By - Shejidan
Do these ads even work? I automatically ignore all of them while scrolling for more content.
They probably just hope for *accidental* clocks while scrolling. I know I've accidentally clicked on articles multiple times in these situations.
Edit: I meant clicks, of course.
God damnit I gave them my clock again
I can't count how many times I've lost my clocks to those pesky ads.
So the "???" part of the four-step profit meme was actually "trick them into giving you their clocks" all along?
It was left out because they ran out of time
Gosh danged clock gobblers, I tell you what.
r/wildbeef top rated post:
Was actually a time traveling turkey lol
you fuck! fell for it
Link is a Rick Roll. Don't bother clicking.
Clock is a Clock, don't bother clocking
But that's the best part of it
Oh you guys
The mile long string of comments, piggy backing off a single joke in every other reddit thread is just as annoying as the mile long string of ads in OP's post.
The end result is the same: Both make you quickly scroll.past them, in an attempt to get back to the point.
Just go to literally any thread about any creepy thing and wait for sleep paralysis to come up.
Totally derails the discussion.
It's the endless award chains that get me.
You must not sub to prequel memes. It's all about beating jokes and references to death.
You are a bold one
This is the kind of shit that happens when you make it illegal to beat clowns to death okay?
Hey, I was the first joke maker. But if you really want to skip these jokes then tap at the top of my comment next to my name and it will close the string (for mobile).
No, you're fine. I thought the same when I saw the clock typo. I'm used to my desktop attached to my 70" tv, and am having to make do with using my phone until I am able to get them back from my daughter's mom. Lousy eyesight stemming from two back to back craniotomies last year is making it nearly impossible for me to click on the right comment.
Also, I really didn't want to single any one person out. They're just trying to keep it light. But it always turns into a gigantic pile up of the same joke.
Yeah it does get stale. Two craniotomies are brutal, I hope you’re doing good. I can’t blame you, phones are tiny.
Thank you. Yeah, brain surgeries are definitely a mindfuck, for lack of a better term. Physically, I'm ok for now. I have a grade IV GBM, and I've already surpassed my life expectancy by six months. Mentally and emotionally, I am barely hanging on. I shouldn't have even left my initial comment. Today has been extremely frustrating, and lashing out over something so insignificant is pointless. I'm going to go yell at some clouds, before it gets dark.
No dude, it is absolutely fine. I took it lightheartedly and intended for my original reply to come off jokingly but it’s hard when no one can hear my voice or expressions. Besides, taking your anger out on the internet can be better than in real life. I wish I could be there to support you but what can someone do on the internet beyond “thoughts and prayers”? I am so sorry you have to go through this.
You can yell at my kids if you want. They totally deserve it, and will likely laugh and think you’re their new friend.
It's that time again eh?
Fookin' cleaned my clock I can tell you.
🕑 oh shit
Happens to me time and time again.
Half the ads I get on these sites are like "People born between 1948-1974 are in for a treat this June." with a picture of an old person fanning cash. The years shuffle around a bit, but it's pretty confusing because I'm nowhere near that old and I've never made any effort to hide my age from AdSense stuff.
Needless to say, those life insurance ads are wasted on me.
"Drivers in your state are saving big this summer"
I bet they're not...
“This 50 y/o woman has the face of a teenager!”
“This NEW ‘legal’ steroid is turning older men into BEASTS”
Im like literally 2 months old
Aww wittle baby on the reddit 🍼
I get lots of baby related ads.
They're supposed to leave a subconscious impression on you, hoping you might recognise the brand again if you see it again somewhere else.
But those news site ads are always for like conspiracy shit or blatant blackhatseo click farm sites hawking natural cures of different spectrums of conspiracy ish topics. it’s not like you can sell an ideology like a product….
Checks calendar for January notes.
They do. I now unconsciously avoid those brands. 😏
Except you don’t. If these ads didn’t work (or at least appear to work) they wouldn’t exist.
Exactly. People don't seem to realise it's not necessarily about an immediate reaction. Good example is when you first get car insurance... You'll have spent years 'ignoring' the car insurance ad's but I can almost guarentee one of the first sites you visit is the annoying car insurance advert websites because it seems less sketchy than 'bobs car insurance'. It's the feeling of familiarity.
