[KB1JWQ]

As a user, I'm requesting only YOUR content. I don't get a choice past that what your revenue model looks like. Your decision (or not) to host ads from various networks means that from my perspective, I visit your page and suddenly my performance / bandwidth turns to garbage.

Ergo the lesson I learn is to not visit your site. How's that a net positive for content creators?

[ebiester]

The hard part, for me, is that if I have 20 tabs open, I don't know which ad is killing my bandwidth and performance. In fact, it might be all of them combined.

[nrb]

If you use Chrome/Chromium you can see with More Tools > Task Manager and view Memory/CPU/Network usage by tab.

[themartorana]

Were you planning on paying for the content otherwise?

[KB1JWQ]

I have no idea. I haven't seen the content before-- but when I show up and my first experience is a power and bandwidth draw, not only will I not pay for the content, I won't return to that site willingly.

This becomes a problem for the publisher more so than the reader from my perspective. My job in the context of this relationship is fundamentally to consume your content. Your job is to figure out how to monetize your content in a way that isn't offensive and is sustainable.

I'm not saying I won't pay for quality content (I do!), but there needs to be a way to monetize that's respectful of your readers.

[tomtang0514]

So you're saying you might not pay for low quality content. But the publishers don't think this way. They want to you pay regardless if you like the content or not. It's like going to a restaurant. You can choose never come back again if you don't like the food, but you have to pay this time.

[dingo_bat]

If you were planning to add a payment option that is acceptable to me, sure!

[kuschku]

Maybe. Maybe I buy your magazine in paper every month and just expect being able to read the content online, too.