The modern web is becoming unusable
omarabid.com
omarabid.com
Nitter is an Open Source alternative front end for Twitter that requires zero Javascript to run, and it's really good, and is way nicer than Twitter's own UI, and yall should use it. I see Twitter threads hosted on HN all the time, and I kind of wish more of the posters would link to Nitter's public-facing instance instead of Twitter. I think its interface is just objectively better than Twitter's for browsing.
Invidious is an Open Source alternative to Youtube that is also really good and requires zero Javascript, but unfortunately it suffers from a lot of performance problems and videos will occasionally refuse to load -- Youtube is I think more hostile about throttling/blocking that kind of stuff, and proxying videos is probably harder than proxying tweets. You can donate to Invidious though, which might help them afford more powerful hardware.
In regards to Medium -- if you disable Javascript those popups will all vanish, and for the most part all you'll be missing out on is comments and occasionally a lazy-loaded image. It's amazing how much of the web (particularly news) works fine without Javascript, and getting rid of it gets rid of a lot of these annoying popups and requests. Use uMatrix, it makes it really easy to turn Javascript off by default and whitelist as necessary. And every person who disables Javascript is one more tiny audience metric to make it ever-so-slightly harder for news sites to ignore progressive enhancement.
> It's amazing how much of the web (particularly news) works
> fine without Javascript,
I’m an avid cooker and I fucking hate the auto play video on serious eats.
I like to think the people reading that content are not as susceptible to annoying webpages but I think I am wrong.
The problem is that there's no way for people to set it to "off" as an option, and that any time this option is suggested or implemented someone will see how they can override it, because "people don't really want to block the videos our our site".
The relevant metrics would be things like returning visitors, not necessarily time on site or clicks on "mute".
media.autoplay.enabled = false
Most of the worst web UX I’ve ever seen has been through browsing a news site in landscape mode on a mobile. You’re lucky if you can actually read anything at all with the sticky headers, popup banners, modals that don’t fit the screen and break scrolling, and floating videos.
Not representing my company, etcetera, but some agency ours used turned on all the default settings, and rarely goes back to turn off trackers for campaigns they're no longer running. When someone in house was managing he had only turned on what was required, and cleaned up old campaigns.
I also worked with a user Friday who had noticed links via emails were no longer working. Turned out ublock/Firefox was stopping at the iContact tracking URL. She wasn't sure who to report it to, and wasn't using iContact for her emails, so sat on it until she ran into it when we were meeting.
Based on personal experience, marketing groups usually use whatever their IT department approves, and if they're managed, certain browser settings are being pushed to whitelist these based upon users saying things aren't working. Easier to just push a setting than explain best practices.
To the sort of person who installs NoScript breaking infinite scrolling is one of several advantages. Infinite scrolling is a great tell that there is an infinite amount of content with no marginal value.
Q: Where are you in the list now?
A: It is impossible to know because no two sites behave the same way. You will not be anywhere near the item you clicked on in the majority of cases.
Those were mostly superfluous adds to experience on top of the content. It’s been a while but I’d like to believe if you didn’t have JS our content still functioned.
Now with things like Vue and React I see simple web pages with a loader in between what should be static content. Seems crazy to me.
Google just made changes that require users to enable Javascript in order to log on, e.g., to check their email via the web. The rationale for compelling users to make themselves easier for Google to track can be exaplained away as a "security measure".
Google also recently made changes to Chrome that make it impossible to globally disable Javascript for all websites in Guest mode.
Every page that's not cached takes several seconds to generate. It's not much better to show a white page for seconds than it is to show a skeleton page and then load the data using javascript.
Also they have taken the decision to proxify all images/avatars through their own servers. Why? And if you do that, at least set appropriate cache headers! Every time I visit a page inside Nitter every single image loads again even if I've seen it already.
This seems like some pretty good actionable advice. It might be a good idea to make this an issue on their github page.
Privacy. I trust the devs of the Nitter instance I use more than I trust Twitter, and I like that Twitter has (at least somewhat) more difficulty knowing what IP is requesting what.
Better caching would be nice, but in general, I've found Nitter's speed to be fine. It's not amazingly snappy, and because it's proxying from Twitter it's probably never going to be faster than Twitter. But I've never been tempted to load Twitter to get around speed issues. Invidious on the other hand...
