Subscribe: Comments on: Rant Against Multiple Page Posts
http://www.bloggingpro.com/archives/2007/06/11/rant-against-multiple-page-posts/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
blog posts  blog  blogger  blogs  content  driven blogs  front  media  multiple  page  posts  reader  readers  series  social media  story  time 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Rant Against Multiple Page Posts

Comments on: Rant Against Multiple Page Posts



News, plugins and themes for blogging applications



Last Build Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:51:25 +0000

 



By: Mel

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:59:32 +0000

I think this is a really interesting debate and agree with Lorelle about the importance of differences between print and online paradigms. However, I disagree on a few points. Though I've only been blogging since 2003 (and had my blog and online presence go through several incarnations) this is a very old conversation. And one I've been following since I started reading and participating in discussions about blogging in early 2000. There are some major distinctions between usability oriented bloggers and those seeking to create a spare design space. I have respect for both orientations but they aren't always compatible. One really good reason for multiple posts on a page is that it serves as a thin slice of the blogger's content and sensibility. With the exception of high ranking bloggers, most blog traffic consists of random Google hits - largely unique visitors. If we consider the evidence of eye tracking studies (the 3 second rule) these visitors may only stick around for a few seconds. The most they're likely to do is a quick scroll - not dedicated clicking through categories. That one scroll down the page provides a sample of the kinds of material this blogger posts. I think the real issue here is the ongoing difference between design driven blogs and usability driven blogs. What's one person's "clutter" is another person's usability. If I were to feature simply one post on my main page I'm really limiting that thin slice and making an assumption that readers are going to navigate through my content. Also, I disagree about social media clutter. A lot of people are not sticking around at a blog but simply aggregating the content - bookmarking or subscribing for later use. If those features aren't up front and available that reader will move on. These features should also have recogisable icons (this may be incompatible with the look and feel of your site but it's very user friendly). When I visit a blog I'm not looking for a lovely aesthetic experience, I want to engage the content - quickly and specifically. I want to know where the RSS link is. I want to see their delicious links. I don't have time to guess ... I want social media tools right up front where I can find them. Not buried in some tucked away place. I don't want to be presumptuous about the investment of time any reader will spend at my blog. So I give them options upfront. As we move into a more aggregated future our blogs will likely look more like DLAs (digital lifestyle aggregators) than the traditional reading format.



By: jim

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:28:41 +0000

a client of mine was going to sign up to those multi blogger programs , they say you search the topic or product you wish to write about .' it may come up 50 times on blogs you write your post and send and she goes to 50 sites ..is this crap ...love the feedback jim



By: stephentrepreneur

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:49:59 +0000

I agree. I often see this technique used on newspapers ... but thankfully they usually include an option to SEE ALL or similar. The only time I'd see it being necessary is when a prose or story writer divides their work into chapters, or a series of articles that intertwine. But when one story is split up into six page each of less than 100 words, no thanks. That's about traffic-generation and SEO and nothing more. PS. Longtime lurker and reader, first time comment!



By: XmasB

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:57:21 +0000

I hate them, and haven't even considered using multiple pages on my own blog. Series of post i something different altogether. Nothing wrong with series, as long as they are posted in some interval.



By: Glenn Dixon

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:34:04 +0000

As a reader I hate them, but as a blogger I've always assumed that this tactic was used to increase page views for monetization purposes. But if it is divided up into a 'series' of posts (especially if the individual segments are actually posted on separate days) somehow it doesn't offend me as much. *shrug*



By: Ed

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:03 +0000

I'm split between pro and anti multiple page blog posts. Blog posts should at most be two pages. Afterwards, you might think how to repackage the longer piece into multiple shorter posts. We saw this in the print media in reaction to the invasion of USA Today's briefer new stories. On the other hand, we shouldn't forsake fully telling a story in order to prevent some readers from abandoning the site; if the story is written in an engaging enough manner, readers will stick around -- if they can't sit still for more than 300 words, c'est la vie. One tactic I've seen successfully employed with multi-page stories is to include up front a sort of index, breaking out hyperlinked sections so that readers can jump to the section they are most interested.



By: Lorelle

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:30:43 +0000

Thanks for the support for my rant. I think this is an abused tactic, especially for online versions of print magazines and publications. I HATE it in blogs as there is not a reason I have yet found.