digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at imagedump.com —

Sick of Multi-Paged web articles?

imagedump.com — Well then you will really hate...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dtmbcorp, on 09/07/2008, -9/+545Yeah, see the thing is... When advertisements have to reload each time you 'turn the page', and are generally twice the file size as the actual content you're trying to absorb, it gets a little frustrating. Having really short pages with lots of ads and little content is a common, ***** tactic to make money off a site in my opinion.
    • BoneStamp, on 09/08/2008, -7/+295Man, you're really gonna hate the internet.
      • choosersu, on 09/08/2008, -7/+33Man, you must use IE 6. Ad block?
      • mozert, on 09/08/2008, -14/+1Man, you're really gonna hate internets.

        /all is in consistency
      • BoneStamp, on 09/08/2008, -3/+9@choosersu
        Or google chrome... but even if you don't see the ads (thx ABP), you still have to click through all the pages.

        If any FF users don't have this extension, you should get it: http://adblockplus.org/en/
      • BrainInAJar, on 09/08/2008, -1/+5adblock + filterset.g + click "remove ads" ( instead of just not showing them ) = much lighter browsing experience
    • gdehms, on 09/08/2008, -18/+9People like making more money... I see nothing wrong with that.
      • taffyhealscrowd, on 09/08/2008, -7/+21How about all the wars and suffering throughout human history?
      • BoneStamp, on 09/08/2008, -1/+10Where do you draw the line... I mean, obviously the user is getting "free" content... but they're paying for that with their time. To a certain degree, that's reasonable... the user is expecting ads, but they're also expecting a reasonably easy to use website/article. How much extra time (due to page turns/ad loads) is the content worth? I don't know, but that's what is playing out in the dynamic of multi-page articles.
      • gdehms, on 09/08/2008, -2/+5Have either of you tried making money on the internet? It can be tough, and most people will do anything they can do get an edge and get more money.
      • BoneStamp, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3@gdehms
        I wasn't arguing with you and you didn't answer my question, where do you draw the line?
      • dfsjdkflasjk, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6taffyhealscrowd, so we blame every single war in history on capitalism? Smart thing, I would've gone with choice C: Religion.
      • taffyhealscrowd, on 09/08/2008, -3/+1I don't think they are religious wars. I think they are wars about domination, which ultimately are motivated by the desire to acquire. The soldiers on the ground may be motivated by religious fervor, but the people at the top are all satisfying desires, like more money.
    • OfNumbers, on 09/08/2008, -4/+15You just described the frontpage of Digg.
    • weaselfingers, on 09/08/2008, -5/+104THERE ARE ADS ON THE INTERNET?? =O
      • aznhomig, on 09/08/2008, -4/+6^ Adblock Plus user, true story.
      • fuzzymuzzy, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4If you MUST show everyone on the internet how awesome you are because you use adblock plus can you PLEASE think up an original comment, not just the stock standard one that ***** everywhere like to use?

        I swore that if I ever saw another pretentious ***** brag about how he doesn't see ads on the internet I would eat my own head, so here it goes...goodbye cruel world...
    • PrinceMissile, on 09/08/2008, -8/+36You guys see ads? Wow, it must suck to not know how to use the internet.
      • jrackow, on 09/08/2008, -2/+9If everyone saw the Internet with no ads, there'd be no reason for some of the most beloved sites to exist from the perspective of the site owners. So, I agree that most ads suck, but w/o ads there'd be no funding.
      • BrainInAJar, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1My problem is not how to help the site make money, my problem is making my experience pleasant for me and everyone else can ***** themselves
      • 42Vindictive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Well it would be nice if the "funding" they needed didn't come from obtrusive, springing out of their box, sound-enabled, badly-coded flash animations that won't shut the ***** up when you roll over them on accident.
      • PrinceMissile, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1@jrackow My point is, everyone CAN see the internet with no ads. It's called Adblock Plus. People who bitch about ads are doing it wrong.
    • indigit4l, on 09/08/2008, -9/+13one word: ad-block plus
      • killerbox, on 09/08/2008, -2/+7adblock plus FTW, no more gay porn ads with sounds :D
      • MrFluffZ, on 09/08/2008, -2/+30That's 2 words...
      • ALink2ThePast, on 09/08/2008, -0/+7ad-blockplus?
        adblockplus?
        adblock-plus?
        ad-block-plus?
      • xxpor, on 09/08/2008, -0/+25adblock+
      • nard3456, on 09/08/2008, -1/+3You sir are a genius.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Except I recently hit a tech review site that would detect Ad-Block and refuse to load the page properly until you turned it off. I suspect this tactic will become more popular...
      • PennFarmer, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Unless people stop visiting the sites that do that.
    • mozert, on 09/08/2008, -0/+9Captain Obvious to the rescue.
    • drummerjoe74, on 09/08/2008, -5/+5Man, you're going to hate magazines.
      • zjbird, on 09/08/2008, -1/+5Man, you're a little late on that joke..
    • ruddy, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8way to shoot themselves in the foot. i don't load any ad, and they still have to serve up multiple pages
    • diffper, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1i use repagination firefox extension to get around it.
    • ortucis, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1In Opera, Right click to Site Properties and you can disable Javascript to Plugins (flash.. etc.) and GIF animations and whenever you visit that site after that day, settings will stay put.
    • noisound, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2moar ad blocker = more ads