My guess is speed might also be affected by your region? I would be very surprised if Nitter's instance is trying to set up global CDNs or anything. It's probably just a couple Linode servers somewhere.
Twitter and Facebook are known cesspools that suck away your time and add very little value. I don’t know anyone same that uses Twitter regularly. Facebook seems to be used most by those who understand their business model least.
Guard your time and be careful with what you feed your time.
BTW this also applies to modern journalism sites like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Use archive.is and let them rot from years of neglectful journalism.
I've found it to be a toxic hellhole of shit for everything else.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21816674
I would put Medium, Pinterest, Wired, WSJ, Quora, etc. in the same basket of websites that hinder the free flow of information regardless of how useful their content is.
Also, as a quant marketer I can tell you: exit intent works. Most traffic bounces and never returns. Being able to capture email and nurture leads is a profitable way of maximizing the return of your traffic.
There’s a reason why every furniture store is going out of business and has someone twirling signs: we are evolved to pick out movement and change. An exit intent that inverts the color scheme is obnoxious but only because you have to see it.
The interesting question (for me) is how obnoxious do you go before you start to hurt returns.
This comment is (oddly) unlikely to be popular on HN (odd because of HN’s heritage as an offshoot of YC), but exit intent works. It’s one of the first things I put in place at any new company.
My time is finite, and so is my ability to reset focus once distracted. Pop-ups add up.
Eventually you’ll die and no one will care about that time you got annoyed. But no one is ever going to swim in the Gowanus... at least not without billions of dollars being spent...
Or, you can think of it in the context of how easily it is for some people to lose their train of thought. An unexpected distraction of even a split-second can mean minutes of trying to remember what was forgotten, and the mental effort involved therein.
There's a reason why people complain about pop-ups: they represent a real cost to our limited focus and therefore productivity. That means a lot of good ideas and a lot of work gets delayed or goes unrealized towards efforts like "how to clean up polluted environments."
Every page we visit has the same things to generate revenue littered all over their sites because it works—but what about the content? It’s becoming secondary to the littered advertising.
Ads used to be strategically similar to the content presented—but now things follow us around the Internet based on purchases in grocery stores etc. The pop ups want me to spend my time helping companies improve their products for free. Where’s the content going? Anything but the primary content on websites is litter in my opinion.
I suppose it’s the frequency of them too: a foresee pop ups on ten sites the frequency becomes like plastic bags following me to the park from the shopping centers, to the rivers, etc. You can’t escape them until they’re eliminated.
Yeah, no doubt, "exit intent works", if the only thing you care about is "the return of your traffic". This mindset is exactly how we got to the situation described in the OP.
You are making things worse for your users. You don't care, because you don't think of them as users, as people, as human beings, you think of them as "traffic" whose "return" you want to "maximize".
You are the problem.
I’m personally not offended by exit intent pop ups. They are an expected part of the browsing experience. I don’t think of them like the pop ups (or pop unders!) if the early 90s. An exit intent is limited to the window displayed.
That said, I do strongly believe in respecting user preference. If a person clicks the “no thanks” button I do cookie that preference and suppress additional exit intents. And I have problems with how some companies hijack the back button on mobile to show exit intent style content.
But I disagree with the sentiment that surfacing an offer to a user is hostile.
It is surprising how freely the average user gives up their email address.
The sad truth is that these practices work so websites will continue doing them.
Is "DOM Delete" automated?
This may not be enough. A case in point: two months ago my grandma decided to make herself a Facebook account to chat with her IRL friends. She had one made in 2014, but she only logged in to it few times. It was made using a fresh email, and never breached. So she logged in to that account on her phone, using the newest Facebook app on a brand new phone, provided real name, birth date and photo, and linked a real phone number, never used before. She got permanently banned within a week, by just chatting on Messenger and sending friend requests on Facebook. I suspect some of her IRL friends reported the friend request they received. Or maybe some AI decided she types too fast for an elderly woman, or uses too few emoji. We will never know.
The ban appeal form requires you to send photos of government-issued ID, and she decided it's not worth the risk.
