Slashdot Mirror
Information Obesity
Roland Piquepaille writes "How many phone calls, emails, voicemails, memos or stories do you have to go through every day? Probably more than last year. And probably too much. This article from the Sydney Morning Herald looks at this problem of information overload and how to deal with it. Here is a quick and not well-known fact: Website content management author Gerry McGovern says that something like 70 per cent of most websites goes unread. Despite that, when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?" Good point. Check this column for a summary if you don't have time -- and who has? -- to read the original article."
We're not the only one reading the articles?
But seriously, what's not of interest to some people may be exactly what one individual is searching for. I know I've found obscure information only available on a page or two in all of Google, and I know people have come to my sites on some pretty strange search terms.
Information overload? Spam outweighing your ham? Penis already long enough? Try Spambayes a doctor-recommended, safe and effective way to treat one symptom of too much information. Comes in Unix or Windows flavors (Outlook 2000 or XP).
Disclaimer: Spambayes is not an FDA-approved medication and is not a cure for impotence, hair-loss, depression, runny nose, or jungle fever. Pregnant women, men with hairy underarms and people in general who look like monkeys should not use.
It's interesting that this subject was brought up in an article that wasn't worth the bits it was printed on.
In that vein, though, I think that the number of times you have to say RTFA here demonstrates just how much people filter when they're immersed in this much information. I know it definitely applies to me.
Who has time to read the article? I have to put up another webpage about my cat!
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
that 70% of all wesites now are blogs
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Another day in the office, which, according to one recent study, consists of handling 46 phone calls, 25 emails, 16 voicemails, 23 items of post, eight inter-office memos, 16 faxes and nine mobile phone calls.
The article wasn't really clear on this -- are we supposed to believe EACH employee is getting that much crap to deal with and respond to? Or, if that's spread out amongs the "100 to 499 staff", then it doesn't sound like much at all...
when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?"
Is anybody really intersted in this?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
i am a comment you will never, ever read
if you are reading this, then you have entered the ironic realm of self-referential commentary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am getting far less voice mail and email than this time last year. I think it is becuase we laid off a lot of the middle people. As a developer, I constantly have to answer questions from marketing types who really have nothing better to do then write a 50 page spec, of which 2 paragraphs describes what the system does... and those two paragraphs were cut/pasted from an email from me.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
Website content management author Gerry McGovern says that something like 70 per cent of most websites goes unread
And something like 65% of all statistics are made up? To say 70% of most websites is a very broad statement and really needs narrowing of scope. And does he state anywhere how he came up with this figure? Any journal articles, documents outlining his research, etc?
Looking at the massive amount of blogs, personal sites, and other sites that hold little interest to those outside a set few, what about the percentage of websites that are read at all?
OK, so most people don't read every last word on every website that they visit. Big deal.
I don't read every last word in my morning paper and I certainly don't watch everything on TV.
But I do appreciate having the choice of being able to read what I want in my paper, or watching TV when I want. Similarly, I do appreciate being able to go to a website and pull information that's useful to me, when it's useful to me, regardless of how often it's been accessed in the past.
For example, I recently was putting an older hard disk drive in a PC, simply to see if it still worked reliably. If it did then I was going to keep it around for emergencies or perhaps donate it to someone else, if it didn't then I was going to recycle it.
Unfortunately, this drive didn't have its master/slave jumper settings, or even acceptable CHS (cylinder, heads and sectors) values on it, and the accompanying documentation had long since disappeared.
All I had to do to get the information that I needed was drill down to the relevant page of the manufacturer's website and, voila, I had the drive up and running within minutes.
Now, I can't imagine that there are many people who've looked at the same web page in the last year or two (after all, this was "only" a 540MB hard disk drive), but having that web page there where the information could easily be found made sense both for the manufacturer and for me.
The manufacturer spent next to nothing putting that information there where it could be found (and no doubt saved a lot of money that it would otherwise have spent on technical support calls) and I got what I wanted too, almost instantaneously. A win-win situation all around.
Now, why would the manufacturer care about how often the page has been accessed? It it somehow hurting it's bottom line to have that page sitting on a server somewhere? I don't think so.
Much as I loathe the phrase "information wants to be free", sometimes it does.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
First of all, it's hard to know what websites are going to "take off". Did the guys at homestarrunner.com expect the kind of response they got? Not initially, that's for sure.
