I'd agree that artificially inflating page views is the primary reason for this practice, but I do wonder if any other things contribute. For example, I believe there is an antiquated and probably flawed notion out there that readers dislike really long pages, so they like their content broken up. Does anyone think something like that has anything do with it as well?
Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
11–20 of 45 posts
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#12...only a tiny percentage of viewers will actually read page two... Actually, quite a large percentage of my readers click to page two. If only a tiny number of your readers are bothering to click a link to get the rest of your content, perhaps your content isn't very good.
Have you thought about whether removing the pagination would cause an even high percentage of your readers to read the full article?
And if the percentage who click to page two is in fact so large, have you considered how much more satisfied those same visitors would be if you removed an obstacle that so many of them confront every time they read an article?
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#13...only a tiny percentage of viewers will actually read page two... Actually, quite a large percentage of my readers click to page two. If only a tiny number of your readers are bothering to click a link to get the rest of your content, perhaps your content isn't very good.
Have you thought about whether removing the pagination would cause an even high percentage of your readers to read the full article? And if the percentage who click to page two is in fact so large, have you considered how much more satisfied those same visitors would be if you removed an obstacle that so many of them confront every time they read an article?
By default we do not paginate, but sometimes I think it makes sense. Personally, I don't like the way it looks when there is very long text on a single page. All the navigation links at the top and sides are scrolled way off the screen and the user is adrift in sea of text. (I admit part of this is a limitation in our design. Perhaps all the blocks of HTML in the sidebar should repeat for the full length of the page?)
I'd be very interested in testing paginate/non-paginate, but I'm not sure there's in easy way to measure "satisfaction." Perhaps a javascript hack that detects if they've scrolled to the bottom of the page?
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#14I'd agree that artificially inflating page views is the primary reason for this practice, but I do wonder if any other things contribute. For example, I believe there is an antiquated and probably flawed notion out there that readers dislike really long pages, so they like their content broken up. Does anyone think something like that has anything do with it as well?
I don't see how this is "artificial." If you read a two page article, then you viewed two pages. And if the design is so hideous that you don't click to view the second page, well then the number of page views isn't inflated at all.
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#15They're doing it to increase adviews.
Why not just put more ads on each page? At the point where the page would get split, just put an ad.
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#16Dear Every Blogger Whose Post Title Starts with the Word "Dear":
Find a new linkbait gimmick. This one's played out.
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#17They're doing it to increase adviews. Why not just put more ads on each page? At the point where the page would get split, just put an ad.
"At the point where the page would get split, just put an ad."
Most pages have more then one ad (header, sidebar etc) so its not as simple as that.
Also, like it or not, page views are the unofficial "Nielsens" for websites, the more page views the more popular you are when you're pitching your ad offering.
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#18...only a tiny percentage of viewers will actually read page two... Actually, quite a large percentage of my readers click to page two. If only a tiny number of your readers are bothering to click a link to get the rest of your content, perhaps your content isn't very good.
This makes me wonder: Is it possible that some sites paginate their articles not just to increase ad views, but so that they can measure how much of the articles are being read?
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#19I'd agree that artificially inflating page views is the primary reason for this practice, but I do wonder if any other things contribute. For example, I believe there is an antiquated and probably flawed notion out there that readers dislike really long pages, so they like their content broken up. Does anyone think something like that has anything do with it as well?
I don't see how this is "artificial." If you read a two page article, then you viewed two pages. And if the design is so hideous that you don't click to view the second page, well then the number of page views isn't inflated at all.
The page view isn't "artificial" the need to have a second page (as opposed to one long page) is.
Re: Dear Every Site That Paginates Articles
#20This has been said before, but bears repeating. I like reading articles on Google News more than on most "non-aggregator" news sites just because Google News makes the news readable. What a lot of content creators don't seem to understand is, I don't care where the content comes from if it's a pain to read it.
[deleted]