No they don't work. Ads used to work because it was our only way of getting information about a product. That's not how getting a product works anymore. We want car insurance, we go to a car insurance comparison site and get the best deal. We do that with all product today, rendering ads useless.
Yeah my bad. Advertising doesn't actually work. You heard it here first folks. The billions spent is pure waste.
You are seriously misunderstanding how ads work on the mind.
That's not what's in this video. They're links to other articles.
Sometimes a big batch of links to articles like that is either all clickbait taking you to some garbage site or clickbait sprinkled into the site's articles, so you might accidentally click one that goes to a garbage site thinking you'll stay on the original site you were reading.
Yes they do. I introduced my retiree mom to smart phones and social media three years ago and these ads are her fav reads. Doesn’t matter what I say. She think they are legit new source. It kills me
Edit I’m working on teaching her better internet etiquette and spotting scam/spam/clickbait stuff but it’s really slow and she doesn’t like to stop reading clickbaits at all🙃
i mean, when i want to knock my self esteem down a few pegs i click on some of those conspiracy links, tho it more lowers my hope for humanity
Not if you have an adblocker
Absolutely not, but the more money they lose the more ads they add to the page.
I mean, logically they *have to*. I can't imagine they would keep them if they didn't work, right?
Wait they go on I always just assumed they ended poorly
I thought I was the only one
This literally happened to me an hour ago
My mind is blown rn. I really thought articles were just getting worse/lazy. I’d see more than 1 ad come into view and bounce. Now it all makes sense.
I am completely dumbstruck. I can't even begin to count how many interesting articles I've not finished because of this idiotic ux design.
I was today years old when I found out the articles are longer. I always assumed those shitty ads meant the end of the article.
Huh...maybe *this* is why there was so much confusion about who won the presidential election in the US this year...no one thought the check beyond the ads for the rest of the information.
^(very much /s)
Sadly, you're not far from the truth at all.
Haha I know but I just didn't want to get jumped on in case anyone thought I was serious.
But it is sad.
My mind is blown. I thought the same. It’s been this way a while too.
Thoughts of the unscrupulous, 'Therein lies why it's a bad design. No, not because you didn't know there was more article to be read, but because you stopped scrolling before you saw all of the ads.'
This happened to me yesterday. I sat there wondering about the title of the article I was reading because what I had read didn't mention the details the title did. Turns out I just had to keep scrolling for the remaining 3/4s of the article.
Don’t actually start scrolling down and looking for the rest of the article- that’s what they want you to do. Find a better news source instead.
If your browser has a reading mode or data saver mode, that may help.
You beat me by ten minutes. Reading Mode is absolutely the way to deal with that noise.
Yes. Agree. Upvotes all!
Could be worse. It could’ve ended with “subscribe to continue reading”
“Please turn off adblock :)”
*proceeds to shove 10 million ads to your screen*
This reminds me awfully of magazines: "continued on page 44" as an inset of a bajillion ads
Yah, I had someone replying to me the other day defending these sites saying “it’s how they make their money! Anti-capitalist or something? Communist maybe?
I love reddit
The phrase I remember is “after the jump”
Or "below the fold"
Right? At least those told you the article continued after the ads
Woah woah woah, how often does this happen?
The amount of articles Ive apparently never finished just thinking it was written poorly.
Can confirm, frequently.
They just trying to make some bank ya know? Promotion!
And this is with an ad blocker installed.
YOUR FUCKED MAN
Wherever shall I get my news now?! Woe is me!
Firefox reader view is great filtering out stuff like this (most of the time): https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clutter-free-web-pages
Mobile safari (which he is using) has it built in too.
I just use headlines on reddit, and assume the opposite.
Its surprisingly reliable.
I use the news app on iOS… lol
What about his fucked man?
He had a good fuck.
Ripping good fuck
You're. The contaction for "you are".
>You're. The contaction for "you are".
And yet none of you are in contradiction
Blocker? I 'ardly know 'er!
