Reddit and Instagram is even worse. Besides cookie boxes (which all have different UIs and rarely a good no button) it's probably the most annoying thing on an ad-blocked internet.
How do the designers who work at these tech companies not understand that repeatedly annoying non-user visitors doesn't make them want to sign up? Nor incentivize others to link to it?
I think these things come about because of A/B testing. The metric being optimized is probably "app installs" or "account creations" and the negative side effects of driving a bunch of users off are not considered/measured.
I know how it happens, I've designed many a KPI. Something so fundamental and important as the default non-user first-exerpience (not just a 'signup flow') should be evaluated more holistically than just looking at numbers.
But I guess when you have layers of middle managers it's safer to point to a spreadsheet than make hard choices.
Even fucking Google keeps putting a half-page pop-up on my iPhone saying "WANT TO SIGN IN, OR JUST KEEP SEARCHING 'ANONYMOUSLY' LIKE A CHUMP?" or something just as fucking annoying.
Yea, and the annoying part about Google is that you know that they know you're user X, just not logged in. They know I am logged in to several different accounts from this IP, they know I search for similar stuff under those accounts as I do when not logged in, etc. I feel like it would be more honest for Google to write something like, "Hey, ok_dad, we know it's you, just log in so we can save your porn searches to your account properly, rather than having to do data mining on your nasty habits."
Non-technical non-users are not dissuaded, they sign up. Technical non-users using adblock aren't profitable conversions anyway, so "who cares?" is an entirely reasonable decision for the PO/PM who made it.
Considering where their revenue comes from, have you considered that they may not want people who run ad-blockers to sign up?
They'll tolerate you if you produce content to help keep the paying users engaged, but plenty of businesses choose not to pursue customers who are unlikely to generate profit.
Do you have numbers for the claim that this behavior doesn’t incentivize sign up? I’d guess that for most folks it indeed does — at some point you get annoyed enough to go through with the sign up process. These sites never log you out so it’s a one time thing. I personally am not inspired to sign up in these situations but I’d guess the numbers show that I’m in the minority.
Agreed. I've noticed instagram and reddit over the last year have really tried to squeeze the last bit of growth it can by blocking non registered visitors from using the site past a couple of clicks. I get that it's their server resources I'm using up but for some reason the way they do it just aggravates me.
> repeatedly annoying non-user visitors doesn't make them want to sign up?
It absolutely does, and that is precisely why they keep doing it. It doesn't work for the kinds of people that browse hackernews, but that's not their core audience anyway.
It's like saying ads don't work because you and me never click them because we use an adblock. Clearly they do work, and quite well...
When a sign-in-to-see-the-thing-you-just-searched-for shows up, I take it as a sign that the company isn't doing very well. If you've ran out of good ideas for driving growth, you start considering the bad ideas.
This is why I never touch new reddit or visit the site on mobile. It's old reddit + ublock origin on desktop and a third-party app on mobile every time.
How do the designers who work at these tech companies not understand that repeatedly annoying non-user visitors doesn't make them want to sign up? Nor incentivize others to link to it?