Second, not every website is MEANT for lots of activity. I have a homepage, and it's meant for small traffic from people I know. It's probably low traffic enough to be counted as one of those sites that goes "unread", but it serves the purpose that I intended it for.
There's no denying that the web has plenty of bad abuses of HTML. (Many of which would be erased if Geocities and other sites would just clean out their inactive accounts). But it's not hard to avoid such sites and move on.
As one who cannot afford all the new masturbatory gadgets that come out, I often wonder how much they actually contribute to productivity, rather than further encumbering their users.
Sure we can pull some odd-ball statistic saying that 70% of web content isn't read, but is it the same 70% for all people? Of course not.
/. is without worth.
Your average internet user doesn't read slashdot, and doesn't care about slashdot news material. But that doesn't mean that
The same goes for just about any website. I don't need to read a website describing someone's two week ordeal that it took to get a salt-water fishtank in proper condition. I don't have fish, I might never have fish, but if I ever needed anecdotal advice it would now be there for the consideration.
The Internet is such a beautiful thing because of its high availability of information. As such, of course not all of it will be relavant to all people at all times. Frankly, I'm surprised the percentage is that low. I'd estimate that I view about one to two percent of web content at most.
Um, if you post your URL here on slashdot, I would guess you will get a lot more hits.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
But my parents always told me I was just information big-boned.
I knew I should have spent more time exercising and less time reading newspapers.
What diffrence does it make if no one ever reads it? Hard drive space is cheap, it's not like there is a 'limit' to the web.
Just having the information out there for someone to search and make use of is a benifit. Unless some harm can come from it, It should be online for someone who might need it to find it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
A good example would be to ask how many people read the text anywhere on slashdo tbut main articles. I know I ignore everything else including the text to the right and left sides of the main screen.
I do security
I wonder what percent of people will scroll over that without reading it.
I tend to stay away from websites for a couple of reasons:
The pages are poorly organized or poorly laid out.
The navigation is terrible.
And the big issue:
The person cannot spell, has no idea what grammar means, and resorts to using four-letter words over and over.
Honestly, basic writing skills go a long way. I want to read something written by someone who has a brain. If they cannot even run spell check on their article, why should I care to read it?
Another thing to remember is that some websites are niches. I do not know how many sites I have run across that are fan sites for old television shows. For some reason a question comes up about the show and I go looking through Google for information. Those small fan sites can be awesome resources - when you have that particular need. I have seen counters in the double digits on sites that were virtual shrines to a children's show.
Ditto with information on other little things, like short stories by a certain writer. I do not need the information constantly, nor is there a lot for me to talk about Joseph Payne Brennan, but I wanted to find out about compilations of his work. A quick search turned up the names of his books. This is certain to work for writers many times more obscure.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
E-enema.
haha i kill me. Mod this down appropriately now.
Too Bad /. can also be labeled a "blog."
/.? Hell no, but it serves it's purpose, and that's why I do it. I also post photographs I take with some of the cameras I make. Is this content "worth" anything to you? Probably not. UNless you want to see pinhole photography.
blogs != crap
While I agree that most of the "blogs" out there are of little or no use - some are important to a small group of people. I have a blog, and my family and close friends read and post to it. Will it ever be
Don't be so quick to judge.
Please email all complaints to root@127.0.0.1 and the issue will be dealt with in due time.
That's exactly the point I came on here to make. It is impossible for the private Webmaster (and probably commercial Webmasters) to know what information might be useful.
I have an eclectic mix of information on my personal Web site. I doubt very many people would be interested in everything I post, but my Web site offers information found nowhere else on the Web that I know is of interest to several people. Several people have expressed interest and appreciation in the copy of Bagster's "History of English Translations and Translators" that I have on my site, and others have said they have enjoyed my story about my Navy experiences. Maybe someone else would be interested in my college class (Advanced Lasers) report on dye lasers? But, what is most relevant to the question of posting only interesting information would probably be my autobiography, which necessarily contains arcane details of limited appeal.
In matters of research, it is impossible to predict what little bit of information might make all the difference to a single reader. As someone who does a fair amount of research, more information generally is better than less, provided that the information is organized for rapid searching. I rarely need an entire document (the longer, the less-likely), but I often need some brief bit of information that often is not included in any article.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?"
I for one put stuff on my webpage as reference for myself. I do put some small content there for other to read, and the logs do show that it does get read.
Ok, so perhaps 70 percent of all content goes unread. It's still good to have it there. Even if the site's navigation controls are terrible, even if the site is poorly organized, even if it's not updated very frequently...