But (as another comment says) documents should not be apps; they are should be separate. (Although there is the case where sometimes you want to embed apps in documents, such as to make an interactive demonstration of some algorithm, or to include inline currency conversion, to validate or autocalculate a form, or whatever. But the document needs to be readable even if the code doesn't run, and the code probably shouldn't run by default. Also, I think such embedded apps should perhaps be separate frames even if enabled, and do not need to do as much stuff as is now exposed to JavaScript interfaces.)
The modern web is also overused. Often, there are better file formats (e.g. plain text), protocols (e.g. IRC, NNTP, Gopher), etc, that can do as well, or better. Or even existing features of HTML and so on, which you can use but they use worse ones instead.
But random newspaper from random little place telling to subscribe to their meager content after three articles? What do they really think? I mean, even if I subscribed to my own local news paper in my own little burge, am I really going to be going to the trouble of logging on and so-forth?
All the paywalls seem more like excuses publisher make for their failings than anything they could reasonably expect to make money from. It's a lot like scholarly sites charging $25/article. My guess 0% percent of visitor pay this. It's not a price people, it's a price to justify other bullshit.
My answer to this is yes, absolutely, I will log in and pay for good local news coverage, and I do every day.
If you don’t live there but the story explodes for some reason, why not try to get some new subscribers? Asking for money is not a big deal in my opinion. Asking for it by compromising your UX or user privacy, however (“only paid subscribers can view in incognito”) is terrible.
Sinclair Media already owns half the local news broadcasters around the country; why isn't such a setup already done?
Small publishers don't really have the resources to think much about their monetization. Sad that there are not more companies working on monetization really, i was hoping browsers like firefox would step in to help.
IRC, of course, will never die.
Well, that's success at emulating print, no?
But at lower cost and vastly improved tracking. No more "don't know which 50% of ad-spend I'm wasting".
Flawless victory.
Examples: I no longer click on Quora in search results. I’ve stopped using Reddit on mobile. I used to love Imgur, but now I hesitate because they force you to run 1MB+ of React and download 553 resources for a subpar experience of viewing a single image [0].
I understand that these are businesses and the lights must be kept on, but certainly there are better ways to do this. Maybe a more humane strategy wouldn’t be as profitable in the short term, but it would certainly be better for building a sustainable business that actually lasts.
[0]: https://twitter.com/csswizardry/status/1185604806901207045
"Slide" is a free (as in freedom) reddit client for Android. Needless to say it's much better than either the mobile website or official app.
Many business only have online presence in FB and nowadays I think you can’t even check reviews or e.g. the lunch menu (perhaps depends on the A/B test part you fall in).
I left FB many years ago and no way I’m creating a dummy account for the same reason shown in the post (requires a phone).
So I just give up and can’t blame the business owner since the person probably went for the straight forward free choice and didn’t have to learn anything new but FB, I truly hate it nowadays.
Facebook feels pervasive, sure, but from my POV it's still contained to North America, and the influence elsewhere is waning.
A lot of small shop owners in east europe have only facebook page with location and hours and some updates.
And I can't blame them but there's fact that every platform becomes shit after gaining popularity or goes down if not. And people without technical skills are feeding facebook with this situation.
Would be nice for domain sellers to give free single page generator with basic info and free hosting for this html page attached to domain.
Or how about Pinterest?
I've tried to make Google keep Pinterest pages out of my search results, but somehow Google does not want to improve my "search experience" even though they explicitly say they do.
But it would have been good security wise and privacy wise if this divide were made more explicit.
Javascript was intended to script HTML pages long before the concept of a "web app" was a thing. A divide between static documents and "apps" never even existed in theory, and with very few bleeding-edge exceptions, apps are also documents.
All of the privacy violations and dark patterns that javascript gets employed for are the result of choices made by developers and corporations... they're not fundamental and innate features of javascript or of having scripting in the web to begin with, so they're not problems that would be solved by quarantining the language to some kind of "app" space.
It's not like all of the problems on the web are caused by technology. Adding a <script> tag to your HTML doesn't automatically make your page weigh 10MB and snoop on its users. All those problems are caused by business decisions. When you decide to add an analytics script, or put an ad on the page, or hire a designer to make it look appealing to customers - that's where things go wrong.
In other words: even if we had a page/app split on the web from the beginning, businesses would still fuck it all up, and we'd have the same problems with bloat, ads, dark patterns and surveillance capitalism as we have today.
