Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for October 1, 1997:

How Users Read on the Web

They don't. People rarely read Web pages word by word; instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences. In research on how people read websites we found that 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word. (Update: a newer study found that users read email newsletters even more abruptly than they read websites.) As a result, Web pages have to employ scannable text, using

highlighted keywords (hypertext links serve as one form of highlighting; typeface variations and color are others) meaningful sub-headings (not "clever" ones) bulleted lists one idea per paragraph (users will skip over any additional ideas if they are not caught by the first few words in the paragraph) the inverted pyramid style, starting with the conclusion half the word count (or less) than conventional writing

We found that credibility is important for Web users, since it is unclear who is behind information on the Web and whether a page can be trusted. Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics, good writing, and use of outbound hypertext links. Links to other sites show that the authors have done their homework and are not afraid to let readers visit other sites. Users detested "marketese"; the promotional writing style with boastful subjective claims ("hottest ever") that currently is prevalent on the Web. Web users are busy: they want to get the straight facts. Also, credibility suffers when users clearly see that the site exaggerates. Measuring the Effect of Improved Web Writing

To measure the effect of some of the content guidelines we had identified, we developed five different versions of the same website (same basic information; different wording; same site navigation). We then had users perform the same tasks with the different sites. As shown in the table, measured usability was dramatically higher for the concise version (58% better) and for the scannable version (47% better). And when we combined three ideas for improved writing style into a single site, the result was truly stellar: 124% better usability. Usability Improvement (relative to control condition)

Site Version

Sample Paragraph

Promotional writing (control condition) using the "marketese" found on many commercial websites Concise text with about half the word count as the control condition Scannable layout using the same text as the control condition in a layout that facilitated scanning

Nebraska is filled with internationally recognized attractions that draw large crowds of people every year, without fail. In 1996, some of the most popular places were Fort Robinson State Park (355,000 visitors), Scotts 0% Bluff National Monument (132,166), Arbor (by definition) Lodge State Historical Park & Museum (100,000), Carhenge (86,598), Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer (60,002), and Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park (28,446). In 1996, six of the best-attended attractions in Nebraska were Fort Robinson State Park, Scotts Bluff National Monument, Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum, Carhenge, Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer, and Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park. Nebraska is filled with internationally recognized attractions that draw large crowds of people every year, without fail. In 1996, some of the most popular places were:

58%

47%

Fort Robinson State Park (355,000 visitors) Scotts Bluff National Monument (132,166) Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum (100,000) Carhenge (86,598) Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer (60,002)

Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park (28,446).

Objective language using neutral rather than subjective, boastful, or exaggerated language (otherwise the same as the control condition) Combined version using all three improvements in writing style together: concise, scannable, and objective

Nebraska has several attractions. In 1996, some of the most-visited places were Fort Robinson State Park (355,000 visitors), Scotts Bluff National Monument (132,166), Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum (100,000), Carhenge (86,598), Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer (60,002), and Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park (28,446).

27%

In 1996, six of the most-visited places in Nebraska were:

Fort Robinson State Park Scotts Bluff National Monument Arbor Lodge State Historical Park & Museum Carhenge Stuhr Museum of the Prairie Pioneer Buffalo Bill Ranch State Historical Park

124%

It was somewhat surprising to us that usability was improved by a good deal in the objective language version (27% better). We had expected that users would like this version better than the promotional site (as indeed they did), but we thought that the performance metrics would have been the same for both kinds of language. As it turned out, our four performance measures (time, errors, memory, and site structure) were also better for the objective version than for the promotional version. Our conjecture to explain this finding is that promotional language imposes a cognitive burden on users who have to spend resources on filtering out the hyperbole to get at the facts. When people read a paragraph that starts "Nebraska is filled with internationally recognized attractions," their first reaction is no, it's not, and this thought slows them down and distracts them from using the site. Learn More

We got several interesting findings about users' detailed reading behavior in our eyetracking studies. 2 full days of tutorials on content usability and writing for the Web at the annual Usability Week conference.

