Slashdot Mirror


Ad Networks the Laggards In Jackson Traffic Spike

miller60 writes "Advertising networks are being cited as the major bottlenecks in performance woes experienced by major news sites during the crush of Internet traffic Thursday as news broke about the death of pop star Michael Jackson. An analysis by Keynote found that many news sites delivered their own content promptly, only to find their page delivery delayed by slow-loading ads. The inclusion of third-party content on high-traffic pages is a growing challenge for site operators. It's not just ads, as social media widgets are also seeing wider usage on commercial sites. How best to balance the content vs. performance tradeoffs?"

26 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Didn't notice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't say that I noticed any of slowdown on Friday. All of the content continued to stream from my custom ad server (127.0.0.1) at exactly the same speed as usual...

    1. Re:Didn't notice... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hope you don't mind, but I'm using your ad server too.

      Dang you must have one hell of a pipe to the internets.

      It's....FAST

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:Didn't notice... by al0ha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah this is news? Man the main reason why I originally started blocking ads was not because I necessarily objected to them, it was because the ad servers always seem to hang up the page loads. Web 2.0 as it is called simply made this problem even worse with sites cross loading content. Web 2.0 sucks!

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    3. Re:Didn't notice... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The worst part about stories like this is having to skip past the 3 dozen Slashdot posts that all say "I don't see ads because I block them! Hyuk! Hyuk!"

      Yes, we all get it. Lots of Slashdotters block ads. We know. We've read it a million times on this site. Could you just shut the hell up so we can comment on the actual story? Thank you.

    4. Re:Didn't notice... by unfasten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed. I have a lighttpd instance running on my computer just for this reason. It serves up a single page containing only the following text:

      404 - ad fail

      And if anyone is wondering why I'm running an HTTP server just for this it's because serving the 404 kills the request much quicker than letting the browser timeout the connection. Lighttpd is very light on resources but also allows me to have access logs, which allows me to get some interesting data. For instance, I split the logs up by month and here are some of the sizes:

      • June (to date): 2.95 MB with 13,550 lines
      • May: 2.87 MB with 11,354 entries
      • April: 2.69 MB with 14,931 entries

      I've also written a perl script to import the logs into an SQLite database. Which allows things like:

      All hosts blocked with over 1,000 hits (from the aforementioned April to June logs)

      req_subd req_domain Total hits

      ad doubleclick 14556
      www google-analytics 3927
      media fastclick 3339
      ads adbrite 1920
      content pulse360 1692
      ad yieldmanager 1158

    5. Re:Didn't notice... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 4, Funny

      The worst part about stories like this is having to skip past the 3 dozen Slashdot posts that all say "I don't see ads because I block them! Hyuk! Hyuk!"

      Sounds like you need an AdBlock Ad Blocker. It hides any posts that may be construed as viral advertisements to block advertisements from your browser. It allows those like you and me to learn about new car insurance rates and punch the monkey in peace.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    6. Re:Didn't notice... by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think those comments can be meaningful. I avoid doing massive ad blocking, but in some cases, I've blocked ads from locations that created major slowdown in page loads.

      It's an example of why ad delivery services are failing us: In modern browsers, delays for ad loading do happen from time to time, regardless of the size of your internet tubes. Bad performance makes even users that aren't ad averse want to block them, just for the performance gain, just like aggressive DRM makes users that have no problem paying for software be tempted to become pirates.

  2. No surprise by LordSnooty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even at times of average load you can see delays as the browser goes off to find some unresponsive ad server. Google analytics and other stat-gatherers can be a problem too. It's annoying when it prevents the appearance of a page. Seems easily solvable within the browser though, set content from other domains to be on a shorter timeout. If the site fails because some off-server content isn't available, that's a badly-designed site. Ordinarily I'd just miss out on a few ads. Boo hoo!

    1. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Generally, a browser will open up to 4-5 connections per site. (This is configurable in firefox). If there are more requests needed, they'll reuse one of the existing connections (which don't close -- keep-alive).

      The problem isn't loading, it's rendering. Many ad networks are heavy on the javascript and use stupid shit like document.write, and innerHTML. If the ad javascript is slow to load, the page rendering will stall.

    2. Re:No surprise by iamapizza · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ads are usually javascript scripts which in turn are requesting external pages by document.write()ing out iframes to the content page which in turn may have their own resources (js/css/jpg/gif/etc) to request. A lot of browsers don't like showing you the entire page until the javascript bits have been requested, hence the delay.

      Of course the technical details are er... more detailed, but you get the idea.

      --
      Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    3. Re:No surprise by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good point.

      Yes, a browser should schedule the download of additional content, and it should give priority to same domain, next to different subdomains of same domain (e.g. "images.mysite.com") and last to other domains.

      Of course, if that were the standard, the ad people would come up with something to defeat it. See, these are the people who are actively working on giving you content that you don't want, and they consider it important to bypass all your filters, to make sure you've seen their ads. Because you don't count, only our pageview or clickthrough does.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:No surprise by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason they don't do that for ads is because the viewer "dwell time" on the page can often be less than the time it takes the ad to load.

      Kills your click-through revenue if your page view never results in someone seeing the ad, so you force the ad to preload before you render the page.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  3. Easy solution. by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever the ad servers get to a critical overusage point, replace them with a set of text ads. Or better yet, replace them with a text ad for AdBlock Plus. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

    Ryan Fenton

  4. MJ Clogged the toobs? by toygeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll bet THAT isn't in the autopsy report.

