Slashdot Mirror


Tiny Sites Aren't Small Potatoes

xtrucial writes "Jakob Nielsen of usability fame has a new article up about the perhaps-unexpected power of tiny websites: 'Considering that the Web as a whole will have about 4 trillion page views this year, the [low-traffic] sites might seem irrelevant with their pitiful millions of page views. But within their niche they dominate.'" (In particular, Nielsen is talking about weblogs.)

234 comments

  1. It's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Often when I use Google to search for something obscure, there's one or two people that have written something truly informative/helpful about it. More often than not, it's someone's blog.

    1. Re:It's true by Talking+Goat · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've also noticed this, and have been utilizing Daypop to get some good blog search returns. Most are small, concise, and great resources.

      --

      + G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
    2. Re:It's true by Talking+Goat · · Score: 1

      How, exactly, is this any more offtopic than the other dozen posts about blogs? I guess I'm losing it in my old age...

      --

      + G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
    3. Re:It's true by zonker · · Score: 1

      jee, and all i find are links to people's cat pictures and bad poetry.

    4. Re:It's true by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      You'd also find this interesting and useful:

      The Blogdex at MIT - the "weblog diffusion index"

      --
      Fuck it
    5. Re:It's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha
      mod parent up funny!

    6. Re:It's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why God invented M2. Or was that CmdrTaco? I can never tell the difference.

  2. That is, of course by cscx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Till Slashdot links to it.

    1. Re:That is, of course by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Thats when they go from small potatoes to French Fries

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    2. Re:That is, of course by Wuffle · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Freedom Fries?

    3. Re:That is, of course by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Funny

      or mashed!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    4. Re:That is, of course by gerardrj · · Score: 3, Informative

      No.... He means french fries.

      Since you are apparently ignorant of this, I will educate you:

      The "french" in french fry does not refer to the place of origin or the nation of France. "frenching" is a way of slicing food in to long thin strips. In the case of these potato frenches, you place them in hot oil in a procedure known as "deep fat FRYing".
      Americans, being lazy with language as they are, shortened the term "french fried potatos" to "french fries".

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    5. Re:That is, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is good information, I thank you.

    6. Re:That is, of course by vericgar · · Score: 1

      shouldn't it be fried frenched potatos instead, since they are frenched before they are fried?

    7. Re:That is, of course by Wuffle · · Score: 1

      Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. Must've hit your head hard to knock out your sense of humour.

    8. Re:That is, of course by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      No, they end up as baked potatoes...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:That is, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought of that, but you've got a point. Technically you are frying frenched potatos (is "french potatos" valid? That is, is "french" a proper adjective to describe something that has been frenched, or do you have to use the past participle to make it an adjective?)

      This also reminds me of "french fried onions" that you would put on a greenbean casserole. Would those as well be fried french onions?

  3. And big sites aren't big cucumbers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Duh.

  4. If by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

    it was so noticable why does the world not Know ??

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  5. wow by davebarz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, this is certainly a breakthrough: "Sites that are more popular get more hits, but sites that are less popular still get hits." Wow.

    1. Re:wow by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 0

      In other news, water has been reported to be wet.
      .
      .
      .
      This just in, Fran Drescher is still annoying.

    2. Re:wow by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 1

      Not unless you freeze it :)

      --

      --
      "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

    3. Re:wow by fliplap · · Score: 1

      Ah yes my son. Water is wet. But can it get wet?

    4. Re:wow by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Snow can get wet. It either ruins it or makes it better, depending on how you intend to use it.

    5. Re:wow by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      Stating the obvious, reminds me of a brilliant piece of comedy...

      Television Host (Graham Chapman): Good evening. Tonight - dinosaurs. I have here sitting in the studio next to me an elk. Aaagghhhh! Oh, I'm sorry, Anne Elk, Mrs Anne Elk.
      Miss Elk (John Cleese, as a very prim lady): Miss.
      Host: Miss Anne Elk, who is an expert on the...
      Elk: No, no, no, Anne Elk.
      Host: What?
      Elk: Anne Elk, not Anne Expert.
      Host: No, no, I was saying that you, Miss Elk, were an, A.N. not A.N.N.E., expert...
      Elk: Oh!
      Host: ...on elks - I'm sorry, on dinosaurs.
      Elk: Yes, I certainly am, Chris, how very true, my word yes!
      Host: Now, Miss Elk - Anne - you have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
      Elk: Could I just say, Chris, for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?
      Host: Er... exactly. What is it?
      Elk: Where?
      Host: No, no, no. What is your theory?
      Elk: Oh, what is my theory?
      Host: Yes.
      Elk: Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my theory.
      Host: (slightly impatient) I am asking.
      Elk: And well you may. Yes my word you may well ask what it is, this theory of mine. Well, this theory that I have--that is to say, which is mine-- ...is mine.
      Host: (more impatient) I know it's yours. What is it?
      Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory?
      Host: Yes!
      Elk: Oh, my theory that I have follows the lines I am about to relate. (Coughs) Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.
      Host: Oh God.
      Elk: Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. [Impatient noises from Host] The Theory, by A. Elk. That's A for Anne, it's not by a elk.
      Host: Right....
      Elk: This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory. Ahem. Ready?
      (Host moans)
      Elk: The Theory by A. Elk brackets Miss brackets. My theory is along the following lines.
      Host: Oh God.
      Elk: All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too.
      Host: That's it, is it?
      Elk: Right, Chris.
      Host: Well, Anne, this theory of yours seems to have hit the nail on the head.
      Elk: And it's mine.
      Host: (ironical) Thank you for coming along to the studio.
      Elk: My pleasure, Chris.
      Host: Er...Britain's newest wasp farm...
      Elk: It's been a lot of fun.
      Host: ...opened last week...
      Elk: Saying what my theory is.
      Host: Yes, thank you.
      Elk: And whose it is.
      Host: Yes. ...opened last week...
      Elk: I have another theory.
      Host: Not today, thank you.
      Elk: My theory number two, which is the second theory that I have. Ahem! This theory...
      Host: Oh look...shut up!
      Elk: ...is what I am about to say...
      Host: Oh please shut up!
      Elk: ...which, with what I have said, are the two theories that are mine and belong to me.
      Host: Look, if you don't shut up I shall shoot you.
      Elk: Ahem! My brace of theories, which I possess the ownership of, which belongs to me...
      (BANG!)
      (Pause)
      Elk: Ahem. The Theory the Second by Anne...
      (MACHINE GUN FIRE)

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  6. oh great by countzer0interrupt · · Score: 5, Funny
    the [low-traffic] sites might seem irrelevant with their pitiful millions of page views
    Great. My counter's currently on 2137, and that's after a year. I'm off to hang myself.
    1. Re:oh great by Derg · · Score: 1

      hahahah... Now your site has been slashdotted... Nice job...+1 intentional /.'ing

      --
      I'm a little tea pot.
    2. Re:oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information."

      Haha, nice. And I was enjoying that "IBM Hackers Commercial" thing too. :)

    3. Re:oh great by jericho4.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      lol, I just clicked on the link to your site to see that you've run out of bandwidth. Do us all a favour and report back how many hits whining on slashdot gets you!

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    4. Re:oh great by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>the [low-traffic] sites might seem irrelevant with their pitiful millions of page views

      Great. My counter's currently on 2137, and that's after a year. I'm off to hang myself.


      Well that should get some hits. What is the URL for the webcast?

    5. Re:oh great by blincoln · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You have to have a niche to play to.

      Back in the mid-90s, I had a website with a low hitcount too. It stayed low because I didn't have much that people were after. Now I run a niche site for fans of the deleted bits from the Legacy of Kain series, and I'm up to 659906 total page requests (11865510 total requests) and 73435 distinct hosts served since October.

      I don't post the link here because I don't need the excess casual traffic - I'm already close to my bandwidth limit for this month.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    6. Re:oh great by bsharitt · · Score: 0, Redundant

      My site hit a low for this month today with only about 30 hits.

    7. Re:oh great by LordNightwalker · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't post the link here because I don't need the excess casual traffic - I'm already close to my bandwidth limit for this month.

      Umm, you might as well have posted the URL straightaway; twenty seconds in google are sufficient with the directions you've provided. Next time try to be a bit less specific; I guess lots of people here will have reacted just like I did: "hmm, let's see if I can find it anyways... Bingo!" ;)

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
    8. Re:oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.thelostworlds.net wouldnt happen to be your site would it? *evil grin*

    9. Re:oh great by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      It's a perfect opportunity to troll for hits, isn't it? Of course, I would, but last time that happened to my pet project, it cost me a bloody fortune.

      Stupid bandwidth charges from a front page slashdotting...

    10. Re:oh great by Suppafly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Great. My counter's currently on 2137, and that's after a year. I'm off to hang myself.

      People tend to avoid free hosts like geocities because the content is generally poor, and there are usually annoying popups and ads.. get better hosting and have some content, you'll get that many hits a month.

    11. Re:oh great by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      My site hit a low for this month today with only about 30 hits.


      Thats because its yet another slashdot clone running phpnuke with no original content. The market for sites that link to content on real news sites is already full.. if you expect people to visit, generate some new and interesting content. ..And ditch nuke.. slash clone sites are a dime a dozen anymore and most sites don't have enough visitors to necessitate the overhead (read: bloat) that the prepackaged cms programs provide. Think about the sites that you like to visit that have less than 1000 visitors, do they run slash-like code? I doubt it.

    12. Re:oh great by garbs · · Score: 1

      The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.

      Haha, I bet your counter is now sitting on more then 2137 right about now. The power of good ol slashdotting.

