this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
227 points (98.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35727 readers
920 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
227
Why do some websites have a "Continue Reading" button? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by canadaduane@lemmy.ca to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some article websites (I'm looking at msn.com right now, as an example) show the first page or so of article content and then have a "Continue Reading" button, which you must click to see the rest of the article. This seems so ridiculous, from a UX perspective--I know how to scroll down to continue reading, so why hide the text and make me click a button, then have me scroll? Why has this become a fairly common practice?

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 124 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's two fold:

  1. it's good proof of "user interaction with site" to sell to advertisers

  2. they can use that to load more ads or refresh current ones after it loads more text, and you're already bought in on the story so you're likely going to keep going.

I suspect a third reason is to try adding other news stories at the end in case the current one didn't grab your attention, but that doesn't seem to be as consistent amongst sites that I've seen do this. I run ad blockers though, so I don't really see the sites the way they expect me to.

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

Enshittification

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago

Because fuck you, that's why.

[–] BustinJiber@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

Then you click it, and it's like 2 sentences and the rest is ads. Might be one of the reasons.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just a guess: to prevent bots from scraping the full content?

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Doubt it. My web analytics indicate that bots click on every single element on the page, whether it makes sense or not.

For this reason it's a good idea not to allow your site to generate any kind of circular self-referential loop that can be achieved via navigation or clicking on things, because poorly coded bots will not realize that they're driving themselves around in circles and proceed to bombard your server with zillions of requests per second for the same thing over and over again.

Likewise, if you have any user initiated action that can generate an arbitrary result set like for example adding an item or set of items to a quote or cart, it is imperative that you set an upperbound limit on the length of result or request size (server side!), and ideally configure your server to temp-ban a client who attempts too many requests that are too large in too short of a time span. Because if you don't, bad bots absolutely will eventually attempt to e.g. create a shopping cart with 99999999999999999 items in it. Or a search query with 4.7 gigabytes worth of keywords. Or whatever. Either because they're coded by morons or worse, because they're coded by someone who wants to see if they can break your site by doing stuff like that.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

it's a good idea not to allow your site to generate any kind of circular self-referential loop that can be achieved via navigation or clicking on things

Don't nearly all sites have a logo at the top that will take you back to the homepage? I'm not really following.

My intuition is that the only safe solution is to rate limit requests; a poorly coded bot could definitely just be a while loop for the same URL ad infinitum.

[e] Unless there's something to this I'm not thinking about.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Apparently it can boosts engagement?

At the Times, which got 60 percent of its June visitors from mobile, the “show full article button” has resulted in “moderate increase” in the time readers spend, according to Paul Werdel, senior product manager on mobile.

Quartz, which also introduced its own “read full story” button alongside its design refresh in June, has used the button to boost the performance of its mobile Engage ads, which appear directly below the button. The Huffington Post uses a similar approach, presenting readers with a 300 x 250 banner ad below its own “read more” button. Huffington Post VP of Engineering Sam Napolitano said that preliminary data on the feature has been “very positive” since its addition.

https://digiday.com/media/publishers-mobile-truncated-page/

[–] Prking@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)
  1. Some people prefer pages to scrolling (it’s amazing the strength of opinion about this for either point of view)
  2. Advertisements are charged per impression. So each page counts as a new impression
  3. Be grateful websites no longer auto scroll web pages
  4. Some things lend themselves to page by page. For example very long articles (this is why books replaced scrolls)
  5. Be grateful that websites stopped animating page turns etc
  6. Sometimes web developers don’t care and just use a bought in package
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

it’s amazing the strength of opinion about this for either point of view

Regardless of user preference, on the web it's a fool's errand to try to force your content into a page-by-page format. Designing a paged content presentation that's guaranteed to work on every device with every screen size is so close to impossible that it's not worth bothering. And that's before you take into account whether or not the user prefers to view in landscape or portrait, what aspect ratio their screen has, what zoom level their browser is set to, or even how their browser implements zoom and content rescaling. So 9 times out of 10, you'll wind up with your content being broken into pages that the user still has to scroll around in to see all of anyway. Or where everything will be illegibly microscopic. Or both! Especially if they turn up on a mobile device -- which is something like 92% of all web users these days. Every time you fail you will annoy the shit out of your user base, and you will fail more often than you succeed.

No, the sole driving factor behind sites breaking articles into "pages" is so they can load more ads on each page change.

(This does not apply to non-website mediums, obviously. IDGAF how you digest your e-books, manga, or whatever.)

[–] Prking@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

There we go, a strong opinion.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

Because they want you to obnoxiously see as many ads as possible because they don’t care if you read the article, only view ads. This is the new shitty web. MSN, Newsweek and Yahoo are the scummy kings.

[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

Maybe to make the article seem shorter, so you’re more inclined to keep reading. Once you’re halfway through, you’re more likely to want to read the rest. Both halves are probably filled with ads, so the longer you stick around, the better.

[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

while data collection and advertisement is a big part of it, they probavly try to "save" on bandwidth, you might not read the entire article.