      and the circle is complete !
    • kristojohansen, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Bitch some more. People need to make money. This is not new and chances are; you have been a part of a capitalistic dependent society your entire life which has provided you with the means to type on your computer while being fully hydrated and avoided starvation up to this point. Capitolism is not the devil.


      Additionally, on point with the article, most articles have a Print version, usually found near the bottom or the top of the post/article. If you hit that first then the entire article will be shown in one page.


      oh yeah. Vote Obama so now you can't bury me.


      Holy ***** man. My test in the image to post is GHB69! LOLZ
      • AirRaven, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1*Capitalism.
      • BrainInAJar, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2people need to make money, but it's not my job to facilitate that
    • motophiliac, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0It is a pain in the ass. And it is of course to bolster 'advertisement impressions per article'. Although bandwidth has to be paid for, the content provider doesn't usually have to pick up the tab for the adverts as typically, these are externally hosted so they don't care how much our connections are hammered in the name of 'brand awareness'. We — the consumer who may pay to buy these products — pay (once again) for the 'privilege' of being branded. Hateful situation.

      However, most article driven websites will have a print version of the article. This is usually a single page, plain formatted version of the same article, no pagination.

      All the same, it may be worth my time to uninstall Flash from all my browsers. And block all images. And stop all popups. Disabling Javascript would probably help, as well as disallowing all cookies.

      Maybe I should just leave the Internet.

      Been there, done that..!

      (Flashback to 1985, Dire Straits; I Want My Internet...)
    • arogon, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1nowdays if i see the article is from cracked i dont even bother opening it
    • gl77, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2i have no idea what the ***** is wrong with people who dont use ad-block plus. is there a reason for your stupidity? are you afraid? christ, get with the times already and download some ***** firefox, and get AB+ already, you *****.
      • Awspire, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Hey, *****... as you refer. If everyone used AdBlock, the social media sites would go under and your goofy little ass would be paying subscription fees for every damned site on the net, such as Digg, YouTube, FaceBook, and even Google.

        Don't be a *****, and support your most visited sites by not using ***** like AdBlock, or at the very least, edit your filters to not block such sites. A little flashing ad is a small price to pay considering the alternative.

        So, next time you want to show off your e-balls, and spew ridiculous advice, do something that may be new to you, and think.
  • Foliot, on 09/07/2008, -7/+82It totally didn't occur to me that people might think this submission is about 5 page articles, and to avoid the one in the picture. I meant to showcase the funny comment, that's all.
    • sidianmsjones, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7It's because you said "Well then you will really hate..."
      Led me to think I was going to enter some sort of multi-page hell but was confused to find Randy dickin around on Guitar Hero, lol.
    • georgemason01, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7That is amusing since my first thought was indeed that you were complaining about multi-page submissions. Even the image you link to is a submission by MakiMaki, who is one of the premiere spammers here. Perhaps I'm in a semi-rebellious mood amidst the calls to ban/kill MrBabyMan. So now that you've inadvertently brought up the subject, multi-paged articles do indeed suck since they are only used to make money. They are *****, and so are the people who aid them by submitting them here.

      Your submission has been dugg, even if it is for the reason you didn't intend.
    • ayeroxor, on 09/08/2008, -2/+7Title: "Sick of Multi-Paged web articles?"
      Links to: Multi-Paged web article post
      Submitter then says: "It totally didn't occur to me that people might think this submission is about [multi-page] articles"

      Brilliant.
    • metalgel, on 09/08/2008, -2/+5buried then for trying to get dugg for the screenshot of funny comments strategy.
    • MikeRiley, on 09/08/2008, -9/+1That wasn't a funny comment, it was lame and stupid.
    • ligyron, on 09/08/2008, -1/+12I'm confused. A comment posted on digg was resubmitted to digg as a picture and has made front page. Did we just divide by zero?
  • MidnightRIder77, on 09/07/2008, -5/+182The difference between books and websites is that an entire book on one page would require you to carry around scrolls. Also I don't have to load pages of a book.

