tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260856884063947649.post2743934860341228896..comments2009-03-26T09:04:01.357+11:00Suzehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13811311694307770436noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260856884063947649.post-7383028604668441182009-03-26T09:04:00.000+11:002009-03-26T09:04:00.000+11:00What's the definition of success? <BR/><BR/>If it's having more clicks through to news articles, then a cryptic or suggestive headline will be more effective. <BR/><BR/>If it's about providing the user with a meaningful experience, letting them know what they are in for is better. <BR/><BR/>It's all about the context ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260856884063947649.post-35491390196644043032009-03-03T12:34:00.000+11:002009-03-03T12:34:00.000+11:00I think the rationale of the comms team is a bit flawed here. A 50% increase in click throughs to news pages does not mean users were engaging with the content. It is highly likely that most of these people were not qualified users, who instead had clicked through only to find the content was not what the expected.<BR/>It would be interesting to look at the metrics of sites with and without abstracts and investigate what users do *after* clicking through to the article. My hunch is that those without an abstract would have a high bounce rateOwen Hoddahttp://www.owenhodda.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4260856884063947649.post-10140861221223394602009-02-25T09:25:00.000+11:002009-02-25T09:25:00.000+11:00The thing is this, Ethel: It's not that to be successful, news articles need to be read in full. It's that one extra click is one extra page view is a few extra ad impressions and one potential extra click-through.<BR/><BR/>This is of course just me being a cynic and assuming they were advertising-funded. Were they?tomvoirolhttp://tomvoirol.myopenid.com/noreply@blogger.com