The Washington Post–Punching Readers in the Face Since 1998

My last post about ESPN Motion (linked by internet sports colossus Deadspin.com, I might self-promotionally add) addressed a problem that riddles the world wide web (and the real world, too, but let’s keep this simple): letting advertising dictate how content is presented. ESPN knows that video is difficult to ignore, and is a great way to serve up ads–for its own programming and for its sponsors. So it plasters a loud, garish, processing-heavy video window on its front page, forcing its users to a) put up with it; b) figure out and implement a fairly complicated workaround to block it; or c) go elsewhere for their sports news. I think this is pretty stupid. Here’s another example from the website I use the most: The Washington Post.

The Post website managers feel the need to increase their page view stats. I get that. They break up all their articles into multiple pages (with multiple paying advertisers represented on each page), so that people get stuck loading a new page 3 or 4 times just to read an 800 word article. This is, in a word, short-sighted. They’re alienating their readers at a time that they really can’t afford to do so. I know what they would say in response–”all the major newspaper sites do it! (except for those jerks at the Wall Street Journal)”–but it’s just a matter of time, WashingtonPost.com. Somebody in charge of a big paper will get a clue, sooner or later, and put together a website putting its readers ahead of its advertisers. And that website will get more daily users, more links from blogs, and ultimately more (wait for it…) page views.

But I’m not really here to talk about that. It’s true that everybody does it, and I wouldn’t bother to single the Post out for it. I’d like to address a more pernicious, obnoxious “feature” of their home page. Here’s how it works:

1. A user navigates to http://www.washingtonpost.com/, either manually or by setting it as their home page (which is what I have done for about 8 years now).
2. That user leaves the page idle for, I don’t know, let’s be generous and call it 10 minutes.
3. The user notices that, for some reason, the little icon next to the URL box is moving–signaling that the browser is loading a page. This is strange because, the user knows, that page has already fully loaded.
4. Hmmm, everything looks the same. But wait–the URL is different! Now it’s http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true!

And you can probably figure out what’s going on–the Post home page automatically reloads every few minutes, increasing their page view stats (and, presumably, their advertising profits).

There’s an argument that this benefits readers, too–as news develops, it’s automatically reflected in the next page load–but this argument does not satisfy me. The Post website is not exactly quick-loading. It’s stuffed to the gills with flash video, flash audio, a plethora of ads (of course), and quite a bit of actual news content as well. All this data takes a while to load in my browser–as much as 30 or 40 seconds, depending on my connection. So it’s not unusual for me to come back to my computer and find the browser stalled in the middle of loading the site. But wait, it gets worse! Because sometimes when I come back, the page is already loaded. So I start scrolling down, skimming headlines, looking for something to read. And I find it. And as I go to click on it… you already know what I’m about to say. The page refreshes. And I’m stuck waiting for it to finish loading before I can click on the link I had targeted. More than that, though, because when the page refreshes it resets my focus to the top of the screen. So I have to scroll down all over again.

Some of you may have noted that the URL to the refreshing page is actually just the standard URL with “?reload=true” appended. And you may have reached the reasonable conclusion, as I did, that there may be a workaround. Why not just set your home page to http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=false, you ask? I’ll tell you why. This is my favorite part of the whole saga, actually, because it is so surreal. It’s like a Dali painting. After 10 minutes, the http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=false page reloads!!!! Now, guess what the URL is on the reloaded page. It’s really great–the height of absurdity. The URL on the reloaded page is…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=false&reload=true.

Let me just say it again:

Wow. I mean, wow. I’ve been trying to think of an analogy for how this works. Here’s what I came up with:

You meet a man and talk to him for a while and suddenly he punches you in the face and knocks you out cold. When you wake up, he’s sitting next to you and you’re wearing a shirt that says “Punch Me”. Lying on the ground you see a shirt that says “Don’t Punch Me”. Before he has a chance to punch you again, you take off the “Punch Me” shirt and put on the “Don’t Punch Me” shirt. A few minutes later, he punches you in the face and knocks you out cold. When you wake up, you’re wearing the “Punch Me” shirt on top of the “Don’t Punch Me” shirt.

Just to be clear, in that analogy, the Washington Post is the one repeatedly punching you in the face.

Obviously, I feel this is a mistake. It’s bad enough to make the stupid reloading behavior a default, but it’s unbearably stupid to provide the opportunity to make a choice and not actually honor that choice.

While we’re here, I wish the Post wouldn’t put links to stories in flash (e.g., that little ribbon of links in the middle of the home page)–I like to open links in new tabs in my browser, and that doesn’t work when I click on a flash object. Which means that I end up having to click on the story, then navigate back to the main website, wait for it to load, and go through this all over again. That’s poor design, and rude to readers.

This is a tough time for newspapers everywhere. I know that. But the only way out of it is to act with readers in mind. Don’t bend over backwards to make the user experience miserable, frustrating, confusing, and ugly–not just to raise a superficial stat that doesn’t actually reflect an increase in readership. It may benefit you in the short term, but in the long term it fosters in your readers a feeling that you think you’re doing them a favor. You’re not–you’re making money off of them, and they know it. So if you want to keep doing so, you’ll have to start treating them with appreciation and consideration. Else, you’ll find yourself in even more dire straits–the proud publisher of an advertiser-friendly website with a dearth of readers. Good luck turning a profit on that.

In the mean time, I’m on the lookout for a new home page. Any suggestions?