The reason the distinction isn't present in web standards is that likely no one foresaw the massive complexity of modern js applications using HTML as a GUI analogue - it was assumed that code on the web would be like shell scripts or utility scripts, and javascript was just intended for light housekeeping, nothing that would necessitate forking the entire web to create an "app" space.
However I have yet to find much evidence of hostility towards the concept of running code on the web from the people who actually came up with it - the "javascript delenda est[2]" attitude seems to be a modern ideology. Rather, the discussions I've read were about how to make it possible, what languages to use, etc. Not how to prevent it.
[0]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/OverviewOld.ht...
[1]https://eager.io/blog/a-brief-history-of-weird-scripting-lan...
Then it's there when you need it, but the friction discourages it from being used frivolously and gives you the opportunity to decline when the context makes it obvious it's not being used for anything good.
I don't think this expression makes any sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...
Mozilla can implement it like they they did with asm.js, after all it is a subset, not a superset.
It will then work in all browsers but (I guess) can be made to work much faster if the browser knows it can ignore the piles of old hacks that full html has to consider.
Edit: and like asm.js it might lead to something even better going forward.
Looking at even a good old-fashioned blog, there are really three nested things on your screen: the blog post document, the blog post-viewing application, and the browser.
Why a blog post-viewing application? In theory you could skip it and just have a plain reader view, but in practice you do want to have navigation and comments, and that's what the application part is for.
Many modern systems surface that split in the form of an API: the API is what gives you access to the underlying document.
The challenge would be making that solid accessible to the user. For example, could a browser natively have two address bars? One for the document, and one for the application that is used to access the document?
Travel? Full of nonsense Diet? Don’t even try Exercise? Maybe Health/Medical? No Anything I might purchase? Depending on the category, everything is an advert by someone who has barely done anything with the product.
Health - NHS, NIH, American Dietetics Association... tons of public service bodies are out there.
sure the good stuff is out there of you know how to find it, but the discovery is getting worse by the years
Google directs you to a handful of big-name sites and a large pile on the spectrum between blogs and content farms. Facebook will only give you other Facebook pages. When I tried to track my passport application last year, my government passport agency was only available via Twitter.
Good luck getting to an actual authoritative organisation that runs their own website, or a college professor who actually has specialist knowledge about the subject.
The cookie popups that cover half or all the page, are usually dark patterned so it's very easy to opt in but hard to impossible to opt out and worse, come back every few days if you didn't opt in.
I simply can't follow some of the stuff that gets posted on HN because I'm not about to spend a day going through, for example, Yahoo->Oath->Verizon's popup about agreeing to tracking...
Isn't that the expected behaviour?
I bet if i opted in the popups would never come back :)
Similarly, I only ever browse reddit by going to old.reddit.com. I don't expect that to be supported for much longer either.
Living in rural Ohio with flaky cable broadband means uBlock stays almost permanently on. I’m sure high engagement ads are nice things. Waiting a couple minutes for them to load makes for a poor user experience out here on the fringe of the qualitative digital divide.
I suspect the 340 is deliberately designed to combine with the psychology of "bulk prices are always lower"; when shopping, I've seen plenty of examples where the larger quantity and more expensive item is shown boldly as "on sale" with a prominent reduction from a "non-sale price" when its per-unit price is still higher than the smaller quantity one.
1. Customize a decent browser eg Firefox to my own safety standard (disable cookies, Autoplay, etc.)
2. Treat every website like an application. If a site is usable under my settings, fine.
3. If a site needs an additional capability, e.g a login credential or cookies, only provide them for that site if it’s compelling enough, otherwise blame the site and move on.
After customizing for a few dozens of sites, and not being able to use countless others, the modern web becomes a lot more manageable for me.
Does someone here have a grudge against him?
Competing is hard. Why compete when you can buy elected officials and change laws in your favor?
The sad truth is that lots of value-destroying and/or cheating companies succeed for decades.
Examples:
- every management consultancy - IBM - record labels + RIAA - Outbrain and all the other "related links" companies - many pharma examples, like the Sackler family - all of the heavily subsidized US industries like corn and oil - Nestle, Coca-Cola, and other companies monopolizing and selling public water - many grad school programs - Mercola - countless Chinese knockoff brands on Amazon - the House of Saud - Susan G. Komen Foundation - Intuit/TurboTax - Amway - almost all fund managers - HerbaLife - Donald Trump - most ISPs, cable companies, and mobile carriers - many (if not all) major defense contractors
While you guys thinking Facebook, Twitter, Medium is bad enough, we in China is on another level.
