It should be noted that traditional newspapers include ads alongside news content and no one complains. In fact people used to sift through the Sunday NYT simply for the ads.
It should be noted that traditional newspapers include ads alongside news content and no one complains. In fact people used to sift through the Sunday NYT simply for the ads.
That's called "native advertisement" and it's supposed to trick you into thinking you're reading a genuine article instead of an ad. I actively avoid sites that do this.
> In fact people used to sift through the Sunday NYT simply for the ads.
Back when people couldn't google for stuff, and the ads were useful because they mostly came from local businesses you actually needed once in a while.
But I guess you could say that you are paying for delivery instead.
Called Newshound, it let you set up to face sets of keywords (in the basic $5/month subscription), and it would email you the plain text of every article that matched the criteria, whether generated within the publisher network or from wire services.
Or you can just visit it, I suppose.
It's really the ultimate condemnation of modern web design that this feature is so useful.
Edit: won't help the data-consumption though, as I believe it can only be enabled after the page has loaded
Given the lack of popularity and commercial support, combined with the complexity to connect a client with an available server (compared with downloading an app from the store), I'd expect that they are populated mostly by old tech people or passers-by from universities; and any special interest group would have small user base coming from that demographic profile. Are my assumptions correct?