Slashdot Mirror
Web Users Judge Sites in the Blink of an Eye
dogbolter writes "Nature.com is reporting on a study by Canadian researcher Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University that visitors to a webpage can make up their minds about the quality of the page within just 50 milliseconds." From the article: "We all know that first impressions count, but this study shows that the brain can make flash judgments almost as fast as the eye can take in the information. The discovery came as a surprise to some experts. "My colleagues believed it would be impossible to really see anything in less than 500 milliseconds," says Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University in Ottawa, who has published the research in the journal Behaviour and Information Technology. Instead they found that impressions were made in the first 50 milliseconds of viewing."
I knew within 50 nanoseconds that this was a dupe.
i judge slashdot lazy.
But after 50 milliseconds I decided I didn't like the page.
Slashdot editors appear to only spend 50 nanoseconds checking an article before posting.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
...book judged by cover.
Dark Energy May Be Changing
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Fresh coffee and fresh dupes ... what more do you want to start the day?
It happens when they change somthing in the Matrix, so beware, agents are coming!
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Grab your +5 comments here for some instant karma. Well, the editors dupe the articles, we might as well dupe the comments...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
/.ers pick dupes in the blink of an eye.
Have I missed something that makes this crime so heinous.
Yes but don't worry, it'll be posted again soon
..I have already judged this article twice!
It is proven!
Slasdot editors spend 50 miliseconds before approving stories. No wonder so many dupes...
Excuse me, you're not supposed to be posting about the article. This is a chance for everyone to complain about /.'s dupe policy.
To appreciate the effect fully, go back to the original article and (if you have points left) moderate everything redundant.
Aah, the power of Slashdot...
Cogito, ergo sig.
the article summaries are generally either poorly written, incorrect or confused
That is very unfair. Some manage to be all three.
But, in reply the the GPP, the reason that people get worked up is that it serves as a demonstration that the editors don't appear to care. They don't read the site, and they don't even bother to read the "problems with the article" e-mails that people send in. It is possible that dupes are a deliberate ploy to generate page hits - after all who can be that consistents careless - but this would be even worse. Or it could be just plain incompetence.
None reflect well on the site.
Your post looked interesting, based on my first fifty nanoseconds of thinking about it. But, man, that was a lot of words.
So how could i judge it within the first 50 ms?
..."
Browser: "<html
me: "No. I don't like this page."