The information can still be Googled.
The fact that Google and other search engines index by content rather than by title, author, or whatever, means that when someone does go to look up a particular piece of information, if there's something relevant on your site, they'll find it there. If you think about it, this is the ultimate indexing system. Microsoft has been trying to make this work in Windows for nearly a decade (remember the abomination called 'Find Fast' - not to mention their latest attempt, WinFS?) and failing miserably. Google handles it with all manner of grace and speed.
So go ahead, put up that content. Put up as much content as you like. Someday, it's going to be just the thing somebody needs to read, and when they need it, they'll find it on your site.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
...that I got from an old boss.
"The question you need to continue to ask yourself while writing anything is, 'Why should anyone care about what I'm writing.'"
When I bother to ask myself that question, I generally avoid the embarassment of writing pointless drivel, either here or on the various sites I've put up. Haven't always kept it in mind, but last I checked I was still human, so that's not surprising.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I only read comments ranged 4-5, and MAYBE 3 if it's a slow day. the rest of those comments go ignored, and bloating the /. database.
if only people would check to see if someone had already posted the same thing, stay on topic, not flame, and once again ask 'does anyone want to read this'?
I my self am breaking a few of those rules right now. I know this same comment has already been posted, and I know most of you don't care about it, AND... my bet is it doesn't break 3.
no comment
Simply put:
:)
- Producing good quality material takes time and patience.
- People have always cranked out "information' that really isn't. The forms may have become different (e.g. powerpoint slides with spiffy animations) but the real substance is more often lost.
+ Couple this with an uncontrolled profit motives and the situation is even more appalling (as an example, just recall how many "technical" presentations are just sales pitches in disguise).
- The abuse is much more rampant today as the good stuff is increasingly drowned out by the ever rising noise level.
enough said
Im sure a much higher percent of books in libraries goes unread. It is not a bad thing. We hoard information because it is never certain when it will be usefull. There are tons of books from ancient grece that we can't find now because no one kept copies. we only knoe they existed because they are referenced in other books we did keep. tons of scholars would kill to get their hands on those books that are now lost.
Information overload? 70% of the Internet goes unread? Hell, I for one know I don't read any of the articles Slashdot links to! And judging from the /. crowd, most of like to make those linked articles part of the 70% and get directly to the Funny Comments (mmmm, Beowulf, Soviet Russia, hot grits, and 1.2.3. profit jokes!)
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Google News
Game Rankings
GameTab
I think sites like these are the future of info dissemination. I don't have the time to check out the separate game review and movie review watering holes. I have my local paper bookmarked, and BBC News, but all other news comes from Google. So on down the list. These meta-sites save a buttload of time and research.
When I do my online shopping, I always look for customer ratings. Now, I don't have to. Instead of the opinions of fifty average joes, I have the opinions of fifty paid professionals. Now, before you come at me and say that those reviewers might be paid to say something good, I can say from experience that bought opinions aren't as prevalent as you think and least come without a slew of spelling and grammar mistakes.
It's the wave of the future, like it or not. ve3d.com is fast becoming the unofficial hub of gaming news, despite the fact that you could fit its in-house content in a thimble and their admins' lack of journalistic ability is exposed on a daily basis.
And honestly, how many of you have /. as your primary info source? It's great, don't get me wrong, but it's another example of a meta-site...one where many people don't even take the time to RTFA. Content is not king once you realize the threshold of human consumption. You just end up bowling people over with sound and fury.
I don't have a cell phone, pager, or use IM, but I'm still overloaded by email. I have my primary email, my site registration email, my new primary since the old primary's shot through with spam, my work email, a website email, an alias for that website email...Then there are stock tickers, weather reports, sports scores, online banking...
I think, however, that the worst element is spam. Not just unsolicited email, but telemarketing calls, junk mail, door-to-door, etc. Then there are TV commercials, radio commercials, print media commercials. It's advertising that kills. Something like 80% of all email in the US is unsolicited. How many dinners have you completed without a sales call? How many days have you gone without another credit card in the mail? Yadda, yadda, yadda, and I wonder how many even read this far.
No way, you're totally wrong. Far from being encumbered, I'm now enjoying two-handed surfing!
