Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Ad Networks the Laggards In Jackson Traffic Spike 176

miller60 writes "Advertising networks are being cited as the major bottlenecks in performance woes experienced by major news sites during the crush of Internet traffic Thursday as news broke about the death of pop star Michael Jackson. An analysis by Keynote found that many news sites delivered their own content promptly, only to find their page delivery delayed by slow-loading ads. The inclusion of third-party content on high-traffic pages is a growing challenge for site operators. It's not just ads, as social media widgets are also seeing wider usage on commercial sites. How best to balance the content vs. performance tradeoffs?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ad Networks the Laggards In Jackson Traffic Spike

Comments Filter:
  • No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordSnooty ( 853791 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:06AM (#28514263)
    Even at times of average load you can see delays as the browser goes off to find some unresponsive ad server. Google analytics and other stat-gatherers can be a problem too. It's annoying when it prevents the appearance of a page. Seems easily solvable within the browser though, set content from other domains to be on a shorter timeout. If the site fails because some off-server content isn't available, that's a badly-designed site. Ordinarily I'd just miss out on a few ads. Boo hoo!
  • Easy solution. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:07AM (#28514273)

    Whenever the ad servers get to a critical overusage point, replace them with a set of text ads. Or better yet, replace them with a text ad for AdBlock Plus [adblockplus.org]. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

    Ryan Fenton

  • by Blixinator ( 1585261 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:16AM (#28514385)
    Google has always appealed to me because of it's VERY basic homepage. No extra crap unless you want it there (iGoogle). I understand that it would be hard for a website to thrive without a method of revenue, either through a store or ads, but I tend to stick with sites that keep ads to a minimum. I've even stopped going to sites because of the overbearing amounts of ads. Slashdot has a nice system too. Giving you the option to turn off ads if you contribute.
  • Re:Ad Caching? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jellybob ( 597204 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:16AM (#28514389) Journal

    The best way to deal with this sort of thing is to do regular checks as to how long hitting the address that's going to be loaded takes, in a cron job or whatever, and if it goes over a certain threshold, turn off that provider.

    Sure, you'll lose a bit of ad revenue, but you won't have pissed off users who think your site is broken.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:17AM (#28514397)

    That's not a reasonable excuse for ad servers to often be slow as hell (note that I am on 768 kb/s), sometimes even right-out timing out.
    Maybe some particularly popular sites should add a service-level clause for the ad providers (if they need more than 20 ms to prepare+transmit the ads, they must switch them off)?

  • Re:No surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:19AM (#28514425)

    Can someone explain to me why this phenomenon occurs? Is content loaded serially, one item at a time?

    Because you're not blocking ads?

  • Re:No surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:23AM (#28514467)

    Generally, a browser will open up to 4-5 connections per site. (This is configurable in firefox). If there are more requests needed, they'll reuse one of the existing connections (which don't close -- keep-alive).

    The problem isn't loading, it's rendering. Many ad networks are heavy on the javascript and use stupid shit like document.write, and innerHTML. If the ad javascript is slow to load, the page rendering will stall.

  • by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:25AM (#28514511)
    I'M GEVIL (BETA) AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT I'M SADDENED BY THE LOSS OF BILLY MAYS!







    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
  • Re:Easy solution. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jurily ( 900488 ) <jurily&gmail,com> on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:26AM (#28514543)

    Whenever the ad servers get to a critical overusage point, replace them with a set of text ads.

    Except you want to get paid for banners especially when you got the most visitors.

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:36AM (#28514675) Homepage

    They *are* loading the "primary content" first. They just differ with you as to what constitutes "primary".

  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:49AM (#28514855) Homepage Journal
    That is true, but successful advertising tends to enhance the experience of the media they support. How many of us would listen to the radio of watch TV if the ads were just 30 seconds of monotonous droning, or if the ads interrupted the expected flow of content. For instance, if the ads were placed mid sentence instead of act breaks? How many of us would read magazines if there was a paragraph of text on each page, and the rest were ads. In sophisticated media, there is some experience in what works and what does not. The web is a free for all, unlike radio there was never even a hint of over arching philosophy or ethics for advertising, so we end up many pages that are just adverts.

    I think much of the issues of ads is that they do tend to ill integrated on the page and do not enhance the viewing experience. One issue is that a page may have to link with many domains, each involving multiple requests, and often the page will not render until all ads are loaded. This is fair, but, again, does mature media expect to be successful if they serve lame ads? Ads support content in a number of ways, but must not conflict with the content.