    13. Re:oh great by jedrek · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I run... a number of non-commercial, totally free hobby sites, most of them pretty high quality. One of our sites is an online gallery, where users can submit themed photos. Anyway, we launched it a couple of months ago, the reply wasn't too hot... until we got linked on k10k, then as Yahoo's site of the day. Then USA Today, BBC2 Radio and I ended up getting interviewed for a quote in the NY Times. We got shut down (for a bit) after generating 87gb of traffic in 2 weeks.

      The other sites we have generate maybe 1/5th of that, and there's a bunch of them. Each one of them fills a certain niche, some are pretty low traffic personal sites, some are genere specific info sites, some are targeted to the public at large (like the site I mentioned in the first paragraph). Each of them has a place on the web and each of them may be as important to someone as any other.

    14. Re:oh great by xpurple · · Score: 1

      Hits? I get a ton of hits. One of the pages I host anyway. mka pictures. 3000+ pictures of the olsen twins!

      --
      http://www.xpurple.com
    15. Re:oh great by WeblionX · · Score: 1

      Aw, don't feel so bad. And if that counter only counts the people who visit your main page, you're doing a lot better than I am. If not, then I may be beating you... Er, well, nice knowing you!

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
    16. Re:oh great by countzer0interrupt · · Score: 1

      I just checked my Geocities site statistics, and I now have 913 hits. If you're confused because I said 2137 hits, it's because that refers to my personal website. Anyway, just thought I'd let you all know. :-) BTW, I thought a Slashdotting would be worth more than 913 hits, but just goes to show the minimal amount of bandwidth you get for a Geocities site. Or maybe it could be the 6MB ZIP file I have hosted there... :-)

    17. Re:oh great by jpbarber · · Score: 1

      That is exactly right, geeocities and their like suck. Just pay the money for your own domain it is not that expensive and if you are concerned about traffic to your site you definitely want your own domain. Plus if you have your own domain you can have it listed with different search engines, although this may cost you. As all things in life nothing truly good is free. How serious are you about spreading your message?

  7. What? The category of crazy ranting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I guess the blogs win then.

  8. Ol' Jakob... by slappyjack · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just wanted to speak up and say:

    That guy bugs the shit out of me.

    Period.
    --

    1. Re:Ol' Jakob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I commend your bravour in speaking out this obvious, yet taboo, perspective.

      I also will hope that the idiot who moded you down be chased by rabid donkeys in need of sex into a back alley.

      Moderators on this site are really annoying. </rant>

    2. Re:Ol' Jakob... by meta.chris · · Score: 1

      I also have problems with his generalisations of what makes web sites 'useable' and 'readable'. I like scrolling down, and other things jake thinks are no-no's.

      However, I'm more amused by how by using "Ol' Jakob", you may have been referencing a certain Ol' ***, whose colorful tales have been posted here on many an occasion.

    3. Re:Ol' Jakob... by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

      I can't stand him myself. I read his usability book, and I've heard his lectures. The guy basically doesn't care much for websites. He thinks everyone on the Internet has an attention span as short as his, and cannot be bothered to read more than three lines of text on any subject. He likes bullet points - bullet points and bold face fonts. He wants the web to be one giant archive of PowerPoint presentations.

      His usability guidelines are either unoriginal rants uttered by countless designers before him, or nit-picky details that are often irrelavent to the site's purpose. Hmm, was that caustic enough?

    4. Re:Ol' Jakob... by Tteddo · · Score: 1

      As a web developer who has done 70 or 80 sites I say bravo!! Well spoken!

    5. Re:Ol' Jakob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. It doesn't take a book to say:

      "Keep your home page under 15k(images and all) and limit your home page links to at most 6. Make sure you have a contact us link and an info link."

      I should be the usability king. Cheers Jakob, you are the master of the obvious. I would post my new site here, but it ain't finished.

      I can say that Jakob would be proud. My home page is 6k, images and all, (including menu) so far. I think the content will push it to well over 8.5k.

      Maybe I will post here and casually slip it in on the next usability discussion (shameless promotion anyone?)

      l8,
      AC

    6. Re:Ol' Jakob... by slappyjack · · Score: 1



      Yeahp.

      I worked for a guy who was a complete Jakob worshipper.

      "CANT YA MAKE IT NOT SCROLL!"

      no.

      "ALL IMAGES SHOULD LINK TO SOMETHING! PEOPLE EXPECT THAT!"

      what people?

      "NO, NO, THE HPYERTEXT SHOULD NOT BE THE SENTENCE MAKING THE POINT, IT SHOULD BE THE "CLICK HERE" LINK WE GIVE THEM AFTER THE POPINT!"

      because the average lemming doesnt understand that ANY of the pretty blue text will be a link. Nobody wants to teach anyone enything, because it might prevent them from making a buck somewhere.

      "CANT YA FORCE IS SO WHEN THEY TURN THEIR TEXT FONT ALL THE WAY UP IT'LL STILL LOOK THE SAME?!?!?!?"

      No.

      "WHY SONT ALL THEM THINGS ON THE RIGHT LINE UP ALL THE TIME?!?!?!"

      It's HTML, you dick. You want everything to line up, make a magazine with Quark and stop bothering me

      kill me, please.

    7. Re:Ol' Jakob... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Me too. This is just psuedo-scientific bullshit designed to make the guy look smart. However it really makes him look like an idiot. Just look at his first paragraph closely:
      We've known since 1997 that the Web follows a Zipf distribution for website popularity as expressed in traffic and incoming links.
      What bullshit. Since 1997? Really, what month? I looked at his ZIPf bullshit page and it is simply a linear relationship.

      Simply stated, big sites get disproportionally more traffic than smaller sites. A site ranked number 100, for example, will get 10 times more traffic than a site ranked number 1,000.
      He gets his words mixed up here - it is proportionally more traffic.


      (In general, site N gets M/N times the traffic of site M.)

      No, not "in general" - specifically. Dividing the number of hits or visits to a small site by the hits or visits to a large site gives exactly the ration of the two. There is no "in general" about it.


      Me too!

  9. "tiny sites"? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The majority of blogs are on Blog sites or fourth level entries with a port number tagging along.

    The "tiny" weblog won't be prevalent for long as the larget ones get advertising and the smaller ones are drowned out by "free blog" sites.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:"tiny sites"? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Nielsen is defining each Weblog as a separate site; the fact that there are a bunch of Weblogs on one server doesn't matter since they aren't necessarily related. So free hosting doesn't affect the size of Weblogs.

  10. To Mr. Nielsen by veddermatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The day your sites are legible at 1600x1200 I may pay attention to your "usablilty" articles. However, I faind the exceedingly long lines of text your sites produce hard to read, and so I choose to pay attention to those who practice a real, applicable sense of usablilty.

    I'm sure you have many good things to say, I just wish it didn't hurt my eyes to read it.

    OK, Mod me as offtopic / troll now. =P

    --
    Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    1. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reduce your browser window size, or change your font size. You have full control of those (as per proper usability guidelines).

    2. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by LiamQ · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're using a windowing system, you can almost definitely resize your browser window to fit the amount of text that you prefer. If you have a mouse, try clicking it on the left or right window border and then drag it sideways until you have the window width that you want.

    3. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try using a modern browser such as IE, Mozilla, Netscape, Safari, etc., which allows you to change the text size of a site.

    4. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by SlashdotLemming · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reduce your browser window size, or change your font size. You have full control of those (as per proper usability guidelines).

      I hereby decree that all doorknobs must be 12 feet from the floor. Bending over is hard for tall people so making the handle very high is most convenient since you have full control over wearing platform shoes (as per proper usability guidelines).

      I am pretty, Oh so pretty...

    5. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      It's not his problem, it's a problem with your default text size. Go into your browser's configuration and change increase it. Or if you're in IE, hold down the Ctrl key and roll your mouse scrolly thing to increase or decrease your font size.

    6. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by yintercept · · Score: 1

      I've always subscribed to the notion that the end user should control their own viewing space. However, there's always that crowd that doesn't have the where with all to figure out how to adjust their browsers, and the lowest common denominator always seems to rule.

      I lost a contract recently because the user didn't like the hideous font I used on the page.

      The page used the browser's default font. The client couldn't figure out why the site looked good on my computer and horrible on hers.

    7. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you can hold down the CTRL key (on a windows box) and use the mouse scroll wheel to resize the page font.

    8. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wasn't it just a few days ago that people with high resolution screens were complaing that GameSpot or some such enforced a certain line length, thereby reducing the page to a thin column in the browser? And now you're complaining that this site _doesn't_ enforce line lenghts? Make up your minds!

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    9. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The day your sites are legible at 1600x1200 I may pay attention to your "usablilty" articles. However, I faind the exceedingly long lines of text your sites produce hard to read, and so I choose to pay attention to those who practice a real, applicable sense of usablilty.
      Your own web site isn't even legible at 1600x1200 because you're hard coding your font sizes in your style sheet rather than using a relative size like a percentage. Fixed font sizes will override what font size a user has specified as their default font size in their browsers.
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    10. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's only usable under Windows it's not usable. period.

    11. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ctrl-+...OH MY GOD! The text got bigger!

    12. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If Linux browsers don't have page resizing features, they're not usable. period.

    13. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ctrl-[plus/minus] in Mozilla. Opera I'm sure is the same as in the Windows version, and I don't know what it is in Konqueror, but I'm sure it supports it. Most other Linux browsers are Gecko-based, and are probably the same as Mozilla.

    14. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by bcilfone · · Score: 1

      Mozilla: View -> Text Zoom -> 200%

    15. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      Your own web site [eskimospy.com] isn't even legible at 1600x1200 because you're hard coding your font sizes in your style sheet rather than using a relative size like a percentage. Fixed font sizes will override what font size a user has specified as their default font size in their browsers.