Name checks out
Which? Mine prevented this.
It’s been letting a lot of crap through lately that it’s never let through before though.
I use uBlock Origin, check it out!
Can’t use it on iOS.
You can get Firefox on iOS. Ublock is just an extension for it.
I’ve used Firefox for iOS before and never liked it. I might check it out again though.
Are you using a browser or VPN ad blocker? If browser they often don’t work use a VPN ad blocker like I do….
I think the internet is a cesspool without both. Browser blocking can go much more in depth than any sort of DNS solution.
Holy shit the guy who wrote this is the guy who was found to have hentai on his bookmarks page
He's a man of quality.
It's funny and he's kind of a nutter, that's all.
Wow! I didn't realize that the article continued after the ads! I was reading one just today and got to, what I thought was the end because of the ads, and thought to myself, "is that the end? What a TERRIBLE way to end an article. That author should be ashamed."
I never finished reading it as I didn't realize it continued. I can't even remember what the article is about so now I can't go back to finish it.
I almost didn’t finish this one either. I closed the page and reloaded it again just to see and that’s when I decided to keep scrolling.
Major "fuck you" to the author who probably gets $0.000000000001 per view.
Better than a paywall.
Lol why are you downvoted? People out there really expecting shit to be free and have no ads -- the classic 'fuck it, journalists should work for free for my convenience' business model.
You don't want to pay for the news like we did pre-internet? Fine, then it's a race to the bottom with annoying ads/fake news/algorithm-curated sensationalism/clickbait. If that doesn't sound good, let's revert back to the business model where we, you know, pay people for their time and work so we can get quality shit again.
Sure. And the example OP posted is pretty bad. I've seen worse with ads loading after every paragraph and some they count as separate pages in your browser index.
The best is when I pay for one, and still get the same fucking ads.
Paying and still getting ads is bullshit, indeed.
As far as the ads getting worse, like I said, it's a race to the bottom. I can be the most thoughtful, well-intended news website owner in the world, if I'm being elbowed out of the market by my competition because they figured out that more intrusive ads generate more revenue, I have no choice but to follow suit, double-down or go out of business. Same with clickbait, same with fake news, same with sensationalism. In a free market environment, no company can afford to have any standards or measure of quality other than brute revenue, because their competitors invariably won't have these standards and will run them out of business given enough time. It's eat or be eaten, so if someone figured out this bullshit OP posted is more profitable than non-intrusive ads, it hardly matters that a company is 'against it' on principle -- they have no choice but to do the same or run out of business.
Like I said, the only alternative is a return to a traditional news business model where we pay for the news.
>Paying and still getting ads is bullshit, indeed.
French website network *Webedia* (mostly known for jeuxvideos.com , but owns a lot of websites) started asking 2 euros per month to turn ads into non-tracking ads. No way to have an adfree experience unless with an adblocker, making the payment moot anyway.
That sounds… decidedly not something the EU would allow. Got the impression they care a little more about privacy than NA.
Yup, seems Webedia saw the GDPR and thought "you know what? Fuck you! here's your *choice*"
Not the first time they skew the law, their bigger website had a three-video serie "the extreme gamers" where two people duel in videogames... in three rides of a themepark.
Last time I checked, *online* product placement (instagram, youtube, etc) requires an explicit disclaimer, especially in France.
Pre-internet, ads weren't made by running unchecked instructions to your own devices
Do you imagine bringing a newpaper at home and its ad then starts to call a phone number *that you would have to pay for?* that's how scripts from ads work.
Why do think login pages are often the only page without ads?
(There are ways to sandbox such scripts, but ad networks won't accept that easily)
Are you dumb?
There is ads, and there is AAADDDDDDSSSSSSSSSS.
Because Newsweek, like Time, was a magazine with a good name that was bought for that good name and gutted of its writing and editorial staff, and it is now basically a contractor content factory.
So true. I built a free app years ago in my free time. Launched it and couldn’t keep updating it for years without revenue.