  • by al0ha ( 1262684 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:51PM (#28515705) Journal
    Yeah this is news? Man the main reason why I originally started blocking ads was not because I necessarily objected to them, it was because the ad servers always seem to hang up the page loads. Web 2.0 as it is called simply made this problem even worse with sites cross loading content. Web 2.0 sucks!
  • Re:Reflows (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andymadigan ( 792996 ) <amadigan@gmNETBSDail.com minus bsd> on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:54PM (#28515777)
    "Bigger sites ensure that ads served into their sites won't cause this kind of slowdown."

    Obviously not, as some major sites were hit by this issue. What it comes down to is that the owners of these new organizations picked the advertising service they thought would give them the most money - not the ones that would ensure the highest reliability or the best user experience. This shows the state that news organizations have reached, making money is more important than reporting the news.
  • Re:No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy.gmail@com> on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:00PM (#28515885) Journal

    The reason they don't do that for ads is because the viewer "dwell time" on the page can often be less than the time it takes the ad to load.

    Kills your click-through revenue if your page view never results in someone seeing the ad, so you force the ad to preload before you render the page.

  • Get some balls (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <kaboom108@@@bellsouth...net> on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:06PM (#28515993)

    There is an easy solution to this problem. Take advertising back into your own hands. Don't sign up for some stupid ad network to shovel punch the monkey ads all your site. Forming a relationship with companies your viewers are actually interested in will deliver better results for the advertisers and for your visitors. Don't let them cover your page in huge javascript overlays and other nonsense, doing so shows they don't respect your content or your visitors. Yes, it takes more work, but the end result is better and more profitable.

  • Re:No surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:06PM (#28516013)

    Poorly-designed sites. Many ad-serving networks will, by default, write out ads using Javascript's "document.write()", which means the browser can't complete the DOM tree until those ad servers respond. Since most browsers are set to only keep two active connections open at once, it's quite possible for both of those connections to be occupied by different "document.write()" scripts.

    (With image requests, for example, the browser can continue rendering the page even if the image file isn't downloaded, because the IMG tag contains everything the browser needs to create a placeholder for it. "document.write()", unfortunately, doesn't.)

    Well-designed websites will put the ads in iframes, so they load completely independently of the normal site. Of course, the tradeoff with this approach is that your analytics data might not be as complete.

  • Re:Reflows (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ron_Fitzgerald ( 1101005 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:09PM (#28516065)

    ...This shows the state that news organizations have reached, making money is more important than reporting the news.

    I don't ever recall a time when the news wasn't just one more service to trade with you for advertising. When has the news ever been not about making money?

  • by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:13PM (#28516111)

    The worst part about stories like this is having to skip past the 3 dozen Slashdot posts that all say "I don't see ads because I block them! Hyuk! Hyuk!"

    Yes, we all get it. Lots of Slashdotters block ads. We know. We've read it a million times on this site. Could you just shut the hell up so we can comment on the actual story? Thank you.

  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:26PM (#28516285)

    I reject your idea that 'ads are necessary'.

    you are stuck in the current way of (broken) thinking.

    get out of this 'info must be free/beer' mentality.

    people HAVE paid for things and will continue to do so.

    people will go out of their way to AVOID ads. there's a gas station near me that has lcd monitors and they pump (heh) ads AT YOU while you are filling up the car. I never go there anymore and the few times I did, I started the pump, got RIGHT in my car and turned the stereo up to block them out. its annoying and rude and I won't stand for it.

    micropayments are one method.

    'but they are too expensive'.

    ok, so blame THEM, then; not the users or the 'need' for ads.

    solve the payment problem and I'll happily kick in a penny for each time I see your 'valuable' (cough) content.

    ads are sickening and you should be ASHAMED of what you do for a living if you are an adman.

    that includes ALL of google, btw. all of google is just sugar coated advertising. and the google search is so ruined by commercialism that the first 2 or 3 pages are USELESS JUNK.

    tell me again how advertising is useful to anyone but business pukes, who can't earn an honest living any other way?

  • by hibiki_r ( 649814 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @03:19PM (#28518053)

    I think those comments can be meaningful. I avoid doing massive ad blocking, but in some cases, I've blocked ads from locations that created major slowdown in page loads.

    It's an example of why ad delivery services are failing us: In modern browsers, delays for ad loading do happen from time to time, regardless of the size of your internet tubes. Bad performance makes even users that aren't ad averse want to block them, just for the performance gain, just like aggressive DRM makes users that have no problem paying for software be tempted to become pirates.

  • by Hurricane78 ( 562437 ) <deleted&slashdot,org> on Monday June 29, 2009 @03:27PM (#28518179)

    Nope. We will just block comments like yours, that complain without adding anything to the story. ^^

  • by SuperQ ( 431 ) * on Monday June 29, 2009 @05:11PM (#28519911) Homepage

    Why would you need a server unless you have broken firewall rules. Your localhost should simply return TCP reset, which is much faster than having to actually service a page request.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...