      Only in IE, other browsers have no problem scaling fixed font sizes up.. Fixed font sizes are the only reason I ever fire up a mozilla based browser..

    16. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by FattMattP · · Score: 1
      Only in IE, other browsers have no problem scaling fixed font sizes up..
      Ahh, but it's not automatic. You still have to increase the font size by hand and then decrease it when you go to another site that handles fonts properly. If he used a relative font size then it'd work without user intervention in all browsers.
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    17. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
      Maybe he's still in stages 1 to 6 of Performance Reviews at his work.

      Time to go grab some falafel...

      Vox

    18. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Henk+Poley · · Score: 1

      Ow, then I might suggest using a browser that can zoom the page? Something like Opera. A zoom factor of 120% or 130% usualy makes pages most readable on 1600x1200 displays.

    19. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by dekashizl · · Score: 1

      Lots of responses so far saying "just make your font bigger" or "just resize your window". But I get your point, which is that it should work without you having to "just" do something. I'm used to seeing this attitude on /. though, typically where somebody complains "I get spam emails when i order online" and the response is "just install a linux firewall with sendmail and spamAssassin and ..." Yeah, thanks.

      In this case, though, I must weigh in to say that I feel browser windows should be vertical, not horizontal. The typical 8.5"x11" page is of good proportions so that your eyes don't get tired swinging back and forth, nor do you have to page/scroll too often. Emulate this with your browser window (make it about 900px wide, and 1200px tall), and you will be happy in general. Many sites are aimed at users with 800x600 displays (with maximized window, presumably), so will often make hard tables of around 700px width.

    20. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by veddermatic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I don't claim to be a usability expert and haven't told anyone else how to code their sites, just that I have a hard time reading a "usability" experts site without having to jump trough hoops.... the same hoops that many have suggested for my site. =)

      I also have no problems reading my site at 1600x1200, and my site is coded for one person.... me.

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    21. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Speare · · Score: 1

      Make up your minds!

      Wow, surprise of surprises, multiple minds may produce distinctly differing preferences!

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    22. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 1

      The day your site validates without errors I may pay attention to your opinions about web site design. I ran eskimospy.com through the HTML validator at W3.org ... and it flunked the basics so badly that their validator barfed ....

      "I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is impossible to validate the document. The sources I tried are:

      * The HTTP Content-Type field.

      * The XML Declaration.

      * The HTML "META" element.

      And I even tried to autodetect it using the algorithm defined in Appendix F of the XML 1.0 Recommendation.

      Since none of these sources yielded any usable information, I will not be able to validate this document. Sorry. Please make sure you specify the character encoding in use.

    23. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Not that I agree with using anything other than 'em's for measurement of font sizes on the web, but don't most browsers (certainly any that I've used recently) have the ability to specify a minimum font size, that way you can be assured that all pages will be legible.

    24. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by sharkey · · Score: 1
      If you're using a windowing system, you can almost definitely resize your browser window to fit the amount of text that you prefer.

      Or, if you're using a modern browser, you can use your own stylesheets to lay out the pages you view in a format that you prefer.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    25. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " The day your sites are legible at 1600x1200 I may pay attention to your "usablilty" articles."

      Are you using mozilla? Just hit ctrl+= and the text will get bigger. Use ctrl+- to make the text smaller. I love it.

      Note, I'm not a mad C programmer. Ctrl+= referrs to the control key and the 'equals' key which is above the square brackets. You can also use the + and - keys on the num pad as well.

    26. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But I thought we were talking about *tiny* sites?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    27. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by veddermatic · · Score: 1

      I made no offers of opinions about web-site design. I noted that Nielsen's sites, displayed on large windows, with default font sizes are illegible.

      As far as validating, if your validator can't figure out from this:

      <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
      <h tml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

      What to validate against, then I Guess you'll jsut never lsiten to my opinions. Which makes me really, really sad. Really.

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    28. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1
      I think really this is the fault of your browser - if the site just gives a

      element containing some text then the browser damn well ought to format it so it is readable.

      If Mr Nielsen has done something strange to deliberately screw up the formatting (as so many web sites sadly do) then you have a case. Otherwise, your complaint should really be addressed at the browsers. I completely agree, long thin lines of text are not very readable and the browser ought to line-wrap to 70 columns or so.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    29. Re:To Mr. Nielsen by Ragica · · Score: 1
      It's hard to understand people who run their browser maximised at high resolutions like 1600x1200 (i do know one such person)... especially when most sites are fixed width at 640, or 800 pixels. At least half your screen is blank, and you're constantly having to look leftwards for content.

      But of course, as others have mentioned, these sites often have microscopic hard coded font sizes which make it a strain to read on higher resolutions to start with.

      But if you have that much screen space, why not use it for something other htan your maximised browser. Your browser can be resized to fit half the screen width and you can actually see the stuff your supposed to be doing in the other half.... all the pathetic fixed with pages will fit in your browser without overly exceessive space wastage; and nicely flowed pages will be of the exact width you find ideal.

      There are many well known roots to these problems: web sites being designed by sadly clueless print designers (there's hardly a greater frustration in my life than my trying to explain to my sister who is a [good] graphics designer why her nice mockup just isn't going to work on the web... in any sort of web-like way); people too lazy (or stupid) to cope with the implications of flowed content; people ignorant of the fact that not everyone's screen looks exactly the same as their own.

      It's funny though that the poster I'm replying to complains about the article's linked site for "long lines" (ie. non-fixed width layout), while posting on slashdot which admirably has a non-fixed width content column... but then I can't recall anyone ever accusing slashdot of being beautiful, or a fine example of web layout either.

      Anyhow, the point I am not making (simply because so many others have already made it) is that the user should decide how wide to make their browser window and get some sort of reasonable display... fixed width sites settle on the "most popular" width to fix on... so many are either aflicted with gigantic unused spaces, where others are forced to scroll horizontally (unless they have Opera's superb zoom feature). And hey, there are even some freaks out there who actually (apparently having no sense of proprotion or aesthetics) like long lines... it means they can scan content faster, and have to scroll down less often.

      That's all. Nothing new or of much interest here. Sorry.

  11. Ironically enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've made about four-trillion websites with about one hit each.

    1. Re:Ironically enough... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 0

      Links? Or are we supposed to search for them?

  12. I like by tcd004 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Justin Timberlake's blog

    And Knotmag isn't bad either.

    tcd004

  13. Popular Science's Best Weblog: by seanthenerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot!

    From the article:
    Call it a guilty pleasure. You're not necessarily attracted to it, but you can't resist it's charm. Constantly updated with info from dark corners of the web you wouldn't otherwise visit, Slashdot is still the most recognized and informed science-related blog on the net. Intelligent [Ha! ...just kidding!] musings ramble from general science to space to biotech. Recommended dose: twice a day.

    Three cheers for Slashdot!

    (It's on page 98 of the July edition, if you're looking for it.

    1. Re:Popular Science's Best Weblog: by Ricin · · Score: 1

      You should watch more TV instead.

    2. Re:Popular Science's Best Weblog: by seanthenerd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoops, sorry. They were talking about http://science.slashdot.org/. I guess it doesn't get updated quite as often. Nevertheless, go Slashdot!

      For those who don't get PopSci, *gasp*, their next four are, in order
      o scienceblog.com
      o impactlab.com
      o techdirt.com
      o mygeekdom.com, which they refer to as "Slashdot with a potty mouth."

      What about the rest of you slashdotters? What are your favourites?

    3. Re:Popular Science's Best Weblog: by Ricin · · Score: 1

      hehe, you're doomed.

    4. Re:Popular Science's Best Weblog: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's +1 Scarry when you need it?

    5. Re:Popular Science's Best Weblog: by Otter · · Score: 1

      For a Slashdot Science-ish orientation with more stories: BottomQuark

  14. Blog was a possibility waiting to be implemented by Ricin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It took longer because it didn't have a win/win label at corporate places but it got there nonetheless.

    Now you can always look down at personal or hobbyists sites or blogs, but they do have the potential to capture certain events in time in a much more intense way (plus feedback) than the conventional and certainly the Big 5 media corps could ever dream of.

    It's like IM or SMS, it's a phenomenon that attracts many people and they build it while engaging, at least at the start. And any corp not smart enough to understand it or to find an obvious toll lock will either leave or loose or sue in that market.

    And you know what, if they can't turn blogging into a corporately controlled thing than its usefullness might perhaps been only understated :-)

    People will google if needed for what they want to read/see/hear.

  15. Here's why small works by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Small sites speak directly to the specific needs and interests of a committed user community, and thus have much higher value per page view. A site on growing blueberries can be a must-read service for people who farm them, and thus of immense value as a place to promote blueberry-farming equipment. "

    The big boys probably cannot be bothered to put up a site on growing blueberries. Where's the profit in it? Oh sure, if one corner of one portion of one of their consumer outlets of the corporate spigot wants to do a piece on blueberries because their latest polling found a 3.4% increase in interest in a key demographic in a semi-important market for them, they will post some corporate-ugly site on blueberries.

    Meanwhile, the guy or gal who really enjoys growing blueberries will put up a site out of the love of the activity -- and it will show in the way they write about blueberries. Those who are interested will seek that site out rather than the Blueberry, Inc. (R) (all rights reserved) (copy anything from us and feel our lawyer's wrath) site. It only gets 100 or 200 hits a day? The site owner is thrilled.

    People speaking to people directly. That's the Web, that's what it's for, that's what the megacorps would love to curtail or corral. But the Web will always be about people speaking to people. In that context, small works.