The Best of Eyetrack III: What We Saw When We Looked Through Their Eyes By Steve Outing and Laura Ruel Eyetrack III project managers (Este artculo est disponible en espaol) News websites have been with us for about a decade, and editors and designers still struggle with many unanswered questions: Is homepage layout effective? ... What effect do blurbs on the homepage have compared to headlines? ... When is multimedia appropriate? ... Are ads placed where they will be seen by the audience? The Eyetrack III research released by The Poynter Institute, the Estlow Center for Journalism & New Media, and Eyetools could help answer those questions and more. Eyetracking research like this won't provide THE answer to those questions. But combined with other site metrics already used by news website managers -- usability testing, focus groups, log analysis -- the Eyetrack III findings could provide some direction for improving news websites. In Eyetrack III, we observed 46 people for one hour as their eyes followed mock news websites and real multimedia content. In this article we'll provide an overview of what we observed. You can dive into detailed Eyetrack III findings and observations on this website -- use the navigation at the top and left of this page -- at any time. If you don't know what eyetracking is, get oriented by reading the Eyetrack III FAQ. Let's get to the key results of the study, but first, a quick comment on what this study is and is not: It is a preliminary study of several dozen people conducted in San Francisco. It is not an exhaustive exploration that we can extrapolate to the larger population. It is a mix of "findings" based on controlled variables, and "observations" where testing was not as tightly controlled. The researchers went "wide," not "deep" -- covering a lot of ground in terms of website design and multimedia factors. We hope that Eyetrack III is not seen as an end in itself, but rather as the beginning of a wave of eyetracking research that will benefit the news industry. OK, let's begin. ...

At the core: Homepage layout

While testing our participants' eye movements across several news homepage designs, Eyetrack III researchers noticed a common pattern: The eyes most often fixated first in the upper left of the page, then hovered in that area before going left to right. Only after perusing the top portion of the page for some time did their eyes explore further down the page.

Depending on page layout, of course, this pattern can vary. The image above is a simplistic representation of the most common eye-movement pattern we noticed across multiple homepage designs. (In other words, don't take what you see above too seriously.) Now also consider another Eyetrack observation: Dominant headlines most often draw the eye first upon entering the page -- especially when they are in the upper left, and most often (but not always) when in the upper right. Photographs, contrary to what you might expect (and contrary to findings of 1990 Poynter eyetracking research on print newspapers), aren't typically the entry point to a homepage. Text rules on the PC screen -- both in order viewed and in overall time spent looking at it. A quick review of 25 large news websites -- here's a list of them -- reveals that 20 of them place the dominant homepage image in the upper left. (Most news sites have a consistent page design from day to day; they don't often vary the layout as a print newspaper would.) We observed that with news homepages, readers' instincts are to first look at the flag/logo and top headlines in the upper left. The graphic below shows the zones of importance we

formulated from the Eyetrack data. While each site is different, you might look at your own website and see what content you have in which zones.

[Read more on what Eyetrack III says about homepage layout here.]

Want people to read, not scan? Consider small type

The Eyetrack III researchers discovered something important when testing headline and type size on homepages: Smaller type encourages focused viewing behavior (that is, reading the words), while larger type promotes lighter scanning. In general, our testing found that people spent more time focused on small type than large type. Larger type resulted in more scanning of the page -- fewer words overall were fixated on -- as people looked around for words or phrases that captured their attention. This was especially the case when we looked at headline size on homepages. Larger headlines encouraged scanning more than smaller ones. (Note: We are not advocating that you run out and reduce the size of your font across the board. You should make sure that people can read the font size you select in order to achieve the appropriate balance.) Particularly interesting was people's behavior when there were headlines and blurbs used on homepages. Eyetrack III test participants tended to view both the headline and blurb when the headline was bold and the same size as blurb text and immediately preceded the blurb on the same line.

With a headline larger than the blurb and on a separate line, people tended to view the headlines and skip the blurbs; they scanned the headlines throughout the page more than the group that looked at the smaller headlines. Researchers believe that it is the contrast in type size that accounts for this behavior, as well as the type size itself. When a headline is larger than its accompanying blurb text, it's perceived as the important element of the headline-blurb block -- so people appear to decide that viewing the headline is sufficient and they skip the blurb. Underlined headlines discouraged testers from viewing blurbs on the homepage:

This may be related to a phenomenon that we noted throughout the testing: visual breaks -- like a line or rule -- discouraged people from looking at items beyond the break, like a blurb. (This also affects ads, which we address below.) When we look at news websites, we find that the vast majority of them (22 out of 25) use blurbs to accompany headlines on their homepages. It's the rare ones that use only headlines: CNN.com, NYPost.com, and ProJo.com. In terms of headline size, we observed about an even split between using larger type size for headlines vs. smaller type. We found that 12 out of 22 news sites that use blurbs on their homepage put rules under their headlines. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about type and blurbs here and here.]

