Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:05AM (#28514261)
    Can't say that I noticed any of slowdown on Friday. All of the content continued to stream from my custom ad server ( at exactly the same speed as usual...
    • by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) <> on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:05PM (#28515049) Homepage Journal

      Hope you don't mind, but I'm using your ad server too.

      Dang you must have one hell of a pipe to the internets.


    • 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!
    • 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 CorporateSuit ( 1319461 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @03:13PM (#28517959)

        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!"

        Sounds like you need an AdBlock Ad Blocker. It hides any posts that may be construed as viral advertisements to block advertisements from your browser. It allows those like you and me to learn about new car insurance rates and punch the monkey in peace.

      • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )

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

    • Re:Didn't notice... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by unfasten ( 1335957 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @01:28PM (#28516319)

      Indeed. I have a lighttpd instance running on my computer just for this reason. It serves up a single page containing only the following text:

      404 - ad fail

      And if anyone is wondering why I'm running an HTTP server just for this it's because serving the 404 kills the request much quicker than letting the browser timeout the connection. Lighttpd is very light on resources but also allows me to have access logs, which allows me to get some interesting data. For instance, I split the logs up by month and here are some of the sizes:

      • June (to date): 2.95 MB with 13,550 lines
      • May: 2.87 MB with 11,354 entries
      • April: 2.69 MB with 14,931 entries

      I've also written a perl script to import the logs into an SQLite database. Which allows things like:

      All hosts blocked with over 1,000 hits (from the aforementioned April to June logs)

      req_subd req_domain Total hits

      ad doubleclick 14556
      www google-analytics 3927
      media fastclick 3339
      ads adbrite 1920
      content pulse360 1692
      ad yieldmanager 1158

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by edalytical ( 671270 )

        I have a lighttpd instance running

        Mongoose [] would probably be even better.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SuperQ ( 431 ) *

        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.

  • 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!
    • Can someone explain to me why this phenomenon occurs? Is content loaded serially, one item at a time?
      • Reflows (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

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

        Reflow is my best guess. The browser has all the data for the rest of the page, but it doesn't know what width and height to give to an ad object until it has loaded.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by lecanucker ( 945957 )
          Its probably the adserving software that the sites uses to cycle ads through their sites / networks that would have bottlenecked. They would pass on the instructions that set the size of the object to the browser and point it to the actual ad image. Ads shouldn't slow down a page - even if the third party adservers' servers went down, you should still get the page loading quickly with an empty ad-hole. Bigger sites ensure that ads served into their sites won't cause this kind of slowdown.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by andymadigan ( 792996 )
            "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: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?

        • Well, that and the actual loading of the image itself. A lot of these sites will delay the rendering until all the images are pre-loaded, and with the ad sites getting hammered, that could take a good while.

          One more reason to hate ad servers. I'm not an adblock fanatic, but I block doubleclick and all the other big ad houses by default. Some site wants to serve it's own ads, and I'll never block that.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by causality ( 777677 )

        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.

      • Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)

        by iamapizza ( 1312801 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:24AM (#28514503)
        The ads are usually javascript scripts which in turn are requesting external pages by document.write()ing out iframes to the content page which in turn may have their own resources (js/css/jpg/gif/etc) to request. A lot of browsers don't like showing you the entire page until the javascript bits have been requested, hence the delay.

        Of course the technical details are er... more detailed, but you get the idea.
        • I've always felt the contract sites make with advertisers should stipulate that if the ad doesn't load within a reasonable time (say, 5 seconds), the script should time out displaying the ad, finish up, and allow the rest of the page to finish loading. That way the advertisers would have some incentive to upgrade their servers and connection. Personally I don't mind non-annoying ads (no flashing or cheesy animations). But I had to install an ad-blocker because too many of them were slowing down my browsi
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )

        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, becaus

    • set content from other domains to be on a shorter timeout.

      Or the site designers could, you know, write the page so that it'll still display the content correctly while the off-site content is loading. Actually, that should be the case for even the on-site content. Isn't that that whole point of "height" and "width" attributes?

    • Google anal-ytics has been a real real pain in the... well you can guess... lately - I had a couple sites running slow and couldn't figure it out. I removed analytics and voila! all better.
    • Re:No surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:50AM (#28514865) Homepage Journal

      Good point.

      Yes, a browser should schedule the download of additional content, and it should give priority to same domain, next to different subdomains of same domain (e.g. "") and last to other domains.

      Of course, if that were the standard, the ad people would come up with something to defeat it. See, these are the people who are actively working on giving you content that you don't want, and they consider it important to bypass all your filters, to make sure you've seen their ads. Because you don't count, only our pageview or clickthrough does.

