Ah, yes. I misinterpreted the sentence.
Corrected. Thank you!
Another one… they name one of the owner/investors
This is horrible.
From the LA Weekly itself
http://www.laweekly.com/news/who-owns-la-weekly-8911213
I just think this is bizarre, for what ever its faults the Weekly has built up cred in LA, is profitable (supposedly). It just seems like the new owners have no plan -why buy something if you are going to tarnish its value?
My guess is their business plan is to gut the staff - particularly the non-freelance, higher paid positions, and then turn it into a listicle / clickbait site.
And drop the print version?
My guess is the print version is worth it for them because of the higher ad rates. Their online version is pretty dated, and mobile is not an optimal experience for most users.
and print is?
I usually read LA Weekly on my phone. It’s fine.
haha well if it’s not too hard to pick up a physical copy near you, then no. But the mobile version crashes on me all the time, and the desktop site has so many pop up ads and autoplay videos.
I’ve had no problems with Chrome on Android 6 or 7.
Turn off all Firefox autoplay settings and use uBlock Origin.
I use iPhone or iPad and the website freezes, takes forever to load, and opens background advertising windows every time I visit. I was down to a maybe-once-a-month view. So, speaking for the “regular” people, the site was annoying, although the content was good.
Try installing Firefox.
I suppose I could, but if the new LA Weekly wants to attract more users, they will still need to fix the site. Not everyone knows or can be bothered to add more browsers/apps, and that includes the youngsters. They’re busy with Snapchat.
Just tried with mobile site with my phone’s ad blocker disabled. It’s definitely the ads that are slowing things way down. Pages load immediately and scrolling is smooth with ad blocking engaged.
it’s definitely the ads and why I stopped looking at LAW links.
It’ll be interesting to see what if anything they publish in the next few weeks.
The layoffs could be mostly about getting rid of the union.