Or to put in another way, Would you implement a feature in your software that only benefitted 2% and annoyed the 98%?Seems like this kind of approach hints at a deeper issue here and that's effective targeting.

No signing up fucking wenlbsites-57No signing up fucking wenlbsites-5

The software analogy is invalid, because those people are already your users or customers.

In the case of reading the article, think of a popup as a criterion filter in much the same way as 419 scammers use poor english.

With that said, I'm trying to minimize that annoyance.

I'm now experimenting with a less invasive prompt; a thin bar at the top of the screen, that also hides when you're scrolling down (presumably reading).

Because you definitely have numbers to back up the effectiveness of the popup (although I would argue it is not effective).

What you don't have is of the 98% you annoyed, how many will not return because of the annoyance (by choice anyway).

People have been mildy annoyed by adverts for decades: TV Commercials.

Just because it's mildly annoying, doesn't make them any less effective either.

There wouldn't be millions spent on Super Bowl slots if they weren't effective (although the SB is an outlier with regards to adverts).

Except for really bad popups, I can find an x, click it and move on - or ever so occasionally actually sign up for something...

Since then, it's been seen by 11,848 people, of whom 232 (1.96%) signed up.