    • You can tune your max RTT down globally, but I don't know how to do that on a application by application basis. The default is usually 120 sec, which is in general, very generous by today's internet performance standards.

  • Ad Caching? (Score:2, Informative)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) *

    Many news web sites use advertising networks rather than serving ads from their own servers.

    Luckily I don't deal with ads. But if I did, I would try to work something out where I'd have a temporary directory with the cached ads ... especially if they were some hit-the-monkey-resource-intensive-flash-ad. Then I'd have a cron job or maybe just a servlet running on a timer that queries my ad provider's site for new ads, replace the ads in the directory with their names being generic so that they can be randomly selected based on size and ... you're a whole lot nicer for the internet. Sure, now it'

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      actually the most important thing is not showing the ads, but counting the ads shown. I did work at a company that had a fallback where if there was a bottleneck it would switch to serving a default ad - but that makes no money. Clients pay on the number of views/clicks an ad gets and you have to have the request go through to the server to get this. Also the adserver needs to decide what ads to show. It might be acceptable for click only ads - but it's the view based ads that make the most money, and you
  • 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 []. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

    Ryan Fenton

    • Just use the RSS or Atom feed instead of the web page.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jurily ( 900488 )

      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.

      • 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.

        Control of the ad server gives economic control over the sites themselves. "Sorry 'bout that."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by VShael ( 62735 )

      I've shown some non-geek friends of mine that there is nothing wrong with their web browser, or their laptop, or their internet connection. Web browsing is really very fast, provided you turn off advertising.

      I set them up with a combo of Ad Block Plus on Firefox, and a customised hosts file. They can't believe the difference.

  • by toygeek ( 473120 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:08AM (#28514279) Homepage Journal

    I'll bet THAT isn't in the autopsy report.

  • I would have been first to post but the bloody advertising bottlenecked me. I'm going to head over to Rotten Tomatoes, I'm sure that won't happen there.
  • by anomnomnomymous ( 1321267 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:10AM (#28514305)
    I can see how the ads would be the bottleneck in serving a site... if not only because it's the same case for users with most sites on normal days too.
    Very often I'm stuck waiting for the ads to load, before the actual site shows up on computers where I don't have the luxury of an adblocker; And even with an adblocker I sometimes see my computer still using some resources to get the ads down.
  • by cryfreedomlove ( 929828 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:10AM (#28514315)
    Without those ads, there would not be the high number of news sites available for viewing breaking news stories that can drive this Jacko level of interest.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)?

      • I agree. If I am a news site and you are an ad server company, you must serve my ads in 20ms or you refund my advertisers.
    • 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 pla ( 258480 )
        successful advertising tends to enhance the experience of the media they support.

        Based on that premise, I have to conclude that no such thing as "successful advertising" exists, with the possible exception of Superbowl ads - And I wouldn't say they enhance the media itself, so much as they exist as content on their own (an idea supported by more people watching the halftime ads than the game itself).

        How many of us would listen to the radio of watch TV if the ads were just 30 seconds of monotonous dron
    • Actually, no. The vast majority of news sites are supported by ad revenue drawn from traditional sources: newsprint advertising/subscriptions, tv news advertising/cable subscriptions.

      Online ad revenue isn't very profitable for anyone except the big ad services (e.g. doubleclick) and Google, and in both of those cases it's because of volume.

      Most news sites can't make enough on online ads to support themselves. I mean, if sites like Facebook and Twitter can't support themselves on ads, then how do you think L

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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 anno

      • I prefer browsing a large number of websites to get different perspectives. Given my wide ranging and eclectic tastes, I prefer the advertising model for funding those sites because there would be too many to pay if I paid for each one.

        I suspect there are more people like me than you. The current model works for us, even if it does not work for people like you who think advertising professionals are 'sickening' and that google is 'ruined' and 'USELESS JUNK'.
  • I had not noticed any issues on Friday at all so I was rather surprised by the news reports about net slowdowns. Adblock FTW!
    • AdBlock... *Grovels before it.* You have saved my weekend from the nasty, nasty, nauty ad services.
      To the masses that do not use AdBlock; get it, use it, pay the poor programmer for his diligent work.

  • 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.
    • or just block them with adblock and keep your money.

    • by rhizome ( 115711 )

      Google and Slashdot handle it well

      Then why, multiple times a day, do I have to hit ESC when there's a delay in loading whatever whoozit from "" Don't tell me you've never seen that hostname in your status bar.