Partial viewing of headlines, blurbs found to be common

We found that when people look at blurbs under headlines on news homepages, they often only look at the left one-third of the blurb. In other words, most people just look at the first couple of words -- and only read on if they are engaged by those words. Here's a heatmap of a blurb demonstrating this. (A heatmap is an aggregate view of all the eye fixations of our test subjects. Below, the orange area was viewed the most, the blue areas the least.)

With a list of headlines on a homepage, we can see where people looked with eyetracking -- and again, most often it's the left sides of the headlines. People typically scan down a list of headlines, and often don't view entire headlines. If the first words engage them, they seem likely to read on. On average, a headline has less than a second of a site visitor's attention. For headlines -- especially longer ones -- it would appear that the first couple of words need to be real attention-grabbers if you want to capture eyes. The same goes for blurbs -- perhaps even more so. Our findings about blurbs suggest that not only should they be kept short, but the first couple of words need to grab the viewer's attention. On the 25 news websites we reviewed, there's considerable variety in blurbs. Average blurb length varies from a low of about 10 words to a high of 25, with most sites coming in around 17. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about blurbs here.]

What creates "hot spots"?

In Eyetrack III, we tested several homepage designs, watching where on the page people looked. As you would expect, lower parts of the page -- especially areas you have to scroll to view -- receive modest viewing. But that doesn't mean you can't get people to look at content low on a scrolling page. On a couple of our test homepages, we found "hot spots" for some stories. Perhaps because our testing took place in San Francisco, research subjects were drawn to one story about the site "Craig's List" (a local online community popular since its inception in 1995). The headline for that story had an inordinate number of eye fixations compared to surrounding content, even though it was below the first visible screen of the page. We observed a similarly high number of eye fixations on a headline about clothing maker FCUK, which was placed far down on a page with a long list of headlines and blurbs. We think this spells good news for those websites with homepages that extend well beyond the initial screen view. Eyetrack III found that people do typically look beyond the first screen. What happens, however, is that their eyes typically scan lower portions of the page seeking something to grab their attention. Their eyes may fixate on an interesting headline or a stand-out word, but not on other content. Again, this points to the necessity of sharp headline writing. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about homepage design here and here.]

Where's your navigation?

While testing several homepage designs, we varied the placement of a navigation element: top (under the flag or logo), left column, and right column. Navigation placed at the top of a homepage performed best -- that is, it was seen by the highest percentage of test subjects and looked at for the longest duration. In a survey of 25 top news sites, we found 11 that used top position navigation. The other 14 used left navigation. Seven of the 25 used left and top navigation elements. None of the 25 sites we surveyed used right side navigation. It's rare, but you can find right navigation in the news website world. It might surprise you to learn that in our testing we observed better usage (more eye fixations and longer viewing duration) with right-column navigation than left. While this might have been the novelty factor at play -- people aren't used to seeing right-side navigation -- it may indicate that there's no reason not to put navigation on the right side of the page and use the left column for editorial content or ads. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about navigation here.]

What about article layout, writing style?

Eyetrack III results suggests various characteristics of article writing and layout can affect a reader's viewing behavior. For example, let's take average paragraph length. Most news sites run articles with medium-length paragraphs -- somewhere (loosely) around 45-50 words, or two or three sentences. In a survey of 25 top news sites, however, we did find seven that routinely edited articles to make paragraphs shorter -- often only one sentence per paragraph. Shorter paragraphs performed better in Eyetrack III research than longer ones. Our data revealed that stories with short paragraphs received twice as many overall eye fixations as those with longer paragraphs. The longer paragraph format seems to discourage viewing. Most news website article pages present stories in a single column of text, but a handful of sites -- like IHT.com and TheHerald.co.uk -- mimic newspaper layout and present articles in two or three side-by-side columns. Is this as readable as the traditional (for the Web) one-column article format? Eyetrack III results showed that the standard one-column format performed better in terms of number of eye fixations -- in other words, people viewed more. However, bear in mind that habit may have affected this outcome. Since most people are accustomed to one-column Web articles, the surprise of seeing three-column type might have affected their eye behavior.