    1. Re:Here's why small works by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>>The big boys probably cannot be bothered to put up a site on growing blueberries. Where's the profit in it? Oh sure, if one corner of one portion of one of their consumer outlets of the corporate spigot wants to do a piece on blueberries because their latest polling found a 3.4% increase in interest in a key demographic in a semi-important market for them, they will post some corporate-ugly site on blueberries.

      Very true. Most small sites arent as 'professional' looking, but more information can be found on them than most any corporate sites. Corporates will lie to sell their own shit, or have stockholders to cater to, while a simple site will have 1 person do the whole thing. They'll control content and most of the time, enjoy it in the process.

      >>>>>Meanwhile, the guy or gal who really enjoys growing blueberries will put up a site out of the love of the activity -- and it will show in the way they write about blueberries. Those who are interested will seek that site out rather than the Blueberry, Inc. (R) (all rights reserved) (copy anything from us and feel our lawyer's wrath) site. It only gets 100 or 200 hits a day? The site owner is thrilled.

      I've found a few of my own sites like that. remix.overclocked.org just shows that community non-profit driven website for the fun it is. And prsonally, there's a few remixers (of game music) that would be damned hard to distinguish from real (check out Russel Cox - beautiful stuff he does).

      >>>>>>People speaking to people directly. That's the Web, that's what it's for, that's what the megacorps would love to curtail or corral. But the Web will always be about people speaking to people. In that context, small works.

      Kinda funny how the net's doing a full cycle on the web. I remembered the old altavista.digital.com for what it originally was: links to sites people found interestng. Only then did it start to implement a search engine, and a rudimentary one at that. And as time went on, they thought they could make it more "corporate". By the time they turned the text-only cookie off, I was at google.

      The web was never about e-commerce, corporate web sites, or any of the filler. It was a way you could have your own piece of the way the world was. You could put out what you thought and say, and let others contact you through email. Or course then, you actually connected to their email server and use it.

      In a way, it's been changed back to the beginning.

      --
    2. Re:Here's why small works by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

      People speaking to people directly. That's the Web, that's what it's for, that's what the megacorps would love to curtail or corral. But the Web will always be about people speaking to people. In that context, small works.

      About the only interest from people interested in money is requests we have received from companies wanting us to pay them to get links. No thanks. Our small site concerns retinal anatomy and function and gets approximately 35 thousand hits/day. This is not a for profit site and all material is contributed freely for dissemination etc... Of course the site design is about ten years old and when I can spend some time I will redesign it, but it has been run for no essentially no money and is hosted on an old G3 iMac running OS X, but everywhere I have gone for vision conferences, people know about Webvision or have borrowed material from it for their presentations. It's niche specific impact has actually surprised me.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:Here's why small works by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meanwhile, the guy or gal who really enjoys growing blueberries will put up a site out of the love of the activity

      Fanatics have an advantage over commercial entities in that they spend time on something that may not otherwise be profitable. It is not just being small, it is caring more about subject X than about money.

      Much of the work on open-source is driven by people who hate Microsoft more than they like money, for example. (I am not saying that hatred of MS is the only reason.)

    4. Re:Here's why small works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Much of the work on open-source is driven by people who hate Microsoft more than they like money, for example. (I am not saying that hatred of MS is the only reason.)

      In my experience as a KDE developer, virtually no substantial work on open-source projects is driven by hatred of Microsoft. That kind of resentment is good for filling forums like this with rabid comments from fanboys, but very few people will stay up all night coding out of hate. It requires a positive motivation.

    5. Re:Here's why small works by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      being hosted on a .edu tends to lend your site credibility (and probably higher google pagerank) than most niche websites, giving it a leg-up to the competition as well.

    6. Re:Here's why small works by cenobita · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, that's not really too accurate to say.

      I used to use IRC, AIM, etc. a lot, but then I discovered that most people pretty much suck and chatting is little more than a worthless timesink for bored people.

      I'm only somewhat joking.

      The net is a resource for information. Mind that i'm not making a specific definition of *how* we receive that information; "people speaking to people directly" is a pretty limited context when you take into account the dozens of other ways that we're able to (and do) gather and process information on the net. You can't simply reduce it to one giant fucking chatroom, because ideally, it's not, nor should it be.

    7. Re:Here's why small works by tcdk · · Score: 1
      Meanwhile, the guy or gal who really enjoys growing blueberries will put up a site out of the love of the activity -- and it will show in the way they write about blueberries. Those who are interested will seek that site out rather than the Blueberry, Inc. (R) (all rights reserved) (copy anything from us and feel our lawyer's wrath) site. It only gets 100 or 200 hits a day? The site owner is thrilled.


      Yes and no. As somebody else said, it's just a matter of defining your niche small enough to be king of it.

      My site is probably king of "Personal science fiction book review sites, with about 300 reviews, the occational news item and visitor comments".

      That doesn't mean that 99% of the people who could benefit from my site never visits my site. They go directly to BlueBerry-Inc.Com (or in my case scifi.com/amazon.com).

      Everytime somebody buys a bag of blueberries, the text BlueBerry-inc.com is stamped on the site. It's doesn't matter that bbi.com only contains positive information on blue berries and that their recipies uses way to much sugar. They don't even mention the less know breeds of blueberries (they don't sell they, so why should they?).

      Oh and bbi.com never links to anybody else. From reading this site you never get the idea that their may be a different opinion on how to grill blue berries.

      I get good positioning on google, when people search on the right key words (I'm going for "science fiction book reviews" as the words that will get you to my site - that's my real niche). And most of my visitors come from google.

      Google may be the great equalizer, but the thing is, most people will go directly to the site they think will provide them with the information they need.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is: Finding a niche is fine and all, but you are going to be king fish of a very small pond, if somebody with real money one day decides to move into your corner of the woods. Like when Amazon added the "visitor review" feature.
      --
      TC - My Photos..
    8. Re:Here's why small works by xtrucial · · Score: 1

      There are some specialized, IRC chat channels that are not bad. I hang out in one that discusses political theory, for example, and there's a small-but-smart crowd. The signal-to-noise ratio is dauntingly low on the more popular chat mediums, though, such as the ones you mentioned.

    9. Re:Here's why small works by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      Why redesign it at all? It's more or less perfect as it is. Maybe remove the blinking gifs but that's all. There's nothing more diappointing than seeing a relatively usable site get "redesigned" with bad javascript, pointless flash animations, badly designed tables and frames. All these things do is serve to make the site less navigable and even impossible for some web clients to render correctly.

    10. Re:Here's why small works by BWJones · · Score: 1

      Why redesign it at all? It's more or less perfect as it is. Maybe remove the blinking gifs but that's all. There's nothing more diappointing than seeing a relatively usable site get "redesigned" with bad javascript, pointless flash animations, badly designed tables and frames.

      Thank you for your input, and I want to assure you, we want to explicitly avoid any javascript or flash or frames etc... with the redesign as I would like to make is stricty an html driven site that is clean and fast. What I meant by the redesign is simply a cleaning up of a few bad links, getting rid of the backgrounds that we thought were so clever 10 years ago and in general making it more appropriate for an online text and include a more accessible table of contents which is surprisingly difficult to properly implement for online text books.

      Best,

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    11. Re:Here's why small works by cenobita · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, you're in PDX, too! :p

      Just kind of amusing to me this early in the morning.

      Eh, anyway. I realize that some are a-ok overall, but in general, i've just lost my taste for it. Something once exciting and interesting becomes mundane routine after awhile. All things in moderation, I suppose, but it's how i've come to feel about a lot of the social things I did when I was a teenager.

      And, no offense, but a political theory IRC channel just does *not* sound like fun, smart people or otherwise :p

    12. Re:Here's why small works by xtrucial · · Score: 1

      Eh, anyway. I realize that some are a-ok overall, but in general, i've just lost my taste for it. Something once exciting and interesting becomes mundane routine after awhile. All things in moderation, I suppose, but it's how i've come to feel about a lot of the social things I did when I was a teenager.

      Well, a few points. One, some people like routine. Two, some people dislike moderation (especially on Slashdot, har har). Three, I'm the same way, re: social things done when younger. I don't do the bar scene any more, for example. I don't IRC nearly as much as I used to either.

      And, no offense, but a political theory IRC channel just does *not* sound like fun, smart people or otherwise :p

      No offense taken. Some people aren't into politics. I happen to find it interesting (if depressing...).

    13. Re:Here's why small works by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It requires a positive motivation.

      I am a bit skeptical of that. It strikes me as a bit "fluffy". Motivation comes in many shapes.

    14. Re:Here's why small works by neves · · Score: 1

      Not just caring more about the subject, but they also are important for their independence. If my company depends on something, you can't expect me have a independent opinion about it. If it would be good for some company to have a mozilla control, how do you know that a rant about a COM control for mozilla is a sincere opinion, or just a claim to have browsers programmers working for free?

  16. Size by BigDork1001 · · Score: 3, Funny
    I've been hearing it for years...

    ...size doesn't matter.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    1. Re:Size by MyHair · · Score: 1

      ...size doesn't matter.

      But if you're bigger you disproportionately more "hits".

    2. Re:Size by The+Zody · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes but bandwith does.

  17. I don't understand. by ajuda · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article says (yes I RTFA):
    1. Big sites have generic content
    2. Small sites have specific content
    3. Advertisers will advertise on small sites because they have "targeted viewership"
    Ok, anyone ever hear of economies of scale? Let's say I have a site that is super-duper specialized. It only has content relating to red staplers with blue logos on them. It's going to be really hard for companies like swingline to
    • Find my site
    • Negotiate a deal for ad space
    • Get the marketing department to cut me a check for 14 dollars each month
    They'll go with the big stapler fan sites and avoid all the paperwork. You know it, I know it.
    1. Re:I don't understand. by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's where some entrepreneur steps in and acts as an agent, aggregating like sites under one contact.

