It’s often said that pornography sites are on the cutting edge of Web technologies. Is it true? Can you predict the future of the wider Web by looking at what pornographers are doing today? To find out, I selflessly volunteered to surf the porn side of the Web -- with my professional gaze kept firmly on the source code.
Writing about the experience without making endless corny Beevis and Butthead-style puns is going to be hard… I mean difficult. But one thing is clear: Pornography on the Web is a lucrative business. Demand and competition are fierce. As is true with sites such as iTunes and Amazon, adult Websites must balance protection of their livelihood and copyrights with customer expectations that there should always be something for nothing on the Web.
The conventional wisdom is that all of these factors -- high demand, fierce competition, and rampant piracy -- compel porn sites to adopt the latest technologies. But, is this true? Or do porn sites just use mainstream technologies along with the sorts of techniques that have been largely rejected by the rest of the Web (such as pop-ups and spyware)?
I began my journey by setting up one of my old computers with virus protection, anti-spyware software, and a clean install of Firefox with the Firebug add-on. This setup enabled me to analyze the HTML, CSS, Javascript, and HTTP activity while I browsed.
For my research, I chose a couple of popular adult sites that have equivalents among the not-necessarily-all-about-sex Websites. The sites I explored are YouPorn.com, which is a YouTube knockoff, and AdultFriendFinder.com, which is the largest adult social networking site.
YouPorn's design is pretty minimalistic. However, they do use lots of standard Web 2.0 techniques and tools. For example, they make use of Google analytics for monitoring traffic, and they use Yahoo.com's open-source user interface library to create their dynamic user interface effects.
Although the content on Youporn is user-contributed, and the site gives users the ability to rate videos, there is a notice explaining that video comments apparently were disabled because of widespread abuse [ed. note: go figure]. Even though some of the videos have been watched more than 100,000 times, there is very little community or dialogue going on at the site.
Adultfriendfinder.com is all about communication among members, and there seems to be quite a bit of it going on. One of the perks of joining the site is that you get a blog. Currently, there are about 289,000 blogs, with a combined total of over 7 million posts (about a 24:1 ratio).
For comparison, I popped over to Technorati, which claims “112.8 million blogs and over 250 million pieces of tagged social media” (about a 2:1 ratio). So, if posts are roughly the same as “pieces of tagged media,” it would seem that the average blogger on Adultfriendfinder posts about 12 times as much content as the average blogger registered at Technorati.
In addition, it seemed as if blog posts on Adultfriendfinder had more comments than most of the blogs I regularly read. Maybe seeing a naked picture of the blogger makes people feel less shy about posting comments. (Don’t worry; I don’t intend to employ that strategy here.)
If there was one thing I was hoping porn sites could teach us, it was innovative models for selling content on the Web. However, what I found was that porn sites use the same paid content models that other sites use, but they're just way more aggressive (and most likely, way more successful) at getting people to pay.
Adultfriendfinder has a free membership, but it requires members to purchase a monthly Gold or Silver membership in order to access the "premium" features of the site. While clicking around, I was constantly asked to upgrade or shown screens touting the benefits of a paid membership.
When it comes to the quality of their code, both porn and non-porn sites play it fast and loose with the standards as defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) . Myspace.com, for example, is not compliant with any HTML standard. The homepage contains 711 errors when validated against XHTML 1.0 Transitional (the less strict version of XHTML); 126 errors when validated against HTML 4.01; and 190 errors when validated against HTML 3.2. When I visited Adultfriendfinder’s homepage, it registers 644 XHTML 1.0 Transitional; 210 HTML 4.01; and 253 HTML 3.2 errors when validated against these three HTML standards.
On the whole, I was pretty unimpressed by the level of sophistication at either of the porn sites I looked at. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that the most polished adult sites are pretty close to on par with the level of the general Web.
Where pornographers have an advantage is that their customers are already motivated and are far less likely to complain about membership fees, lack of usability, cookies, popups, spyware, bad design, or lame plots.
— Chris Minnick, E-publishing consultant and CEO of Minnick Web Services