References: <199609180007.TAA08287@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu> <323F7BEB.36BA@is.nyu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-online-newspapers@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Christopher Harper wrote:
> 
> Eric Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > << What I am trying to determine is whether any has done
> > >  scientific work on the subject of scrolling.  I did learn that one major
> > >  online content provider found that only 10 per cent of its users
> > >  scrolled from the first screen.  So the provider resigned its pages to
> > >  include NO scrolls.  I am looking for this kind of evidence if it
> > >  exists.   >>
> >
> > What's your baseline?
> 
> Eric, I am trying to find a baseline.  That's the problem I have.  What
> data exist about scrolling other than conventional wisdom?
> 
> In many cases we seem to react to online stats
> > as if they were something new and different when in fact they only
> > confirm what we always should have known. We know so little about
> > traditional readership, either because we don't have good stats or
> > don't understand the ones we have, that we assume completely
> > different schema are at work online when, in fact, online readership
> > may be no different than print readership.
> That may be true.  But we do know that people do not want to jump from
> A1 to B13.  Even so, the New York Times still does that.   Fortunately,
> all other papers don't.   I think we know more about newspaper
> readership than we know about online readership.  I will grant you,
> however, that we know less than what we should know about either.
> > When we talk of online scrolling, for example, we're not talking
> > about the percentage of those who start a story divided by those who
> > finish it all the way through the jump. We're talking about the
> > percentage who, when handed a page containing a story (and others),
> > choose to follow this one particular story all the way to its
> > conclusion.
> There is some limited research that shows that people -- when searching
> -- only want to see the top screen.
> > In print, 10% would be a huge number for this. The typical person
> > may read no more than 1% of the stories offered him. Those who
> > follow stories through to their jumps are an even smaller number.
> The 10 per cent is a scroll figure, which would be the equivalent of
> reading beyond the first or second graf.
> > It's not the structure or design that's a problem in either case. Its
> > the interest level, time available, relative value and ease of use of
> > each individual story.
> Where's the proof?  You are surmising that without stats.  We don't
> know.
> > Only if we foolishly believe that non-journalists read the paper as
> > methodically as journalists might do we fret when we hear that a typical
> > reader selects only 1 of 100 stories offered him. We've spent decades
> > blissfully ignoring that the same sort of rejection rate that occurs
> > every time we hand a reader a fat daily newspaper.
> It is indeed foolish to surmise what readers and viewers do without hard
> proof.  With all due respect, kind sir, you are making some leaps of
> analysis here without hard proof.  You and I both would like to have the
> stats necessary to figure out what's going on.  Simply put,  we don't
> because it ain't easy.  You and I and many people on this list know that
> we have to come up with these figures pretty darn quick to justify this
> medium.  Actually, you and I don't because we now have the comfort of
> the ivory tower of academic life.  Cheers.
> 
> --
> Christopher Harper
> Associate Professor
> New York University
> Department of Journalism
> 212-998-3846
> 
> "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
> there."
>   - Will Rogers

-- 
Christopher Harper				
Associate Professor
New York University
Department of Journalism
212-998-3846	
	
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there."
  - Will Rogers

From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Wed Sep 18 01:14:02 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08684 ; for ; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 01:14:01 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24540 for online-news-outgoing; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:10:18 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA24534 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:10:13 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id SAA23848; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:53:37 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ux6.cso.uiuc.edu by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id SAA10119; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:53:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ruger-25.slip.uiuc.edu (ruger-25.slip.uiuc.edu [128.174.23.73]) by ux6.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA10703 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:53:05 -0500
Message-Id: <199609180053.TAA10703@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is