      Hi, I'm Bob from stapler-ads.com. You're interested in advertising your new blue on red line, the "Milton"? Well I happen to know of a site that specializes in that very type.

      Bob calls you and the deal is done. He takes a cut, you get some, and the Milton is a smash.

    2. Re:I don't understand. by scrytch · · Score: 1

      "And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and its not okay because if they take my stapler then ill set the building on fire."

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    3. Re:I don't understand. by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1

      Pity that will probably hit the spam filters and never get read...

  18. Heh, well, yes. by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But within their niche they dominate.

    That's why it's a niche, not mainstream. Macintosh, Red Meat, Amish, et cetera.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Tiny sites aren't small potatoes eh ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Tiny sites aren't small potatoes eh ? by Shaper+of+Myths · · Score: 1

      Wow that site got baked...

      Or is it fried?

      OK, I'll stop now....=)

  21. Yup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Put a keyword of "sex" on your website and you get forgotten. Put "zoophilia stories" and make the stories good quality and you get quite a few visitors. Ah. And advertise! :)

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Hmm.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "But within their niche they dominate.'"

    And what niche would that be? People whose lives are so devoid of substance that they spend hours each day reading about the life of someone more concerned with documenting their life than living it?

    Weblogs... bleh.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That pretty much explains the popularity of Big Brother

    2. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Slashdot is a weblog. Get a clue.

    3. Re:Hmm.. by Ztream · · Score: 1

      ...he said on Slashdot :)

    4. Re:Hmm.. by pmz · · Score: 1

      People whose lives are so devoid of substance that they spend hours each day reading about the life of someone more concerned with documenting their life than living it?

      What about people whose life is so devoid of substance that they spend hours each day documenting their life rather than living it?

      The bloggers are just as worrysome as the blog-readers...

      (And, no, slashdot isn't the type of blog being referred to, here)

  24. Ethnic Purgation, Academic Disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is an example of an influential small website.

  25. Similary by PS-SCUD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just as small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy, small websites are the backbone of the internet.

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
    1. Re:Similary by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      Proof?

      --
      Fuck it
  26. They dominate... by webword · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and make no money. As usual, Jakob Nielsen slants the data in a way that seems so very important. But, almost no small sites make any money. Why isn't that the real story? Bah!!

    As usual, Jakob throws shit against the wall. A little sticks, but a lot of it does not stick. Why do people ignore this? For example, he predicted micropayments, which would be great for small web sites. Are micropayments viable now? No! They sucked in 2000 and they suck now. (Good idea, but, micropayments suck!)

    Last year I wrote Spanking Jakob Nielsen. I'm just so tired of how he throws around ideas and "important" data and people got nuts. Have you ever noticed that he rarely points to sites outside of useit.com and he often is selling his usability reports? Drives me insane...

    1. Re:They dominate... by dema · · Score: 0

      All this well informed information coming from someone who doesn't even know how to properly format a link. Is http://webworld/ bringing in TONS of money?

    2. Re:They dominate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never trust anyone who uses blue links on a lime background, way to go for usability there

    3. Re:They dominate... by Jerf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They dominate... and make no money.... almost no small sites make any money....

      Have you ever noticed that he rarely points to sites outside of useit.com and he often is selling his usability reports?

      And you aren't the slightest bit interested in the opinions of a person who is running one of the "small sites" and is in all probability making money with it? Think he might just understand a bit?

      It sounds to me like you wouldn't be happy no matter what.

      Incidentally, figuring out the "blame" for the failure of micropayments is a non-trivial operation; the multi-year stagnation in the browser market (thanks to Netscape's effective disappearence and Microsoft's well-known tendency to not bother with its precious "innovation" unless there's competition) at the same time that the routing market has held a virtual monopoly (ensuring no protocol-level support for micropayments could make any headway), both market conditions and not truly technological conditions, probably had a lot to do with. Despite the fact I'm not holding my breath, they would still solve an awful lot of problems.

    4. Re:They dominate... by goon+america · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever realized that people will believe you as long as you sound confident?

    5. Re:They dominate... by weston · · Score: 1

      Also, have you noticed that for a site on usability, -- or for that matter, for one that isn't -- his site is really quite hard to read and navigate...

  27. slashot journals!? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    If he counts blogs as individual sites, there must be millions on /..org along!

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:slashot journals!? by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      http:///..org is more fun.

  28. Actually, I have to agree.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That in the niche of puny websites, puny websites rule. Great article!

  29. This means that by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    goatse won.

  30. Re:Blog was a possibility waiting to be implemente by Ricin · · Score: 1

    s/a/e in 'than'

  31. Why are your font sizes so low? by Inoshiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Higher resolution diplays are designed so that the fonts are displayed with higher fidelity, not at smaller sizes. Stop thinking in terms of bitmap displays. I run at 1152x864 and have my min font size at 20. When at 1600x1200, I would set it to 24 or 26. The articles are very readable then.

    Or do you prefer a slim column of size 8 fonts in the left 8% of your display? I don't, which is why I enforce things like minimum font sizes, and relative font size adjustments on the web.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  32. True, however.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Big websites aren't medium sized canteloupes.

  33. An insighful summary indeed! by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Jakob Nielsen - the man who wants all sites on the internet to be written in HTML 3 or 4, with virtually no images. His article is extremely insightful - stating the blatantly obvious.

    News flash Jakob - nobody is using 9.6 kbps modems anymore! Graphics can be aesthetically pleasing while making a site more 'useable' than text alone.

    New standards and the rich content features of web languages have a reason and a purpose. Graphical browsers have been about for 9 years - isn't it time he used these features, and stopped telling others not to?

    By the way, I could not validate his page: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://useit.com /alertbox/20030616.html

    And he seems to have several CSS warnings: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=h ttp://useit.com/alertbox/20030616.html
    These warnings stem from heuristics - rules of thumb are very common in the field of useability. These warnings attempt to avoid useability issues by ensuring the text colour is not the same as the background colour.

    I choose not to live in the past.

    1. Re:An insighful summary indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is not insightful. Please explain how pictures would have helped Mr. Neilsen's article. Please explain how perfect standard-compliance would have helped his article.

      In a field with as little historical practice as web-design, you have to start with the obvious. It's not yet obvious to everyone.

    2. Re:An insighful summary indeed! by eugene_roux · · Score: 1

      By the way, I could not validate his page

      I dunno, this validated just fine for me...

      HTML 4.0 Transitional, AFAIK, does not require the specification of a character set, though it would be good form to do so.

      --
      Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
  34. Haven't thought about that before. by Mmm+coffee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I started running I was having some serious pains. I started doing some research and decided that running barefoot might do me some good. It worked wonders and I ended up starting a blog to

    (a) Document my beginnings as a runner, going from out of shape geek to slightly in shape geek over time.
    (b) Allow other people to look at my experiences and learn from them when they start running.
    (c) Allow other people to look at my experiences and learn from them when they start running *gasp* barefoot!

    Will you find that info on about.com or running.com? Hell no, they have entire sections devoted to shoes and you rarely get to read a diary of someone who's just starting out. 95% of the info I find online is either a small site or something of the sort. Why? Because you can have all the professionally written pages on the net, but in the end the experiences of another person is always invaluable.

    BTW, if anyone's interested here's my blog.

    1. Re:Haven't thought about that before. by fiftyfly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I started running I was having some serious pains. I started doing some research and decided that running barefoot might do me some good. It worked wonders and I ended up starting a blog to:


      Now too bad there wasn't someway of getting masses of people to contribute their experiences in a organized, topical manner that would make it easier to index catalog. Oh, wait, thee is - it's called USENET.

      I really don't understand what a blog does, aside from look pretty, that usenet (and a search engine) can't do better. Perhaps it boils down to a more effecient, existing, infrastructure vrs complex ego stroking hit/log analysis.

      Not that I'm questioning the great value the those, such as yourself, have invested with such content creation, I just wonder why we seem to feel that 'blogs' are a bright shiny new tool ever so much better at this stuff than anything pre-exisiting.
      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    2. Re:Haven't thought about that before. by Troed · · Score: 1

      Writing a "blog" is the same thing as writing a column in a newspaper. I don't document what my cat did yesterday - I write about events in the world.

      Maybe you don't like columns either?

    3. Re:Haven't thought about that before. by JulianD · · Score: 1
      Now too bad there wasn't someway of getting masses of people to contribute their experiences in a organized, topical manner that would make it easier to index catalog. Oh, wait, thee is - it's called USENET.

      *slaps forehead* You're right. Blogs have a long way to go before it's possible to accumulate the same spam-to-legitimate e-mail ratio that USENET has. Perhaps we should have the Movable Type people insert an API for spammers, so that they can insert spam at random into people's weblogs.
  35. I have a few #1 hits on Google... by weave · · Score: 1
    There are some pages I wrote like 7 years ago and haven't touched for ages, and they hit #1 on Google. For example, a search on my local mall, Christiana Mall

    I should do something cool (or devious) with it, considering all the hits I get on it! :)

    1. Re:I have a few #1 hits on Google... by Slurm-V · · Score: 1

      I, too, have a number one hit on Google - for hunkmuffin - referring to, interestingly enough, me noticing that I had the number one hit on Google for hunkmuffin. Pretty meta, eh?