Most top websites in China will "ask" (If pop a download window counts) user to download their apps if the user is on a phone, some websites are intentionally left dysfunctional to force user to use their app. And guess what's the first thing those apps ask you to do? "Please login(, and... maybe send ALL your information to us plus a secretly taken screenshot of your portrait)".
Since almost all of them are doing this, I assume it is a crucial strategy for them to keep their user active. Facebook Twitter etc maybe up to the same thing just not bold enough.
For Internet company, user is what generates value. So it make since for those companies to grab their user as tight as possible especially when the competitors are doing the same.
On the same note, if a user just don't want to login or use the app, then the user is no value or even a negative value for the company. For that, a company can intentionally annoy (the actual word used is Convince) those users until they give in.
With all that been said, what I wanted to point out is, sometime, parasite can be successful. This is why we have many types of parasites in the real world. Automatically assuming "'parasites' will just die" is not going to help if the end goal is to kill all the parasites.
Exactly. That was how the internet worked before the web (and still does today): pop/smtp, ftp, nntp, gopher, etc. had each one its own client because they were different protocols doing different things. But today, when phones have a working web browser that does what 99% of apps can do and more, it's against any logic forcing people to install an app for every brand, sometimes for every product. That would be ok for mail, news, file transfer, IoT, music, video, etc. because they're way different things, but installing 5 apps to read 5 newspapers or buying 5 products from 5 different vendors is like throwing into the toilet all innovation brought since the web was invented. I can guess only three reasons for this: sticking a brand name into the user screen, bypassing browsers adblockers, and getting a foot into the door for nefarious purposes since most apps require insanely dangerous privileges which one day could be exploited.
So I guess it depends on how bright the host is, and that's questionable.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/14/magazine/inte...
Looking for restaurants as I'm traveling is a difficult process. I used to land on Yelp and its imitators, thinking that I was getting a solid list of what was available, only to find that there is so much more that isn't listed. And the reviewers are generally awful.
People search sites. Years ago, I was able to track down quite a few people from my long-distant past for free. Then those sites were bought by companies like Intellius, which is about as helpful as classmates.com.
Worse, they're getting creepier. They'd already collapsed into a nearly pure scam by 2010 or so, but apparently they're doing some very creepy stuff with their data sources now. I had to work with them trying to connect another site (ick) and never had an account that had both have my real name and high school (in fact my school was only in test data), but at some point in the last few years they connected the two and are trying to convince me that people are looking for me under a name they'd never know. I guess the inevitable devolution of something selling getting back in contact is selling the idea of contact without the reality.
Or even worse, the ads that come in from the top and push everything down the page then leave a minute later.
While I agree, that we need a Community's browser (one, that fully supports XML, ideally bringing back the original Seamonkey/Firefox way to do things), rather than a Corporation's browser, I doubt it could be made more simple. Today's technologies are here for a reason. It's always what you use your kitchen knife for. Change will not happen. But what we can do, is to keep "our" web alive and active, and communicate and socialise outside of the big corps wet dreams.
Just create your part of the web the way you want it to be, and as long as we keep up, we will not vanish. We need to understand, that we must support non-profits, like Archive.org, with our money, though.
* Paypal - defaulting fee based payment options rather than "free ones" or allowing user to set a default.
* Google maps - Searching for "jiffy lube" will show you the business entry and its reviews. If you search for "oil change" it will show you a jiffy lube "ad" that looks the same as the entry but if the reviews are bad they are hidden. In this particular case the location had several thousand bad reviews.
* Google maps - restaurants "menu" button takes me to a page of a bunch of customer uploaded images.
* Amazon app - why isn't "returns" a main menu item for amazon mobile app.
* Uber eats/grub hub/favor - app carts hide fee increases to account for minimum spends meaning you are loosing out on another item for the same amount, and make it harder than it should be to remove items from cart.
* Nordevpn desktop app - hides the logout button in right click -> preferences.
* Apple/Google stores - make it difficult to view recurring subscriptions, and to request a refund.
