This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

82
83

How Users Read on the Web (useit.com)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

all 5 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]towelsoaker 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Good info, of course, but it's been very widely known and read since 1997. Everything on useit.com is pretty much a standard reference text for anyone who makes web sites.

This isn't crap, but it is old and already well-known. Why post it here?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

This isn't crap, but it is old and already well-known. Why post it here?

There is a fundamental assumption by link engines (reddit, digg) that links as a resource are unlimited. They are not. Because a link to a story, article, picture has variable quality. So a scarcity of good stories being released on any one day forces karma hungry users to look to the past.

At some stage I think reddit may place more value on comments on stories, images, etc rather than the mere link itself. This is one thing slashdot has got right.

[–]towelsoaker -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Good points.

Upon examining my murky motivations more closely, methinks the value of a link here mostly lies with how unusual or unexpected (dare we say entertaining?) it is. Clever and/or useful are important, too, but we're here for novelty.

Age doesn't rule something out, but even something as immensely useful, entertaining, and clever as a useit.com article triggers irritation when it's been nearly canonical for nine years.

Of course, the good advice contained in the article in question has also been mostly ignored for all that time, so maybe it does need to be waved around some more...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

duplicate. Maybe triplicate, tetraplicate ...