      Mind you - I haven't touched that blog in a couple of months as it was getting too damn cold to get out of bed in time to write it before work. Soon they'll want more money as well, so - sod it. It wasn't particularly funny anyway. Well, maybe once. Around last december.

      --
      Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
    2. Re:I have a few #1 hits on Google... by nucal · · Score: 1
      This part of the page might have helped your Google index:

      The Big Box Invasion
      While not literally part of Christiana Mall, big boxes have popped up on the land adjacent to the Mall. These big puppies include Circuit City (pushers of the idiotic DIVX system), Costco, Dick's Sporting Goods, and a few others. Personally, I wish BJ's Wholesale moved in instead of Costco. I think it'd be cool to see the massive Dicks and BJs as you walk into the mall to get screwed...

    3. Re:I have a few #1 hits on Google... by Anime_Fan · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'll be happy when portable phones get so cheap that everyone can carry one and run these COCOTs out of business...

      Heh. Keep it as it is. This is way cool. [Or just add the line I can see the future]

  36. Within their niche they dominate by rifftide · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This reminds me of Jack Welch's directive in the 1980's that every division at GE had to be #1 or #2 in its market, or risk being shutdown or sold off. What happened was predictable: GE's managers redefined their markets, so that instead of being in "home appliances" they were in a collection of smaller markets including "space-efficient microwave ovens", etc.

    So Nielson has the #1 usability site by his reckoning. But what advertisers are targeting that niche? Maybe Addison-Wesley and certain trade shows. The size of the market should be something that makes sense to advertisers, customers, and suppliers.

    1. Re:Within their niche they dominate by Robert+Frazier · · Score: 1

      Actually, I look at Nielson's site quite often. Whenever I've been asked to do web stuff, I tell the people for whom I'm doing it that I pay a lot of attention to what he says, and give them a link to it.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  37. Community Involvement by yintercept · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A great deal of the web is about community involvement. If you look at towns across the US [e.g. Missoula, Mt], you will find hundreds of stores, artists and businesses with sites. Many of these sites get only a few hundred hits per year, but a lead from a local person hitting a local site is extremely valuable, making the small site profitable.

  38. Millions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wonderful site
    only gets about 600 to 800 page views a month. :-(

    1. Re:Millions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're doing about as well as the normal preacher speaking the same words from the pulput...

    2. Re:Millions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I guess that's nothing to be ashamed of.
      Actually, what amazes me is that my logs are tracking visitors from 43 different countries excluding the U.S. -- of course I'm not at all sure how accurate them logs are.
      Of course I probably could have more visitors if Google would index my site properly, but they don't seem to index cgi urls very well. Perhaps if I used some url redirection I'd have a better chance at getting it indexed properly.

  39. What this tells me.. by Photar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and I suspect it tells businesses is that if I sell blueberry harvesting equipment which is unique to the field of blueberry farming, I don't need to nesecarily spend big bucks advertising on some big farming website when I can farm on a smaller cheaper more effectively.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  40. Dominate... by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In particular, Nielsen is talking about teenage girls!!

    After all, they're the busiest bloggers...

  41. niches? my site IS "game music" by mikey573 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are niches really big news? My site, the Videogame Music Archive has dominated its own niche: "game music" for years. Its a nice feeling to know that your site can be found at the nexus of two words of the english language on Google. :)

    But on a more serious note, I think people need to get over the "get rich" and "fame" mentality and celebrate the topics they love.

    Signal-to-noise rawoisethasetseoahitsoth

    1. Re:niches? my site IS "game music" by Xouba · · Score: 1

      My site has to be really good, because it appears first if you just search "xouba" on Google ;-)

      Now, the funny thing is that "Xouba" is just a nick I use, which I took from an old cartoon show named "Comic Strip"; in galician (spoken in Galicia, north-west Spain) it means "little sardine" (you know, the fish). And my site is nothing about fishery or anything alike, it's just my music; I suppose that the people that arrive there searching something about the fish get a bit disappointed :-D

  42. Haven't thought about that before-addict. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I bet cutting back on the coffee didn't hurt either.

  43. the topics they love. by djupedal · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you mean, like bragging about their hubrustic niche language google nexus quotient?

    You know, if google goes down, all of whom you claim to be goes with it...how's that for a measure of self-worth.

  44. Sorry guys. by sinserve · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Considering that the Web as a whole will have about 4 trillion page views this year

    Most of which is caused by a single man! Nothing you couldn't do with a DSL line and
    Attention Defecit Disorder ... ooh, nice link .. *click*.

  45. A perfect example by inertia187 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  46. i can change the topic? by archnu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    /me what the hell is my nick? its interesting when people are a part of something large and have no grasp of how large it is... #hacking irc.undernet.org sid made me do it

  47. New Google Service makes this no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google just launched AdSense on Tuesday in fact. It's exactly designed to solve the problems you mention.

    You can find Google AdSense here.

  48. Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by yintercept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article is actually about the distribution of traffic in different niches and how there is similar patterns in different niches. Although it may be tough for an individual to compete with Yahoo for the position of number 1 in the global portal market, it is still possible to make a splash in a niche market.

    Hmmm, it is even possible for people to make a decent living by figuring out the needs of these different markets and developing sites that serve the markets. Ad values in niche markets are higher than the global market. Gosh, there are places in this great big internet of ours where an individual can have an impact.

    The article suggests that both the niche and the most popular sites still have exponential growth curves--indicating that the media really isn't completely overrun by the three biggest sites as we find news articles hinting at. Instead there appears to be a layering of niche markets. This touches on important political debates about internet regulation.

    Considering that a large number of people who frequent /. are interested in traffic patterns, the growth of the Internet. There was probably a naive /. editor who thought that the article would be a good topic of conversation.

    Of course, neither the /. editor who thought this might be an interesting topic of conversation nor the author of the article is even close to your level of intelligence. So they deserve to be insulted. I mean, the obvious is fodder for weak minds. True genius seeks out the counter intuitive, the obscure and the contradictory.

    The net is filled with these tiny minded people who actually work to build sites on truly mundane issues like corn growing in Iowa. BORING!!!!!

    Let's ignore the fact that it is petty minds working on the obvious that grow the food we eat, and build houses we live in. It may be necessary to have a bunch of petty minds working on the obvious to make the internet work...but please, we don't need to hear any of this in our idle chit chat on slashdot. This forum should be about truly important questions such as the different smells that come from a priori, a posteriori and synthetic farts.

    1. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by davebarz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look, I am very interested in traffic patterns and the growth of the internet. I do web design and hosting. And I read the entire article before posting, expecting to find something insightful, an interesting deduction based on what the author was saying, something of the like. But I found that the entire article consisted of obvious observations that anyone who has used the internet for any length of time (most /.ers fall into this category) would have made on their own. So, perhaps this article would indeed appeal to a niche market, but do I not have a right to declare that I am not in that market?

    2. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by yintercept · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, the article wasn't well written. I was disappointed by the lack of depth, and I thought the author was a bit full of himself.

      The topic, however, is extremely interesting. I find the distribution of web traffic to be fascinating topic. While Wall Street concentrates on just the biggest sites, IMHO, the real meat of the net is all the small independent sites, and the interaction between these sites.

      I've actually spent a fair amount of time trying to help to build awareness of independent web sites in small towns, and trying to help towns build a topology of links that can attract more traffic into their independent niches. Although the article was poorly written, it starts to address the important issue that small sites need to know: They need to know how to identify their niche and to understand the flow of traffic in their niche.

      IMHO, the topology of the independent web is much more interesting that the Media Metrix 50. Figuring out how to define and build these markets is a major challenge. I wish the article went further in that direction.

      I was snippy in my post because the study of traffic begins with the obvious. Webmasters get their biggest jumps in traffic by answering obvious questions like: who is my audience? Who are my competitors? How is the traffic distributed among my competitors? What are the keywords that attract my audience?

      I read the entire article before posting, expecting to find something insightful, an interesting deduction based on what the author was saying, something of the like.

      The fault of the article was that it didn't present its ideas very clearly...not that it dwelt the obvious. Personally, I think the introduction of terms is more important than wrapping up with a conclusion...the net seems to change too fast for conclusions.

      The article made interesting allusions to the patterns of traffic in large markets being similar to small markets. It is an obvious way to state things, but a worthwhile observation.

    3. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by 6hill · · Score: 1
      I was disappointed by the lack of depth, and I thought the author was a bit full of himself.

      Full of himself? Jacob Nielsen? Nahhh... nevah. Nuh-uh. Nope.

      At my Uni the toilets have those hand drying machines that blow hot air onto your mitts. I've often entertained the thought of going to the loo in the Usability lab and scribbling next to the dryer activation button, "Press here for a free two-minute speech from Jacob Nielsen."

      'Nuff said.

    4. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "I found that the entire article consisted of obvious observations that anyone who has used the internet for any length of time (most /.ers fall into this category) would have made on their own."

      You are obviously overlooking the obvious observation ... Nielsen doesn't write for experienced designers whose sites are perfection in pixels, he writes for the clueless and confused who want to make their sites better, and in the process gives designers cluesticks to whack PHBs with. That article is a powerful weapon for a designer trying to talk a client or PHB out of creating a Swiss-Army-knife website when the company just needs a 3/32 hex driver.

    5. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by davebarz · · Score: 1

      Point taken.

    6. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the author was a bit full of himself

      Full of himself is an understatement of Jacob Neilson. Not only is he full of himself, he's full of other things as well. Like turnips. And excrement. And Dan Quails.

