I can relate to what you are talking, but...
1. it depends on my interest in the topic of the article. If I'm interested, I'll read the whole article, and then I'll read copyright like at the bottom of the page, just to be sure I didn't missed anything. If I'm interested then time doesn't matter, or even it matters with a negative sign: the longer I spend reading the more satisfaction I got. So "a bunch of filler" can be bad or good depending on a reader.
2. Articles mostly follow some form, if you are familiar with it you can skip big chunks of text to get to the point quickly. For example, a lot of articles of professional reporters looks like:
a. Intro that tickles curiosity but says nothing substantive
b. Jump back in time to tell the biographies of the involved people
c. The substance
d. Some form of a conclusion.
(a) is needed to detect the form of the article, (b) can be skipped easily, I scan (c) for direct quotes and read the text around them, (d) I skim to see if there are any non-obvious statements, because it may be a sign I missed something important in (c).
Non-professional writers are less predictable, because they do not follow any rules when composing text, but if you are ready to scroll back and use browser's ability to search on the page, you can extract the core message of the author in no time at all.