  5. Where's the Billy Mays traffic spike?! by grub · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Where's the Billy Mays traffic spike?! by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

      OxiClean works on the internet tubes so there were no clogs.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Not only during the MJ-news breaking... by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can see how the ads would be the bottleneck in serving a site... if not only because it's the same case for users with most sites on normal days too.
    Very often I'm stuck waiting for the ads to load, before the actual site shows up on computers where I don't have the luxury of an adblocker; And even with an adblocker I sometimes see my computer still using some resources to get the ads down.

    --
    When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
  7. Without those ads, it would be worse by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Without those ads, there would not be the high number of news sites available for viewing breaking news stories that can drive this Jacko level of interest.

    1. Re:Without those ads, it would be worse by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That is true, but successful advertising tends to enhance the experience of the media they support. How many of us would listen to the radio of watch TV if the ads were just 30 seconds of monotonous droning, or if the ads interrupted the expected flow of content. For instance, if the ads were placed mid sentence instead of act breaks? How many of us would read magazines if there was a paragraph of text on each page, and the rest were ads. In sophisticated media, there is some experience in what works and what does not. The web is a free for all, unlike radio there was never even a hint of over arching philosophy or ethics for advertising, so we end up many pages that are just adverts.

      I think much of the issues of ads is that they do tend to ill integrated on the page and do not enhance the viewing experience. One issue is that a page may have to link with many domains, each involving multiple requests, and often the page will not render until all ads are loaded. This is fair, but, again, does mature media expect to be successful if they serve lame ads? Ads support content in a number of ways, but must not conflict with the content.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  8. Google and Slashdot handle it well by Blixinator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google has always appealed to me because of it's VERY basic homepage. No extra crap unless you want it there (iGoogle). I understand that it would be hard for a website to thrive without a method of revenue, either through a store or ads, but I tend to stick with sites that keep ads to a minimum. I've even stopped going to sites because of the overbearing amounts of ads. Slashdot has a nice system too. Giving you the option to turn off ads if you contribute.

    --
    "The Y chromosome is genetic. The odds are very good that if you are male then your father was too." -Internet Commenter
  9. Re:Ad Caching? by Jellybob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The best way to deal with this sort of thing is to do regular checks as to how long hitting the address that's going to be loaded takes, in a cron job or whatever, and if it goes over a certain threshold, turn off that provider.

    Sure, you'll lose a bit of ad revenue, but you won't have pissed off users who think your site is broken.

  10. Re:Load the ads last by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They *are* loading the "primary content" first. They just differ with you as to what constitutes "primary".

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  11. Well, duh. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    only to find their page delivery delayed by slow-loading ads.

    Well, duh. I've been complaining about this for the past year. Too much ad code is using "document.write()", often for no really good reason. Browsers can load content from multiple sites in parallel, and not wait for ad content, unless Javascript is used to prevent that. All too often, Javascript is used in just that way. (As on, well, Slashdot. Earth to Slashdot: your Javascript is embarrassingly slow. Get someone with a clue.)

    One of the more painful things I have to do for AdRater is to recognize dynamically loaded ad content. Google ads are loaded using at least five completely different code styles. So I actually have to look at other people's ad-serving code in some detail. It's not fun. Fortunately, one generic mechanism handles most of the cases; I don't have to track their code changes in detail.

    Most of this doesn't seem to be intended to get around ad-blocking software, and isn't successful at that. It's usually either tracking-related, concerned with displaying the ad in a different CSS context than that of the surrounding content, or just the result of ineptly cutting and pasting JavaScript from multiple sources.

  12. The how and why by NudeAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    first of all let me pretext all this with the fact I have been working in online advertising for about 5 years for a caouple of major publishers and now an agency side adserving company. The industry as a whole has a glut of technical knowledge and is mostly sales driven. Calls to adservers usually use a call to an external javascript file which is dynamically generated by the adserver. When this call is made it passes along some variables to let the adserver know how that position is targeted. At this time some tracking also happens, so the system will count an impression against a certain ad. For this reason caching can't be done - the system has to record and decide which ad to return on the fly to make sure delivery is correct and possibly even do some optimizations around which ad to show. Think of it as a giant decision engine which also collects data and uses that to decide what to serve next. There is another way to call in an ad, and that is to use Iframes, unfortunately these will point at a different domain so it isn't possible to resize or do anything outside the box, unless the ad being served is a rich media provider who are allowed to have another little html page on the site's domain they can call up and then use to write back to the main page. Because of all the different types of javascript that can be served back depending on the company providing the ad, the ad has to be put in place if using javascript as it will often look at where in the DOM the script is called. There are too many providers doing different things, and the only way to make things work is to call it straight in.

    --
    for(b=(a=0)+1;;b+=(a+=b))print(a+"\n"+b+"\n");
  13. Billy Mays RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Last week we had 3 celebrity deaths in rapid succession, but thanks to Billy Mays, he throws in a 4th one for ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!

  14. Re:Reflows by Ron_Fitzgerald · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...This shows the state that news organizations have reached, making money is more important than reporting the news.

    I don't ever recall a time when the news wasn't just one more service to trade with you for advertising. When has the news ever been not about making money?

    --
    ~ Ron Fitzgerald