3 years later I updated it to be a paid app to generate some money that I could then reinvest in the app. I had a couple reviews talking about how disappointed they were it wasn’t free (it cost $4 a month) and that they were going to find a new app to replace it lol.
Very weird this entitlement to a completely free app considering how much goes in to building one.
I'd be fine with paying for an app once but paying a subscription for something like that is just never going to happen for me.
Plus, it's not like you put out a new app, you didn't give details but if you updated a functional app to put previous features behind a paywall that's an asshole move.
Exactly. No perpetual license available and your app doesn't provide a consumable service, like cloud storage (which I would never use anyway)? I'll go elsewhere. I'll sooner do without before I start giving someone that sweet, addictive MRR.
It’s a meditation app and I redesigned the entire app and included new audio mediations and customization options. Worth the price for the market it’s in, in my opinion but I guess the users will tell you ultimately how much they are willing to pay.
Nothing that isn't a live service is worth a subscription. It's like paying a subscription for a calculator app.
I will neither see nor interact with any ads nor pay for any corporate-owned newsrag to fill some CEO's pockets. As long as journalism is enterprise oriented primarily for profit rather than to provide a service, I will support any and all endeavors to combat the ability of corporations to capitalize on the internet regardless of how good their content may seem. I'll gladly support independent creators and co-operatives when and if I can afford to. I honestly think that non-piracy, in most cases with the internet is more unethical than piracy, stealing from ultra-rich megacorps is not a sin, it's an act of responsibility.
You're actually going to defend this god awful UI? I'd honestly rather pay if it was for a half decent news site
There's a few half decent ones out there.
Which are you subscribed to?
I would rather have slim information than too much misinformation to work through. This is exactly how shit like anti-vax gets a foothold.
Imagine being the guy that got a degree to write this
One thing I love about iPhones they have ad blockers that actually work on both browsers and apps
Adguard has a [DNS blocker](https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html) as well which allows blocking for almost any application that uses tracked ads, on any device.
There's many ad-blocking DNS providers out there as well, doesn't have to be adguard.
*Something about Pihole, NextDNS, ...*
These are good, but fiddling with whitelists everytime an element gets blocked that I need is not fun
I've been using their android app that used a locally hosted vpn to block ads. Works really well.
[2.9 million ads since Sept last year blocked.](https://i.imgur.com/coeRO9w.png)
Been using it a lot longer but that's just from when I got a new phone.
AdGuard is available on Android too.
Yes but only works for browsers not apps
The concern with free adblocking services like that is you are routing all your requests through a 3rd party which can then process and sell that info for profit. If a service can see all your DNS requests then they can tell *everything* you view on that device
So can your ISP
But you're paying your ISP, meaning they have something to lost if you are upset.
What will you do against a free service, stop paying them???
Costs ten bucks but yeah point still stands
That's why I'm using my own private DNS server with unbound.
Adgaurd works on every device lol what's so IPhone about it
Do they WANT people to read the article? I wouldn't even take the time to scroll down.
AP is the news you need. Every news outlet and every other wanna be “journalist” (bloggers) gets their news from AP or BBC and puts it on their shitty ad filled websites.
I usually use them or Reuters or bbc. This was an article someone retweeted on Twitter.
Newsweek has by far the worst website design I’ve ever seen. Their articles aren’t even bad but I never click on an Newsweek links just so I don’t have to deal with that abomination.
I'm going to get out of bed, walk over and knock on my neighbor's front door, show him this video, and punch him square in the mouth. He didn't do a damn thing wrong. That's how annoyed I am.
Wow, I never ventured down there. I kept getting frustrated at these articles that done end, I stopped clicking on Newsweek articles.
I blocked Newsweek from my newsfeed because I felt most articles were just clickbait.
Looks like I’ve never finished a Newsweek article. I mean, that’s for the best tho.
So newspapers actually have ways of tracking when the average person stops reading an article. So while this is annoying, it’s possible that they put it purposely there to “catch” people before they navigated away from the site.
Still asshole design, though
Ad tech is destroying the internet IMO. The cursor position tracking that throws up a pop-up if it thinks you're trying to click off the page is especially annoying. That's my cue to immediately close whatever site I'm on. I know it's all a numbers game and they feel it's a net gain overall but you could say that about a lot of crap. I honestly believe these over aggressive tactics push more people away than they realize.