    7. Re:Yes, the obvious is too dull of a topic!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you need to go ahead and get it out of your system. You don't want to be lying on your deathbed 50 years from now, burdened by regrets that you never scribbled "Press here for a free two-minute speech from Jacob Nielsen" next to the dryer activation button in the Usability lab's loo.

  49. Yes, but... by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is making money the only important thing?

    The nice thing about the web is that you can publish things even when you don't care about making money. Try that with a physical book.

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:Yes, but... by pmz · · Score: 1

      Is making money the only important thing? ...yes.

      You'd be suprised how many people don't care what they do, as long as they get money out of the deal. I believe they are called "business majors".

  50. Will weblogs go out of "style" ? by zaqattack911 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Call me cynical (or just go ahead and mod me down you little fucker), but does anyone else agree that this blog fad will eventually go the way of OS/2 ?

    With every new blog related news topic I keep seeing this attitude like it's the holy grail of www. Christ it is just a form of online diary. Granted it has its place, but will it last? Soon it'll be information overload (if you can even call some of the crap I see on blogs information).

    1. Re:Will weblogs go out of "style" ? by Mage+Powers · · Score: 1

      Call me cynical (or just go ahead and mod me down you little fucker), but does anyone else agree that this blog fad will eventually go the way of OS/2 ?

      Since 3 people use OS/2 and not 0, I'm okay with that.

  51. It's true! by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Almost since it's inception, my site has absolutely dominated the "sites about ucblockhead" niche.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  52. YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a site about growing small potatoes!

  53. You're going to get sued! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame on you. Showing the IBM commercial without express written consent from big blue. Expect a one billion dollar lawsuit in the mail soon...I figure, the lawyers at IBM have to figure out some way to get the money to pay SCO.

  54. See the BOOX comics in Sunday NYT's Books section by xelph · · Score: 1

    This week's edition pretty much summarizes my thinking about blogs...

  55. Re: Not True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While you *can* repeatedly re-size your browser window for every site/page you view and you *can* make adjustments to font sizes, the end result can be unsatisfactory.

    For one, there's the horizontal scrollbars. Reading a few paragraphs of text on a page that's full of large banners designed to fill the width of an entire screen is as pleasing as re-sizing a window to obscure huge ads. I know I don't want to be scrolling around when reading. Using vertical scrollbars when typing replies in a small frame isn't fun, either.

    Then, there's the issue of line lengths that are a fixed length or don't wrap to accommodate the window size you've been mucking around with. If you choose not to re-size your window, you're back to scrolling horizontally.

    There are a number of fairly standard typographical rules that define optimal line lengths. Newspapers use a reduced line length to accommodate the columnar presentation unique to that industry. Books and magazines also use an optimal line length. E-mail/usenet software works best with something like a 74-character line length.

    Website designers, on the other hand, seem totally unaware of such considerations and design their pages to fill as much of the viewer's screen as they believe they can get away. In the event there's any real content provided (stuff worth reading), the viewer is forced to strain his or her eyes to navigate the length of a line that's most often 2-3 times what it should have been.

    All of us have our own personal preferences, and depending on the size of the monitor we use, we choose to devote a certain amount of screen real-estate to a browser window. When you're past that, it's up to the developer to implement good design. The onus shouldn't be on the viewer.

  56. nich may be great but google takes forever by babajuma · · Score: 1

    The trouble is that if you make up your own word then try and get it onto google you will be there eventually.
    But it takes months and months of midlessly looking up on google to see if its listed you page yet. when that time could be better spent on minesweeper.
    now how quick will the /. be even if i dont tell any of you what the word is??
    Does anybody know how long it is ment to take for google to list a page?

    where do you find a dog with no legs??
    right where you left him. :)
    sod it i want to see what happens anyway Babajuma

  57. 'Cause by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember back when micro-brews emerged?

    In case you are too young or didn't notice (while guzzling your Bud Lite and thumping your chest at what a totally unique and studly american you were) hundreds of small brewries emerged over the past couple decades in the USA. Many offered true to the spirit, even abiding by the German Purity Law (Reinheitsgebot), producing quality ales, stouts, lagers, etc. This, as anyone with a lick of sense could see, could lead to serious encroachment of Mega-Brew markets. So they did the american thing and bought a pile of them to hedge their bets and those small brewers who realised they could do fun things with a lot of money sold out.

    I have the hunch the big web content sites are aware of how such a similar loss of page views to tiny, informative sites could be attractive. I know some have already sold out, even years ago. However, I also expect that some of these big sites could, and maybe are, running their own mini-sites, to capture that interest in focused, quality content and service. After all, who wants to wade through all the crap they have on their main pages? Not everyone, so why not be all stealthy and play both ends of the field, thus hedging their own bets.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:'Cause by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      And at least one microbrew of the time had designs on joining the big boys and that was the Boston Beer Company (brewers of Sam Adams)...

    2. Re:'Cause by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Wow, a beer snob. I thought the rest of those were gone with the close of the microbrew era back in '99. Get a life man, there are better things to do than knock back $6 glasses of beer while contemptuously sneering at the underclass.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:'Cause by platos_beard · · Score: 1

      Ok, name one.

      --
      What's a sig?
    4. Re:'Cause by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Wow, a beer snob. I thought the rest of those were gone with the close of the microbrew era back in '99. Get a life man, there are better things to do than knock back $6 glasses of beer while contemptuously sneering at the underclass.

      I pay $3 per pint and the way I see it, if I'm going to spend money at all I might as well enjoy it. After drinking decent beer for a few years I feel Eric Idle's comments on american beer were on target.

      Basically, it's the same with web surfing, or any other thing which consumes my resources, time or money, use it well and have no regrets. (Besides most of the mega-brews always tasted like salt water by the time I got to the third one. No idea why, but I don't get that with a decent pint on draft.)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:'Cause by australiazoo · · Score: 1

      After all, who wants to wade through all the crap they have on their main pages? Not everyone, so why not be all stealthy and play both ends of the field, thus hedging their own bets.

      and you are posting this remark on /. ?????
      da!!as

      --
      Never.
  58. readably long lines by danny · · Score: 1
    Getting readably long lines of text, for any user choice of font size, is doable. But it took me a couple of days fiddling with CSS to get a single column of text, centred on the page, of comfortable reading width... most of that was running around finding different versions of IE, NN, etc to test things with.

    And there are still some bugs - try resizing my reviews to a very narrow window in Mozilla, for example.

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews
    1. Re:readably long lines by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      I've not done much HTML writing recently, but decided to play around with some CSS a few days ago. I came up with this which seems to work fine in Konqueror and the Mozilla version I have at home, looks a bit weird in Phoenix on Solaris at work, and looks plain horrible in Internet Explorer 6. IE was originally ignoring the .classname>elementname { } type of styles. It also seems to choose its own values for table margins in my example, rather than going with the zero specified in the stylesheet. I've not done much of this in the past, so I'll probably figure it out later.

  59. AdSense by danny · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Try out Google's new AdSense program. They accepted my site, with under 200 000 page views a month, and they target ads specifically for individual pages, selling them to their large AdWords customer base.

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews
  60. Subweb-type Topology by Basehart · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a subweb-type topology taking place in my apartment building.
    The other night I made way too much mashed potato and thought about how cool it would be to post a note about the availability of said food on some kind of chat room/intranet within the building for tenants only.
    How about "Need Garlic Press" for example, or "Need WD40", just post it on the Wanted list, or better still take look through the inventory of what everbody has in their apartments and cross check this with the Calendar to see who is at home.
    Maybe even let neighboring apartment buildings cross over into our space and vice versa.

    1. Re:Subweb-type Topology by corbettw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Such a thing already exists. In all likelihood, your apartment building has a washroom. In all likelihood, in that washroom is a notice board. You can put notices for just about anything on the notice board, and inform your neighbors of your bounty of mashed taters.

      Of course, you would've already known this if you washed your clothes once in a while.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  61. Nothing new to see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    How to write an article that self-obsessed weblog posters will link to over and over:

    (A) Read somewhere that website traffic follows a powerlaw.

    (B) Repeat obvious and well-known properties of powerlaw distributions.

    (C) Mention the word "weblog."

    (D) Using powers gained in (A), (B), and (C), tell bloggers that they are important.

    Repeat as necessary to raise traffic.

  62. a useful relevence engine has not been developed by mabu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The dinky sites are the future, but only when a search engine can come up with a truly useful relevence engine.

    It has not been developed as of yet. The best Google and others can do as of yet are cross-link relevance formulae, which can be manipulated.

    Ironically, Google has taken a step backwards with the intent to filter blogs. Blogs are generally more relevant to the content they reference than 90% of the crap that comes up in search results.

  63. Suckers! by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    /.ers have been tricked into helping to promote this guy's site to the top of his niche. After all, when it's linked to from such a huge site as /., google's pagerank system will automatically promote its listing in the search engine.

    Twicked!

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Suckers! by erinacht · · Score: 1

      I don't think so!
      Jakob's site already gets tonnes of traffic - go and have a read - you might learn something.
      You might not agree with everything he says, I don't, but counterpoints are essential for forming arguments.

  64. And there were Federal Micro-Brew Tax breaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress put in some tax breaks for micro-breweries to stimulate their growth with some limit on the number of bottles per year, IIRC. This tax break became an incentive for the big beer boys to purchase these companies, taking advantage (IMHO unfairly) of the tax break through some whiz-bang-more-complicated-than-they-ought-to-be accounting practices.

    Mmm, that 'micro brew' Sam Adams is brewed in the same vats at the big brands (though to be honest, I think it's just a lease of the vats, not an ownership arrangement).

