A very naive thought, but isn't it a bit different for porn sites because of the existence of orgasms? If I'm watching TikTok and a really good video comes on I am encouraged to watch more but if there is a really good porn video I'm ... Done? At least for that session. So it's like they want to keep dopamine levels not cranked up, but at sustained medium levels.

Again, I don't know anything about UX, please tell me if I'm wrong.

Probably, but you still want to maximize the amount of time users are on the site, or the amount of pages they visit. Orgasms are just an additional complication, I'd imagine.

TikTok, Netflix, Instagram and other sites specifically designed to be sticky (no pun intended) also have this problem although it isn't orgasms. It is that people need to sleep.

I would say their main problem is the amount of bathrooms available per person.

Why? I’d optimize for ad views. More time watching is more of my bandwidth.

Agreed, the goal is the same. But my point is that additional complication is unique to this industry and looks unlike any other behavior UX tackles

I think that orgasms add to the experience, you cum to something and next time you probably will want to view content similar to that.

Yes, true. But I don't think the good people over at pornhub are targeting for this. They are targeting longest watch time.

Maximize utility.

Maximize search accuracy.

Give people what they want rather than string them along for as much time as possible.

So they'll spend next 30 seconds and close your website? Not good for ad profits. Ideally they should spend 10 minutes searching for something, looking at ads, then finally find it and return to this website next day.

Or maybe do a good job so that next time you'll be their first (and only) visit?

It's not like they have a monopoly, so that should be a valid strategy.

Isn't that the short term thinking that's basically killing social media sites. Like yeah we engage for hours on low quality content for now but eventually move on. Instead what would be better is consistent high quality content that keeps a user coming back day after day, even if a session is shorter. It's reliably good. Like Facebook has nothing interesting for a week even if it's find my self trapped in infinite scroll for longer. I'll eventually leave.

They have pre-roll ads and some a really memorable jingle.

ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9TAA-x85-o&t=16s

What's in it for them? Porn sites are the last I expect to care about responsible social media practices (except privacy, maybe).

Consider the timing and placement of advertisements. Youtube is most frustrating with a an unskippable advertisement just before an important part of the video. Such behavior by the site is much less desirable with a porn video.

I imagine it's a different type of "engagement" for a lot of viewers, something the article only alludes to euphemistically.

It doesn't matter how you measure engagement though, in the end all ad-supported sites want to maximize it.

True. It would be interesting to read specific comparisons to YouTube. The problem for an article like this is discussing details of something that's extremely intimate for most people.

You can have a compromise. There is a minimum number of $$$ you need to stay in business. The less ads you have in total, the more supply and demand allows you to charge. Most sites though are not at the point anyone will pay them more than someone else, so if you show less ads you won't be able to charge more for the few you show. (the super bowl famously can charge very high rates, but for the average web site you are competing with every other website and so less space isn't significant to all customers)

I strongly believe that most web sites are leaving a lot of money on the table by not having their ads in-house. It will be more work (and cost) in the short run, but a good ad salesman can find those customers who really want to target the people reading your website in ways algorithms do not. The big automakers and fast food don't care about targeting - nearly everyone is a potential customer so they can get everyone. Most care about targeting and so by selling direct you ensure that their ads never go to someone who won't buy anyway because of the algorithm.

Phoronix is very much optimized for people staying on the site (most links in articles will go to phoronix.com) as well as for maximizing ad views (articles split into many short pages). Not really a fan of either but it's not like there are many sites for Linux benchmarks and harware news to choose from.

Because ads are what's paying him to do his job.

and because it's almost trivial to run a subscriber supported site out of business

3 steps:

1 - fund high quality, totally free content, great UI, minimal ads

2 - poach customers from subscriber sites, wait them out. will take about a year. they'll go broke.

3 - start to optimize for "engagement" (ad views). profit.

Maybe it's optimizing not for you staying for a longer session but for you to keep coming back? Have more exclusive videos , easy to use UI, fast connection etc. So they're more in it for the long game?

Not opposed to anything. Statements are not always argumentative.