* Chrome - over the last year I've had to go into settings and tell chrome to not allow sites to offer me notifications so many times. I don't understand why I have to keep resetting it with sync and similar.
* google images - pretty worthless thanks to pintrest, and that I cant download images cause bs corp ip laws.
* Image sharing - still getting more difficult in 2019.
* App notifications - more and more apps push unimportant notifications or spam for engagement while lacking granular controls. I find myself disabling more and more notifications outright only to miss a notification that I actually care about.
Remember that we are techies, "hyper" aware of these decisions and their implications. What about nana? We are loosing digital agency.
The only solution is to refuse to execute their code, and in the cases where we actually want to, grind the GET response through a halting engine a-la BPF.
If you've never run an adblocker, you don't know that it can be so much better.
Conversely, if you always run an adblocker, you're insulated from the magnitude of the suck.
Amazon: Its tolerable if you know exactly what reputable-brand item you want, but if you don't you immediately find yourself in an unusable cesspool. Fake reviews. Chinese knockoffs. Low quality promoted items. I searched for "clamps" in the "tools and home improvement" category and there in my Amazon search results were trashy supermarket novels.
Amazon alternatives (e.g. Jet?): The selection is so poor that they are not usable for general shopping unless you are willing to settle for whatever one item is available.
Google/Bing/etc: Haha no. Sure you can find 1 bazillion retailers for any item you can think of, but they feel solidly sorted by "amount of money they pay google." Google shopping is more-or-less useless, and regular google search results don't allow you to compare products. Also, since it is not hard to find decent web developers, it is next-to-impossible to judge the reputation/quality of the bazillion retailers by their website polish.
Ebay/craigslist: Oh god no. Paypal hates me for some reason (it never accepts my perfectly ordinary credit cards) so payment can be literally unusable. All these sites feel like you're just selecting from a long list of scams. The amount of BS you have to manually filter out is completely ridiculous, and you are clearly competing with people who scrape these sites for items to flip for a profit.
Facebook: Unusable by anyone who actually cares about their privacy.
Chinese importers (ali/dx): shipping times of multiple weeks is unusable for many things. At least you know that you will be getting cheap Chinese products, so you can plan accordingly.
If you don't like those sites, don't use them. Sites as described do not constitute the "entire web". There are plenty of great still free still usable websites. There is an entire internet of them.
Believing that the whole web is just the monopolistic giants is the problem here.
The problem is that Gmail has failed to introduce one-time-use or per-recipient email addresses. That would immediately solve the problem of coerced email collection.
It's the little things in life.
MLB is also guilty of this. Tantamount to cyber stalking
However, what the author describes isn't "the web". The web is about 2 billion web pages with just a couple of percent of them being actively maintained. I'd be willing to get that just a tiny minority of these pages are actually serving the annoyances this post highlights.
We've seen the abuse of new technologies come and go, people just don't think about what they're building, they simply use what's available: Blinking text, text with drop shadows, Comic Sans, pages full of GIFs, pages built with tables, iframes, pop-ups, link-hijacking ads, Flash-ads, embedded Java code - the web was never the clean and organized place make it out to be. Never. It's a romanticised notion that just doesn't die. It's the same rethoric as when people claim that life was easier at some point in the past.
It's all about finding common ground on what's necessary and what isn't and it usually starts with a couple of independent publishers trying out something new and the big players following their lead. HTML5 video killed Flash and Silverlight with WebGL/Javascript & modern CSS features being the last nails in their coffins.
The web isn't just a couple of hundred big players and we will probably survive annoying push notification requests, overly complex Javascript and EU-mandated cookie opt-in hints.
We will have to live with me stuff being abused for a while until browser vendors device that it's gotten annoying enough to do something about it.
I wouldn't be too surprised if we find that all browser vendors decide that they'll disable cookie support in their browsers with a clear prompt to allow 1st party cookies globally only to then do some local machine learning magic to click all custom cookie acceptance dialogues without user interaction or something similar. Of course we'll then have to endure our browsers asking for permission to access Bluetooth devices in our vicinity or to run advertisements disguised as tiny WebAssembly programs. But even that will sort itself out as some point.
The web has always been user hostile and that won't change. The level of hostility however, will.
Imo nowadays every platform goes to shit so static site generator is a must for every blog owner that it technical guy.