  • it would seem easy enough with correct site coding / browser tabs [I admit to NOT being an html / css expert] to force the ads to load last so that at least the content loads regardless of the ads being slow / non-responsive. Of course the advertisers would rather be first so they get your eyeballs before all that uber-distracting content :-\

    • correct, a simple javascript body.onLoad event would suffice to load all the advertisements after a page has loaded... however, this runs into the problem that people may be running with javascript turned off, in which case they won't see their adverts, which means javascript onload wouldn't work for everyone, and that's bad for advertisers businesses.

      what actually happens is the web designer/programmer adds a script reference to another site (in the form of <script> tags) that link to another website

  • I've seen this as a big issue with mashups of all sorts for a while.

    When google was down a few months ago many sites I visited...including this one...had issues. Turns out that google was only down for my ISP due to a routing problem, but it didn't matter. The google analytics used by the site failed to load causing some weird issues. Just think how many sites are depenedent on services from third party's like google.

    This to me is more of a general browser web 2.0 issue that needs to get addressed. If the a

    • by thesolo ( 131008 ) *
      First thing I did with NoScript was block google analytics. They're on about 99% of the sites that I visit on a daily basis, and I'm really not comfortable with them tracking me from site to site like that.
  • If the ads are holding up the delivery of the site, load them last. It's not too hard to structure a site so that the primary content renders and gets delivered while other stuff loads next.
  • Ok, I get the idea that you need ads on your site. And I fully understand that those ads are probably going to be served from an outside source who you don't have control over.

    That being said, WHY, WHY, did you design your layout in such a way that a slow ad could slow down the page load? Aren't their about a hundred and one ways to slip ads into a page that ensure that the actual page loads and the ad just gets there when it gets there?

  • If the news sites aren't having any problems serving their pages could they cache the ads as well so their users get a consistent experience? Just curious.
  • "many news sites delivered their own content promptly, only to find their page delivery delayed by slow-loading ads .. How best to balance the content vs. performance tradeoffs?"

    Slashdot also suffers from this. The solution is to feed the adverts directly to the site and then serve up dynamically created static pages.
  • so annoying (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:26AM (#28514537)

    When running on a browser without ad block, pages will take forever to load. The basic shell will come up but it will lag when feeding content from the advertiser servers. You cannot move on with your life until the ad loads and the page content will not load until the ad. Very annoying.

    Also surprising is how much of the lag comes from the computer, not the bandwidth. I upgraded the home machine recently and am amazed at how quickly sites load now. I'd assumed previously that delays in loading were just waiting for data from the site but it appears that there's a lot of overhead with the bloat that is the modern browswer. I'm guessing there's a lot of web 2.0 bullshit going on in the background. You can't escape it by disabling Javascript because that'll break most of the sites out there.

    • NoScript - That's what I use. I don't have problems with image based ads, but Javascript & Flash content blocked by default.

    • I'm guessing there's a lot of web 2.0 bullshit going on in the background. You can't escape it by disabling Javascript because that'll break most of the sites out there.

      I use noscript and have only a handful of sites permanently enabled for javascript (in fact, I even removed most of the ones in the default whitelist that comes with it). And I'd say at least 80% of the websites I visit are perfectly functional without any javascript. Maybe not quite as "pretty" as they would be with javascript, but I've always been a function over form guy anyway.

  • I think adds shouldn't be delivered through a query while you're loading a page but rather cached on the content provider directly for faster delivery.

  • i keep slashdot bookmarked and in my RSS feed list. critical and up to the minute information on content load times and ping response times related to michael jackson content on the web is crucial for system administrators tuning and building the next dimension of web 2.0 applications and cloud services. these services, which have also in the past been dutifully covered by slashdot as well as service oriented architectures and grid computing, will continue to have a profound impact on the ways users and n
  • > How best to balance the content vs. performance tradeoffs?

    Privoxy does the job for me.

  • This post blocked by category advertisement. .
  • That explains why I didn't notice any slow downs because I use AdBlock Plus and many filters. ;)

  • Looks promising; found this in a link from TFA:

    WEDJE is similar to the innerHTML method above except it creates what is effectively a cross-platform, cross-browser defer, enabling your script to load and execute asynchronously across all environments. We write out a div with javascript, then we create a script element with javascript, and then we append the script element to the div, again with javascript.

    By linking elements together in this way, browsers appear to completely decouple the loading and execut

  • Well, duh. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:55AM (#28514925) Homepage

    only to find their page delivery delayed by slow-loading ads.

