Slashdot Mirror
Web Users Judge Sites Instantly
Ant writes "This Nature.com news article reports that potential readers can make snap decisions in just 50 milliseconds: 'Like the look of our website? Whatever the answer, the chances are you made your mind up within the first twentieth of a second. A study by researchers in Canada has shown that the snap decisions Internet users make about the quality of a web page have a lasting impact on their opinions...'"
This article is obviously rubbish
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
Too much red & pink on that website.
But is it as fast as getting slashdotted?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
This is why I kept away from /. for so many years
It hasn't stopped us from visiting Slashdot. Over and over and over again...
I thought playboy.com was drivel when I was a young lad...but over the course of about 5 years, that all changed.
it took me just 50 milliseconds to disagree with that article!
I guess now would be the most appropriate time for people to start posting goatse.cx links. I can tell you what, I think my reaction time was quicker than 50ms the first time I accidentally clicked on that link at work. *shudder*
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
"Man judges book by cover"
No sig.
Excellent... now look up "pedant."
"Firefox prevented this site from opening a popup window."
Whenever I see that on a website, right there I think to myself, "This is an annoying, and/or low quality website with suspect information on it."
Funny, I see that every time I go to cnn.com...
So Hitler didn't fund the Illuminadi after being abducted by big-headed aliens in a UFO in the Bermuda Triangle while covering-up his involvement in the American Civil War? Impossible!
Comment of the year
That's exactly why I resent grammar/spelling nazis--if everyone followed their advice, it'd be harder at a glance to filter out the idiots.
(That said, some of the smartest people I know are dyslexic. And rulebreakers in general.)
Commenters on /. have for years been able to judge articles without reading anything more than a marginally accurate 3-sentence summary riddled with typos. Why would scientists think the same would not apply to impressions of websites?
Obviously another waste of government research funds that could be better applied to [insert controversial proposed government project aimed at protecting against terrorism].
By the way, I didn't have a chance to read the article.
Goatse.cx has been shut down. You just get an error page about policy violations now. (Don't believe me? Check for yourself!)
Imagine that. A Slashdot post linking to Goatse and *not* being a troll! =)
They have, however, relocated to goatse.ca.
Am I the only person who keeps reading that headline as: "Web Site Judges Users Insanity"?
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
I wish people had the same brain power while operating a car.
Like my daddy always told me, Prejudice Saves Time.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
Wow, if you boycott any place you see a pop up ad for I'm surprised you end up going anywhere.
Um, you spelled "Consistently" wrong.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
So you are trying to tell us you just read playboy.com for the mirror files...
this is loaner...my sig is in the shop