It amazes me that some people use phones as their primary internet access because sites and advertisers have went out of their way to make every mobile site a rage inducing, slow loading, awkward and nonsensical hell-hole.
Overzealous marketing dept. overrules the sensible layout dept. Virtually 90% of clickbait sites.
man, that is definitely some asshole design right there...
This is what you get when assholes who know nothing about people - start making decisions that affect people.
This is how it ends.
Newspapers have to put paywalls and massive ads up just to keep themselves alive. Conspiracy and opinion pieces survive on “likes” and specter and outrage. Newspapers cannot publish stories, yet opinions can, and opinions become fact because it’s first and it’s free. This kind of misinformation led to people forgoing the vax because it caused magnetism, as the fact now costs money. Fact presented as fact costs money. Opinion presented as fact is free.
I cannot figure a way out of this.
I've also noticed that when they are reporting on fact check that showed a repub is lying they repeat the lie in detail, give supporting statements in the first part of article and then do the real info at the bottom.
Clever little rightwingers know this audience...
Wait there have been so many instances where I thought “huh that article ended abruptly” without realizing there could possibly be more content after such an enormous amount of ads. Shit.
Newsweek digital has become trash.
Are you fucking kidding?!
"textbook case of bad textbooking"
You definitely got that right
This type of thing is why I rarely read articles posted to Reddit aside from places like Wikipedia where I know I won't have to deal with this. Local news sites are the absolute worst with this, with content that's borderline unreadable on mobile due to so much clutter. I've definitely had situations where I'll read 20 minutes of comments on an article before reading the article itself.
Jesus christ I knew it was bad but not this bad, you scrolled for a while, enough to where I would just not read the rest of it.
I legit thought these articles ended way too abruptly or there was some kind of paywall I didn’t see. Never wen that far down.
I've sent this on a couple of news sites recently. It really is annoying af
Want to scroll to the bottom of the page to see the links in the footer? Tough.
Every single news website is full of click bait ads, and articles that are one paragraph, with “click for more”. I can’t even read “news” online any more. It’s all garbage
I saw the words "Lone Star" and said unironically out loud "the Schwartz is strong with this one"
>everything is bigger in Texas, even the stupidity
Sighhhhhh... as a Texan, this is painfully accurate
Oh God -- have I been missing out on half of every Newsweek article I've read in the past four years!?
I just thought they had abandoned long-form journalism altogether.
... this explains so much...
Google's AMP framework makes it even worse. Ads often cover up text on articles.
What do you expect from a Korean cult owned magazine?
TIL I've never finished a Newsweek article
Holy fuck. I've never bothered to go that far down. Thanks.
Looks like a job for pi-hole!
[Newsweek and the rise of the zombie magazine](https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine)
"Guys why is journalism dying!? Sure, our news organizations have been lying, misrepresenting, taking money from massive companies, and being baised at least sense 2001, and sure we use gross/annoying ad practices... But beyond that I can't see why people are trusting YouTubers over us!"
The day organizations like Newsweek,CNN, and fox die, I will throw a party
I just stop reading when I got the ads. At the point I don't even care how the story ends.
It makes it feel like the author is an old man who dosed off half way through, but then woke up and just continued after everyone else thought that was it
Fuck those types of media ….. 90% is copy and paste and then the thing with the fake thumpmail …… oh yeah an then 🦆 you give us money
Newsweek turned into Fox News so slowly many didn't notice.
Seriously. I just block every site that does this.
Yeah that's trash. And it's becoming more common.
And most people just stop reading.
Newsweek’s article title font makes me not want to even read their articles.
Newsweek is a platform for right wing tabloid garbage
What a cancerous article to boot.
This might be one of the best examples I’ve ever seen on this sub. True asshole design at its finest.
I’m at 5k upvotes and counting. I never expected it would get this much attention!
"By Kurt Eichenwald" I had no idea my deep knowledge in tentacle porn could net me a job as a journalist