I pulled out some statistics from my email activity for the past two and a half years:
Highest number of emails sent in one day: 14 May 2003, 26 emails
Highest number of emails received in one day: 10 Jan 2003, 80 emails
Average number of emails sent daily: 4.75 emails
Average number of emails received daily: 15.2
Total number of emails sent (to date): 1747
Total number of emails received (to date): 11355
Ratio of received to sent emails: 6.5 (ie. 1 email is sent for every 6.5 emails received)
The above numbers are spam-free. I use Lotus Notes to extract my email data to excel and use data analysis functions. My average received these days is more in the range of 50-70, since I got promoted from a lowly tech writer to a quality manager, *sigh*.
I was unable to segregate the number of emails where my name is in the "To:" list compared to the "CC:" list, this information would probably give me a better handle on how much of my mail actually matters. But my sent to receive ratio suggests roughly 5 out of 6 emails are not directly of interest to me, an 83.3% information obesity factor?
E.W. (as opposed to eeeeeww)
"rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?"
Yes. Big Brother is very interested in consuming all of this information.
Check this column for a summary if you don't have time -- and who has?
Big Brother has the time, the skills, the manpower and the hardware.
Google for Echelon, Carnivore, Patriot Act I & II,
etc... There are hundreds of articles in yro.slashdot.org covering these issues.
Keep the email flowing, it keeps Big Brother busy.....
Something about this article really set me off. Read if you're interested.
First off, the only way to solve the "too much crufty information" is to implement a central planning system of some sort. This doesn't have to be a "central committee" or anything like that. It can be as simple as marketing types deciding what's cool and what's not. Then you'd have to deny people the ability to put up (or at least have linked to) what you consider "uncool."
You'd have to do this to reduce the amount of cruft.
Of course, we've seen the success of these restrictive planning systems.
The funny thing is that the internet does this, after a fashion. Things that people aren't interested in are not linked to, and thus are far less likely to be found by search engines. If you wanted to eliminate cruft, you might just not pay attention to anything below a certain linking threshhold. It wouldn't be perfect, but it wouldn't be bad.
Also, a note about receiving crufty emails. Yes, it happens. People send you the strangest, most useless crap all the time. We have a situation where I work where two or three secrataries dominate my inbox by inundating it with "word tips," "lost and found notices," and seminar announcements. It makes up about 1/4 of my non-automated email every day. Can't delete it because important stuff is sometimes in there.
The problem is because the sender thinks that these things are important. Most likely, in her little microcosm, it is. If you ask a secretary the most important things about running an office, you'll probably get answers like "office supplies and appointments," or "maintaining a friendly atmosphere" (which they interpret to mean everyone helping everyone else).
Of course, she's not alone. All of us have different priorities for running the business. I think that keeping the main fileserver and code repository running is a big thing. Surprise, surprise, that's my main job.
I think the solution to many of these problems is not to filter the emails (though that certainly helps), nor is it to disallow the emails. I think the best solution is to provide an appropriate forum. A private usenet server is an excellent place to post seminar announcements. A web page or wiki is a great place to have end-users help end-users. Might also be a good spot to have that lost-and-found list.
We've put up a wiki, and I'm introducing people to it, especially the serious email bombers (or maybe they're strafers?). We'll see how it works out.
Another problem, of course, is making all of these tools available and usable in the right way without the tools consuming all of your work time. I don't know the solution to this, but I do think that proper tools and proper integration are the future path of the information world.
Anyways, let me know what you think.
1.) In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters of hot grits imagine YOU! 2.) ??? 3.) profit
Despite that, when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?"
Oh.. kind of like radio.slashdot.org
Think of the WWW as a huge, unedited encyclopedia that also includes porn, gambling, urban myths, lies, scams, the goatse guy, rants, conspiracy theories ... you get the idea. Now, let's say you go to the ATI website to download the updated drivers for your video card. Are you going to read the whole website? Hell, NO! You're only going to read what you absolutely have to to get the drivers. That people don't read everything on every site they visit is a sign of selectivity, nothing more.
Many english courses require you to write a specific
number of words in your essay. This has taught us to write a lot of bs because it seems that quantity is more important than quality. Teachers usually don't care if the information is relevant or not as long as it stays in subject and that you formulate proper sentences. There's our influence!
An endless supply of content ranging from banal trivia to awe-inspiring knowledge is why the Internet has become the modern equivalant of the Greek Oracle.
There is literally no question that I can't Google an answer for within ten minutes. It really is the sum collection of all human knowledge and the idea of periodically "cleaning it up" is simply ridiculous.