    Still laughed though.
    • Goblin, on 09/08/2008, -1/+24Scrolls are the new Kindle. Mark my words.
    • mozert, on 09/08/2008, -0/+11I have no problem carrying "It takes a village" on toilet paper.
    • platipuz, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4Well I don't know about you guys, but all MY books are in scroll form...
  • ModernChem, on 09/07/2008, -9/+98I don't appreciate the sarcasm.




    /sarcasm
  • cl2yp71c, on 09/07/2008, -25/+5I ***** hate them!

    Along with slideshows.
    Thumbnail galleries.
    AND MOST OF ALL, BOOKS!

    After all, my nose isn't in some book, it's on the internetz!
  • lebsoljah, on 09/08/2008, -15/+2Women use sarcasm often and usually lose
  • colonelcupcake, on 09/08/2008, -4/+138Wait.. there was only one page? Lame
    • mrm3x1can, on 09/08/2008, -6/+154well your gonna hate posters...
    • Cenobite, on 09/08/2008, -0/+53Man, you're really gonna love books.
    • kenij, on 09/08/2008, -9/+2You're really going to hate digg comments.
    • Victorface, on 09/08/2008, -3/+36Is this going to be a new meme?
      • ElBeh, on 09/08/2008, -0/+42I think it already is.

        ...

        Man, you're gonna hate this new meme.
  • Croecop, on 09/08/2008, -10/+4***** yes I am
  • DRT23, on 09/08/2008, -6/+86***** FORBES!
  • nubnub, on 09/08/2008, -2/+68book pages don't have to load
    • dvsbastard, on 09/08/2008, -0/+29Book page real estate is also not wasted with lots of pointless flashing ads...
    • ElBeh, on 09/08/2008, -0/+8Shush, don't give them ideas. I don't want Google ads in the margins of my book in ten years.
    • xine13, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1You don't have to subscribe to the internets to read a book. The internets takes my monies.
    • ifoughtfate, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1There will probably be google ads in the margins of your ebook in ten years. Or 4.
  • johndajap56, on 09/08/2008, -16/+8Never was a fan of books myself
    • mohsenxp, on 09/08/2008, -3/+2only z book can allow such a personal journey of the mind. Books are great. I heart books.
      For a great book that you can heart too try reading Shantaram. What a ride that is. I heart rides.
  • kalleanka, on 09/08/2008, -11/+331So you submitted a picture of a digg submission where the only funny part was two comments?

    And THIS made the front page?

    holy *****... just saying...
    • OfNumbers, on 09/08/2008, -1/+56Holy ***** is right. I've seen some rib cracking comments here, and this one gets attention?
    • exonyte, on 09/08/2008, -1/+53Man, you're really gonna hate digg.
    • ruddy, on 09/08/2008, -0/+10i'm soo gonna submit your comment
    • Zuljin, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4that was funny, I wouldn't have seen it if this wasn't posted.
      Good on the submitter.
      • Jorge777, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Yea, it was a good line. I don't agree with the premise but that doesn't make it unfunny.
  • loqqq, on 09/08/2008, -3/+20That's only 1.8 "Gaming Moments" per page.
  • digglet08, on 09/08/2008, -8/+1Wait.. There were 5 pages? Lame
  • ghostrc, on 09/08/2008, -2/+28Do books have ads on every page
    • YoThisBAlec, on 09/08/2008, -0/+9Magazines do, nowadays.
      • clickwir, on 09/08/2008, -1/+1But the point is they purposefully put the on different "pages" so you'd get hit with that many more ads. When they could have just put it on one page. It differs from a magazine in that they COULD have fit all the content on one page. But decided to be ***** tards instead.
      • Llanowar, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1I don't know exact numbers.
        But one time i read about some fashion magazine (I think)
        which had a total of like 800 pages of which about 700 were ads.