What about photos on article pages? It might surprise you that our test subjects typically looked at text elements before their eyes landed on an accompanying photo, just like on homepages. As noted earlier, the reverse behavior (photos first) occurred in previous print eyetracking studies. Finally, there's the use of summary descriptions (extended deck headlines, paragraph length) leading into articles. These were popular with our participants. When our testers encountered a story with a boldface introductory paragraph, 95 percent of them viewed all or part of it. When people viewed an introductory paragraph for between 5 and 10 seconds -- as was often the case -- their average reading behavior of the rest of the article was about the same as when they viewed articles without a summary paragraph. The summary paragraph made no difference in terms of how much of the story was consumed. Just over 20 percent of the leading news websites regularly use summary paragraphs with articles. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about article layout here.]

Advertising
Eyetrack III tested a variety of ad placements and formats across our various hompages and article-level pages. The first thing we noticed is that people often ignore ads, but that depends a lot on placement. When they do gaze at an ad, it's usually for only 0.5 to 1.5 seconds. Good placement and the right format can improve those figures. We found that ads in the top and left portions of a homepage received the most eye fixations. Right side ads didn't do as well, and ads at the bottom of the page were seen, typically, by only a small percentage of people. Close proximity to popular editorial content really helped ads get seen. We noticed that when an ad was separated from editorial matter by either white space or a rule, the ad received fewer fixations than when there was no such barrier. Ads close to top-of-thepage headlines did well. A banner ad above the homepage flag didn't draw as many fixations as an ad that was below the flag and above editorial content. Text ads were viewed most intently, of all the types we tested. On our test pages, text ads got an average eye duration time of nearly 7 seconds; the best display-type ad got only 1.6 seconds, on average. Size matters. Bigger ads had a better chance of being seen. Small ads on the right side of homepages typically were seen by only one-third of our testers; the rest never once

cast an eye on them. On article pages, "half-page" ads were the most intensely viewed by our test subjects. Yet, they were only seen 38 percent of the time; most people never looked at them. Article ads that got seen the most were ones inset into article text. "Skyscraper" ads (thin verticals running in the left or right column) came in third place. Reviewing 25 leading news websites, we discovered that there's a preponderance of small banner ads on homepages. And it's exceedingly common to find ads in the right column of news homepages. About half of the 25 sites we reviewed inset ads into article text. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about advertising here.]

Larger online images hold the eye longer than smaller images
News homepages typically use templates, many of which employ a predetermined size for a main image. Although the value of using a template-driven design can (and should) be debated, what we learned about photo size in Eyetrack III may be helpful to those who are wondering just how big a spot to leave for images. Although we learned that most of our test participants did not look at images first, we also observed that images received a significant number of eye fixations. We also learned that the bigger the image, the more time people took to look at it. One of our test pages had a postage-stamp sized mug shot that was viewed by 10 percent of our participants. Compare that with an average-sized photo (about 230 pixels wide and deep) that drew gazes from about 70 percent. We found that images that are at least 210 x 230 pixels in size were viewed by more than half of the testers. Our research also shows that clean, clear faces in images attract more eye fixations on homepages. Article-level pages seem to follow suit. Again we found that the larger the image, the more users were drawn to it. In reviewing 25 news websites, we found that about 20 percent routinely use small images on their homepages. Four out of five sites routinely place their homepage main photo in the upper left. And here's an interesting research tidbit: We noticed that people often clicked on photos -- even though on our test pages that got them nowhere (and indeed, clicking on photos does nothing on many real news sites). [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about images here.]

Text for facts; multimedia graphics for unfamiliar concepts

Overall, we observed that participants were more likely to correctly recall facts, names, and places when they were presented with that information in a text fomat. However new, unfamiliar, conceptual information was more accurately recalled when participants received it in a multimedia graphic format. So what does this mean? While overall we did see a slight, although not statistically significant, increase in information recall from text stories, we should note that most of our recall questions were about facts, names, and places. Story information about processes or procedures seemed to be comprehended well when presented using animation and text. A step-by-step animation we tested supported this idea. We also observed that most participants attended to only two forms of media at a time. For example, in one of our testing situations users were presented with audio, still images, and written captions. We observed that they directed their attention to the audio and images. Important information in the photo captions were not read by many. The bottom line is that the best journalists working in multimedia environments know how to make good choices about the presentation of story information. As demonstrated in this research, some information is best conveyed by the use of good, descriptive writing. Other information is better explained graphically. [Read more on what Eyetrack III says about multimedia comprehension here, and read additional general multimedia observations here.]

We've covered some of the highlights in this article, but there's lots more, so please spend some time exploring this website. Use the navigation devices at the top of this page and in the left column.