    Well, duh. I've been complaining about this for the past year. Too much ad code is using "document.write()", often for no really good reason. Browsers can load content from multiple sites in parallel, and not wait for ad content, unless Javascript is used to prevent that. All too often, Javascript is used in just that way. (As on, well, Slashdot. Earth to Slashdot: your Javascript is embarrassingly slow. Get someone with a clue.)

    One of the more painful things I have to do for AdRater [] is to recognize dynamically loaded ad content. Google ads are loaded using at least five completely different code styles. So I actually have to look at other people's ad-serving code in some detail. It's not fun. Fortunately, one generic mechanism handles most of the cases; I don't have to track their code changes in detail.

    Most of this doesn't seem to be intended to get around ad-blocking software, and isn't successful at that. It's usually either tracking-related, concerned with displaying the ad in a different CSS context than that of the surrounding content, or just the result of ineptly cutting and pasting JavaScript from multiple sources.

    • by Fwonkas ( 11539 ) *
      Actually, it's not necessarily using document.write() which is causing the problem. The problem is that most browsers will not move on until the script has been loaded and run, because of things like document.write(). My point is that not using document.write() won't fix the problem.

      Using javascript to create script nodes [] can get around this problem, but only if the script you're loading doesn't have (for example) document.write(). So it's useless for ads as they are currently done.

      I've actually tr
  • The how and why (Score:3, Informative)

    by NudeAvenger ( 1391803 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:04PM (#28515033)
    first of all let me pretext all this with the fact I have been working in online advertising for about 5 years for a caouple of major publishers and now an agency side adserving company. The industry as a whole has a glut of technical knowledge and is mostly sales driven. Calls to adservers usually use a call to an external javascript file which is dynamically generated by the adserver. When this call is made it passes along some variables to let the adserver know how that position is targeted. At this time some tracking also happens, so the system will count an impression against a certain ad. For this reason caching can't be done - the system has to record and decide which ad to return on the fly to make sure delivery is correct and possibly even do some optimizations around which ad to show. Think of it as a giant decision engine which also collects data and uses that to decide what to serve next. There is another way to call in an ad, and that is to use Iframes, unfortunately these will point at a different domain so it isn't possible to resize or do anything outside the box, unless the ad being served is a rich media provider who are allowed to have another little html page on the site's domain they can call up and then use to write back to the main page. Because of all the different types of javascript that can be served back depending on the company providing the ad, the ad has to be put in place if using javascript as it will often look at where in the DOM the script is called. There are too many providers doing different things, and the only way to make things work is to call it straight in.
  • ... many news sites delivered their own content promptly, only to find their page delivery delayed by slow-loading ads... How best to balance the content vs. performance tradeoffs?"

    Ads are not content (at least not for most viewers) - they are an annoyance. How to balance it? Get rid of the ads.

  • Since when is an advertisement considered content ( to us regular folk, not the media giants that care more about the ad then the story, and often the story IS an ad )

  • without any javascript or whatsoever. just some plain formatted html coming from the 3rd party. thats the deal.

  • Almost any time I visit a website and the website is slow to load, I can be sure to look in the status bar of my browser and see that it's trying to get data from one of the advertising websites. Ad networks are almost ALWAYS the bottleneck. Sure, once in a while it's a massive site or poorly designed... but mostly, it's just stupid ads taking the time.
  • when you go to a site, and visually, everything appears to be fine. Everything looks loaded up wonderfully, and you can use it as you please. However, firefox on its tab still perpetually says "Loading.....". I know it's ad-related. I just hit Stop and go along my way. Myspace is one of the worst offenders. guess they need more bandwidth to []

  • Get some balls (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <kaboom108 AT bellsouth DOT 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.

  • Being a programmer, I have often dealt with these pesky little ads...the best thing they could ever do, is have a separate tag, that allows to set a timeout length of time for the ads to load, else they just bounce back not available. This would shorten the loading time of many windows, and could be a usable configuration flag set by the user of a browser.

  • The answer is for Michael Jackson not to die again.

  • The problem here is with pages designed to not load until the ads are shown. Optimizing the page to load each piece as it is available would greatly reduce any hangups - the problem is likely that the ad companies desire this broken methodology so you read the ads while the content loads.
  • The Thriller Zombie Attack Strikes Yet Again [] in it's myriad of ways infecting the population with an insatiable desire to consume Michael Jackson content. Some think that this phenomenon is because no one truly had a happy childhood and others speculate it's because most people just haven't become adults yet. Either way or yet another way it doesn't matter... this could be the last time the wave of The Thriller Zombie Attacks occur and for that many of us will be grateful. Although we need to be prepared fo
  • Farrah's initials are FF, or maybe FO, since I think she got married the day before. Why's everyone writing MJ?

Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.