        I'm surely wrong with the numbers. But the point is that the magazine was a HUGE issue which could have been a fairly normal size if it wasn't for the ads.
      • Asrrin29, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1this is why I read books and not magazines.
    • cedarbaydave, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1No, but they better have a picture
  • akula89, on 09/08/2008, -13/+9sorry, but this is silly. no one likes multi-page web articles, comparing them to a book is stupid.. buried!
  • woodyinthehoody, on 09/08/2008, -3/+26are we really going to re-post all of Digg's funny comments, and are they really going to get on the goddamn front page?
  • barstegry, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4Comment? I didn't see the comment. You must have had to scroll down. I hate scrolling....
    • Tarokun, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Man, you're really gonna hate Chrome.
    • DanielAzarc, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6I think he's just going to hate life in general.
  • arunforce, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4Someone should make an extension for these sites that fixes it. =]
    • mohsenxp, on 09/08/2008, -3/+2It's simple really. Tab browsing.
      The pages load whilst you read the current page! It's magic really.
      • BoneStamp, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2That doesn't fix how annoying it is.
    • d3designs, on 09/09/2008, -0/+1Actually a few sites have a "print this article" link, which fixes the problem, and removes the ads!
  • Jeepinator, on 09/08/2008, -4/+5I just don't like the epic novels some bloggers attempt to write in order to convey a piece of news or information that could take less than a paragraph.
    • BoneStamp, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Yes, after about 20 seconds of reading I'm done. On that note, I like what some blogs are doing with strong text in articles that they can't keep short (for whatever reason) -- it makes it easy to skim the content for what you're looking for. Example: http://1000awesomethings.com/
  • Switchnig, on 09/08/2008, -3/+11dugg for Randy Marsh
  • shaherazad, on 09/08/2008, -1/+164I thought this was going to be for some firefox add-on that stitches the pages together.

    Oh well.
    • stateofmind, on 09/08/2008, -0/+11_Exactly_ what I was thinking. It might be possible to create one though... hmmm.. will have to fiddle around and see what that would take.
    • studdenfadden, on 09/08/2008, -0/+8There already is one, its called repagenation.
    • jsp123, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4http://andreineculau.com/blog/2008/06/repagination
    • flossdaily, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3that site says that repagenation hasn't been updated since 2006, and won't work with firefox.
      • level1computer, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3there is a hacked version that works with ff3 but seems to be broken. There there is a version that probably isn't broken and has new features but you can't get it because you need to be a mozilla devoloper. If that doesn't go against the rules of open source, it certianly goes against the spirit. I've never heard of an OSS developer hiding content from users. Its disgraceful.
      • Fhwqhgads, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2I installed that thing. Nothing special. It appends a whole new page. Example on Cracked, you have to scroll through all the comments, the top banner, etc all over again to get the newly loaded page. With some work this could be a great addon tho.
  • random12345, on 11/16/2008, -12/+26Why did this make front page? Kevin... digg-admins... SOMEONE IMPORTANT... if you're reading this... you REALLY need to come up with a way to filter out these crappy inside-digg jokes from hitting front page. I use to use digg as a decent social news site, and now its awful with this garbage hitting front page.
    • mohsenxp, on 09/08/2008, -6/+1- Kevin... digg-admins... SOMEONE IMPORTANT...

      Yeah erm they won't be reading your comment.
      • random12345, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2Well, no *****... thats a little obvious.
      • ligyron, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3If enough people reported dgreichert as offensive they would
    • mozert, on 09/08/2008, -6/+1Who is Kevin.

      /bastard
    • MillionsLivio, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2How about they just make a Digg sub-category, then you can simply disable it so you don't see it. You'll still have idiots that categorize it incorrectly, but it would help.
    • MadHarvey, on 09/08/2008, -2/+2The digg community determines what hits the front page by voting. Would really want it to work differently?

      The content on Digg will evolve with the tastes of the user base. The good thing about a website, as opposed to a democratic country, is that it is much easier to leave if you don't feel your interests are represented.

      It seems like a natural progression for social news sites to start with a certain intent (such as technology), and slowly devolve into retardation on par with youtube comments. Soon another highly technical site will pop up and everyone smart will go there to start the process all over again. I think its a healthy process.

      -Pie
      • level1computer, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1how is that healthy? I'd rather have a site that effectively filtered out the *****.
      • MadHarvey, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0Because it refactors the group into common interests. Think of it like a country. If the government "filtered" out votes of its citizens that it felt were 'idiots', that would clearly be wrong. When the idiots become the majority, it is hard to leave a country, and its probably worth trying to educate the idiots, or let them learn from their mistakes.

        On the other hand, users of a website can easily migrate to new sites and grow them around their interests. These sites would be based on newer technology and take ideas from all the other social networking sites. They would most likely be better sites than the 'parent sites'. Eventually, the process would repeat continually creating better new sites that evolve (or devolve) as the community changes.

