[waterlion]

It's not. I'm just giving a data point, as is jc4p, as is codegeek. So are the up-voters.

What part of what I said gave you the impression of entitlement? I didn't say "I deserve to read this without ads". I said "I stopped reading because you put a massive pop-up that filled the entire screen and prevented me from reading it, I don't find that acceptable, and so closed the tab".

Would it be better to have no feedback about why people are bouncing?

[kenferry]

The issue for me is derailment.

Your complaint - which is unrelated to the content of this article - is now the top comment.

I agree with you, but there are probably a lot of things we agree about, which are also not related to the content of this article.

And regarding whether your complaint is doing the author a favor? You know, it's probably not. You're just going to discourage him from writing, because then he doesn't have to deal with HN's abuse.

[resu_nimda]

Technically it is related to the content and usability of the page as a whole. It falls under the umbrella of feedback on the user's experience with the site.

I think it's myopic to dictate what is and isn't up for discussion, to say "well that's not the point, just ignore it." If the ad is so distracting and off-putting that the user doesn't even get to the content, that is pretty important.

And if that post rises to the top, the message is that a substantial amount of people are having a similar experience.

[girvo]

Before your edit, you had one sentence saying you had an issue, then one other sentence saying it's completely unacceptable.

It's not about your feedbacks content (I agree with you!) it's how you worded it.