    1. Re:And there were Federal Micro-Brew Tax breaks by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Well, I wouldn't exactly call Stroh's a big brand... ;-)

      Also, I believe that Sam Adams' own brewery in Jamaica Plain, Boston is operational now (but doesn't accout for anything approaching all their production needs).

  65. From the article... by agent+dero · · Score: 1

    "Small sites have two huge advantages over big sites: there are many more of them and they are more specialized and thus more targeted."

    Therefore making the smaller sites the bigger sites, while the smaller sites have advantages over the bigger sites which aren't more targeted, therefore becoming smaller sites, which then become targeted and, and and?

    I need a drink

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
  66. Jakob Nielsen is a web design GOD! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Nielsen (and his associates) give away enough information on their sites to make anyone willing to give their methods a try into a better than average web designer.

    There are two ways to hit the top ranks in the search engines ... one is the way we've all been spammed about, with the hidden words, feeder pages, keyword cramming, etc. to make your web page "EXPLODE!!!!! with TRAFFIC!!!!" That is a desperation move for a me-too site selling the same products as 10,000 other sites who all fell for the same infomercial and became e-tailers.

    And then there is the way Nielsen just revealed: find your niche, be the best in your niche, fill the pages with quality information about your specialized topic and don't worry about the big guys. You might only get 100 visitors a day, but they are exactly the visitors you wanted.

    Something he hints at in other columns, but never states outright, something so obvious as to be ludicrous, but overlooked by herds of web designers ... HTML is a markup language for structure. And my tedious slogging through the research behind the indexing robots' algorithms shows that they use the structure to assign relevance whenever they detect it. If you have a well-structured document with well-chosen text, you can blow your competitors out of the top search engine listings.

  67. To Mr. veddermatic by wowbagger · · Score: 1
    Either:
    1. Resize your browser window, or
    2. Increase your font size


    Personally, I am glad to hear of web site designers who understand that the best person to decide upon the formatting of their site upon my screen is ME!.
  68. Re: Not True by LiamQ · · Score: 1

    When watching television, do you require the TV show to determine the optimal volume for you, or do you set it yourself? If you set the volume too high, do you blame the TV show?

  69. Small sites dominate .... my a$$!! by mustangdavis · · Score: 2, Interesting
    'Considering that the Web as a whole will have about 4 trillion page views this year, the [low-traffic] sites might seem irrelevant with their pitiful millions of page views. But within their niche they dominate.'


    I currently run a couple of free online games, http://www.coldfirestudios.com (*cheap plug*). I currently receive about 300,000,000 page views per year on a total of 3 games. That isn't too bad ..... but it definately isn't a "large" site ....


    I have been told that our Space and WWII game are some of the most detailed games of their genre, yet the games barely support themselves with the banner ads we place on the site ...

    ... which leads me to this question: HOW IS THIS DOMINATING?????

    I suppose this is better than the fate of many other smaller web sites, but give me a break! Over the past 5 years, I have seen my competition come and go .... but no one is "dominating" ... they are surviving!!!


    Who ever came up with this idea that smaller web sites will dominate is on crack! It has been proven over and over that only web sites that utilize economies of scale can survive on the net these days ... because most advertisers want CHEAP advertising that MANY people will see over and over .... you don't get either of those with targeted advertising on small web sites!!!


    Mod this down (or even troll it), but this has been my experience ......


    Advertisers (people that can still afford advertising) want to reach the masses, which means you need thousands (or millions) of unique visitors daily ....

    Just my $0.02 cents ...


    1. Re:Small sites dominate .... my a$$!! by JSkills · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well - dominating doesn't necessarily mean you have to make your money via online ad revenue (which is fairly passe in 2003). Obviously we have to adapt to the market.

      Our site, www.goofball.com (shamless plug too), was doing close to a million pageviews per day in 1999. All the content was free and given that it has always represented the largest database archive of funny/filthy/crazy videos (and anything else funny), people loved coming in and grabbing it for free - much like they probably do your games. We got paid CPM advertising rates, so we were able to cover our huge hosting/bandwidth costs.

      Times changed and we had to switch to a different model - membership fees. Yes, our traffic is now a quarter of what is once was, but so are our hosting costs and we're still in the black. Not dominating for sure - but slightly profitable (or even just breaking even) is far better than what we've seen with some larger sites (massively in debt / shutting down).

      I guess the point is to keep your site alive, particularly since you're obviously passionate about the subject matter. Maybe offering a preview version of the games for free and having people pay for a more full version might be one idea you could try? I do not mean to oversimplify your situation of course ...

      The full story is here if anyone is interested ...

    2. Re:Small sites dominate .... my a$$!! by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

      That was a great arguement and accounting of how the Internet has gone from a great, fun place to surf and express yourself ... to what it is today ... a cut-throat place where people are fighting for advertisement dollars that aren't enough to even pay for bandwidth bills (and where people go to bitch about how sites they used to visit aren't free anymore) ...


      Honestly, like many others, I feel your pain. My company was dropped by several advertisers because of our WWII game (there are many people that are still understandibly offended by Nazi's).

      However, we've managed to keep our site free thus far. We had the same delema that you had, and we decided that we weren't caving in unless we were absolutely forced to ....


      Unfortunately, the games don't make much money ... and we're splitting that money five ways, which doesn't help .... but we do give our players the option of purchasing a banner free account ... which pays slightly more than the banners do, but is far less annoying that seeing casino ads all over the screen each time you click on something ...

      Personally, I hate ads, especially REALLY annoying ads that play music, shake, or pop-up, but that is what we have to do to survive ....


      However, unlike many sites, we give our people the choice of seeing the ads in lieu of veiwing the ads ... so the poeple can decide if the site is worth visiting with ads or if it is worth paying for the content ....


      It isn't a perfect solution, but it seems to be working well. Our player base has dropped by about 10% because of some of the obnoxious banners, but that isn't too bad .... most of the people that are really bothered by them pay us to take them away ...


      However, we are now posed with a very interesting issue as we prepare to venture into the world of fantasy sports ... where I have seen first hand that people will NOT tolorate pop-up ads .... It will be interesting to see how this pans out


  70. That's what day jobs are for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you have one?

  71. It's true, Blogs work. by Angerson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I recently started a weekly online comic strip in April and when I first launched the strip I ran an ad campaign (banner ads + Google ad words) to help drive some readers in. It worked, but only marginally. I was getting visitors but I had to pay for each one and, worst of all, my site had no real means of generating revenue.

    Thankfully, as it would turn out, someone who ran a Blog site stumbled across my comic not too long after it's debut and wrote a quick blurb about it on their site. Within days I found myself linked on about a dozen other Blogs and then the traffic started pouring in. It wasn't a huge amount of visitors, perhaps 3-5 thousand uniques total but it was ten times more than the advertising and a heck of a lot less expensive. ;)

    Had this not happened I would have never guessed the relevance of personal/blog sites. It only goes to show that word-of-mouth is one of the most powerful forms of advertising.

  72. Re:a useful relevence engine has not been develope by TomGroves · · Score: 1

    Why do you say they are filtering blogs? Did you know they recently bought Pyra, parent company of Blogger.com? They are well-aware of the value of blogs.

  73. Small sites profitable...but ads don't work! by pjrc · · Score: 1
    I wonder how Neilson reconciles today's "Small is Beautiful (and Profitable) on the Web" with his constant theme of 1997's Advertising Doesn't Work on the Web (which he links to in many articles, as recently as just last month). How can he write:

    A site on growing blueberries can be a must-read service for people who farm them, and thus of immense value as a place to promote blueberry-farming equipment.

    Diversity is power on the Web. Big sites may be bigger, but smaller sites will keep scoring higher for specialized topics, both in terms of their connections with users and in terms of each visit's commercial value.

  74. 'strong' Tag is Punctuation for Jakob Nielsen by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

    Summary: Jakob Nielsen's site has less text than some others, but he can still overwhelm the user with emphasized words. For each page users view, Nielsen delivers a different set of <strong> phrases to provide a distinctive-looking page.

    We've known since 1997 that Nielsen's Alertbox site follows a roughly 10% ratio for random bold bits of text in the middle of a sentence. Simply stated, he tends to highlight large parts of the page, so much so that any real emphasis is lost.

    The question is whether the same few phrases would always dominate, or whether the site would highlight different phrases in different pages. Studies now demonstrate that:

    • There is only 12% correlation between what is in <strong> tags and what is important.
    • Looking at smaller parts of a page, we see that the bold phrases tend to cluster together, with up to four of them in a single sentence.
    • 82% of readers get so tired by the constant overemphasis that they do not read to the end of the page and go somewhere else.
    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  75. But what are all the different niches togather? by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Sure, a niche is a small thing, but there are many different niches. I think just about everything is a small niche, once you go byond the surface. News from Sweden isn't of interest to me, it is a niche that only Swedish, and a few others are interested in. (Which amounts to less than 10 million people if I remember right)

    Personally I'm interested in metal foundry work, and I know and visit a number of niche sites. I'm also interested in "geek" topics, so I visit /. regularly, but that is a small niche compared to the number of people with web access. (much less in the world, which contains a lot of people that don't know english)

  76. No problems here by KMSelf · · Score: 1

    Nothing like a userContent.css local stylesheet to override broken preferences imposed by other sites. I see everything at the font point, face, and color of my choosing.

    On the web, the reader vetos all display options.

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  77. but... by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    e cost-per-click (CPC) ads. This means that advertisers pay only when users click on ads. You'll receive a portion of the amount paid for clicks on AdWords ads on your website. Although we don't disclose the exact revenue share, our goal is to enable publishers to make as much or more than they could with other advertising networks

    And they donÂt tell you what they pay, how much for a click. In googlestyle this is undisclosed.