        -Pie
  • DephexTwin, on 09/08/2008, -1/+19If I had to wait 5-10 seconds (and sometimes longer) between each page of a book, then books would piss me off too.
    • nebion, on 09/08/2008, -0/+0Not just wait that long, but also turn the page much, much more often.

      I actually don't mind multi-page articles that much, as long as there is sufficient actual content per page. Sadly that's the exception.

  • OfNumbers, on 09/08/2008, -8/+9Wow, not funny.
  • kailash079, on 09/08/2008, -6/+54it starts to suck when people digg diggs..
  • nixpix66, on 09/08/2008, -2/+2this is 1 page! Oh son of a bitch
  • GordonV, on 09/08/2008, -2/+1I really hate that with flickr and photobucket. Glad photobucket has a list all feature, not glad that photobucket only lists the first 100 images in RSS.
  • kazakal28, on 09/08/2008, -10/+3LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
  • loulan, on 09/08/2008, -3/+2So now we're commenting on a comment. Digg is going meta.

    Funny, though. I lol'd.
  • brad016, on 09/08/2008, -5/+23Ya, once my teacher was like..."read this book!". And I was all..."7 pages biznach are ya kitten' me!"
    Ya good times in 1st Grade
  • thegrantman, on 09/08/2008, -2/+8He only got 2 diggs for that comeback? Shameful.
  • phogasmic, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2it would be alright if sites like Forbes didn't use it excessively. I mean is it really necessary to put each list item on a different page and have it automatic? No its not.
    Cracked is a good example of restrained acceptable pagination usually there is only two pages. I can deal with that. Forbes and Maxim are blatant page view whores.
  • Robstahcraw, on 09/08/2008, -2/+4It's one thing if it's a very long, multi-page article, but this 1 paragraph per page crap has to stop.
  • ledguitar, on 09/08/2008, -3/+6Am I the only one thats sick of front-page articles that just contain comments from another digg story?
    • Awspire, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2What?! No Digg celebricommenties. I'm waiting for the 1st Annual Golden Comment Awards.
    • spanglegluppet, on 09/08/2008, -1/+5Man, you're really gonna hate Digg.
  • slayernine, on 09/08/2008, -2/+5Except books don't have load times and advertisements...
    • Awspire, on 09/08/2008, -2/+1That's what you think. Soon all hard copy books will be recycled into insulation, and only digital formats will be available due to Global Warming. Sony and Google will partner to provide free digital solar readers with ads to compensate for their giveaway. Though, because the reader is powered by Linux, and the digital books are packaged by Microsoft the load times will be 10 minutes between page change.
      • phauna, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Don't fret, piracy will solve all those problems.
  • kurupttek, on 09/08/2008, -3/+13http://digg.com/gaming_news/9_Best_Gaming_Moments_ ...

    Link here
    • banido, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3It looks like you have to shoot yourself.
  • deusny, on 09/08/2008, -4/+7Is "Man you're really gonna hate" phrase going to turn into the next big Digg internet meme?

    No? NO!?
    • parkermauney, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2Man, you're really gonna hate 4chan.
  • Nicoon, on 09/08/2008, -4/+3Yes.
  • JakeBC, on 09/08/2008, -3/+4I was hoping for a firefox extension that would automatically display them onto one page....
  • DIGGADEEP, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7most sites have a printer friendly link which has the FULL article in it ;)
  • liquidmetalband, on 09/08/2008, -7/+6Web pages don't have to load if you have GOOGLE CHROME!! !hahaahahahhaaha lol lololololol
    • homesqua, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3actually they just had an update where the pages have to load now.

      sorry to ruin your lol streak.
  • chrisduser, on 09/08/2008, -2/+5Why don't they use AJAX so we don't have to reload the whole page?
    • yeskia, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2To load more ads and make more money.
  • Langford, on 09/08/2008, -2/+10Books have a lot of pages, but they have amazingly fast load times and very few ads.
  • mozert, on 09/08/2008, -8/+2Chuck Norris don't need to load pages, all the internets is in his head.
  • wolfebyte, on 09/08/2008, -1/+4call me when they get ABP for books and magazines please...


  • Ubergoober3, on 09/08/2008, -6/+6Seriously how have so many digg users not heard of adblock?
  • rsm5068, on 09/08/2008, -9/+4Dugg for best reply ever.
  • Ge64, on 09/08/2008, -10/+5***** you.
  • fsuarez2005, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1***** complexity.

    keep it simple, stupid.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.