Eyetracking the news key findings

READING DEPTH Participants read deep into stories (including jump text) in print and online, although reading decreased as story length increased.

Online participants read an average of 77 percent of story text they chose to read. This is substantially higher than the amount of story text participants read in broadsheets and tabloids. Broadsheet participants read an average of 62 percent of stories they selected. Tabloid participants read an average of 57 percent. Why would people read more of a story online? Home pages prominently feature brief, up-to-theminute breaking news reports, which we coded as stories. We wondered whether the shortness of these and other online stories could have been a factor. However, when we looked at story lengths -- from 1 to 4 inches for the shortest stories to those 19 inches and longer -- we found that online readers still read more text regardless of the length. We also measured whether a story was read from start to finish, and found 63 percent of story text chosen by online participants was read to completion. Reading in the two print formats was considerably lower. Forty percent of stories selected were read all the way through in broadsheets, 36 percent in tabloids. On average, 68 percent of the continued or jumped story selected by a tabloid reader was read. In broadsheet, that number was 59 percent. READING PATTERNS Participants fell into two categories -- methodical readers and scanners. Online readers were equally likely to be methodical as they were to be scanners. Print readers were more likely to be methodical. Both types read about the same amount of text. Methodical readers read top to bottom. They did not scan very often. In print, they often read a full, two-page view, and they re-read some material. When viewing online news, they used dropdown menus and navigation bars to locate stories. Scanners viewed headlines and other page display elements without reading much text. They may have read part of a story, looked at photos or other package items, but they generally did not return once they left the text. When consuming online news, a scanner used home page elements like story lists. Eventually the scanner would click on a headline or other story link.

Online, there was very little difference in the amount of text read between methodical readers and scanners. Broadsheet and tabloid methodical readers read about the same amount of story text they selected. Tabloid scanners read the smallest volume of text, on average. INFORMATION RECALL AND STORY FORMS Alternative story forms (including Q&As, timelines, lists and fact boxes) helped readers remember facts presented to them in a test of six different prototype designs of one story.

Readers were given one of six different versions of a story about bird flu. Three were in print, three were online. Each version included identical information -- fact for fact, but the design and story structure differed. When a reader finished reading one of these prototypes for five minutes, he or she answered questions about the story. Alternative story forms also drew a higher amount of visual attention, compared to regular text in print. This visual draw was particularly powerful in broadsheets. Alternative story form elements accounted for only about 4 percent of the 16,976 text elements available to be viewed in those newspapers, but they received more than their share of attention. This confirms the findings of earlier EyeTrack studies and other research that short text, especially with visual elements, is accessible and attractive to readers.

READING SEQUENCES The contrast between print and online points of entry is especially stark. Headlines and photos were the first visual stop for print readers; navigation was the first stop for online readers. People reading broadsheets viewed headlines before photos. Fifty-three percent of participants reading broadsheets viewed headlines as the first point of entry on the front page. A photo or another headline most often came next for those readers. This differs somewhat from Poynters first EyeTrack study in 1990 in which readers entered a broadsheet page through the largest photo first. Because readers in this study read live stories rather than prototypes, one explanation for the difference is that they had heightened interest in real stories (on a day they had been asked not to read the paper before being observed). Also, as frequent readers of the newspaper, they may have been guided by what the editors chose as most significant. STORY PACKAGING Lead stories and packaged stories attracted more attention in print than other stories. We defined a lead story as the one with the largest headline on the page.

Our definition of a story package was: a headline, story text and a dominant photo, graphic or

illustration PLUS at least one other storytelling device like a Q&A, a timeline, a fact box, a short list, etc. Large headlines received more attention than small in print. This finding confirms Poynters first eyetracking study in 1990, when large headlines were viewed more than small, and large headlines were among the main points of entry on front pages. BRIEFS Briefs were well viewed and briefs with images worked best. The presence of a visual alongside a brief, in print, increased its likelihood of being seen by more than 34% above what we would expect, based on the number available to be seen.

TEASERS Visual elements attract attention to teasers. A photo, icon or artwork drew above average attention to a teaser, particularly in broadsheet format, where they drew more than twice as much attention compared to tabloid. This confirms the finding from Poynters 1990 eyetracking study.

VOICE AND OPINION Print readers were clearly interested in voice of the reader content.

We classified editorials, op-ed columnists and the work of a newspapers own columnists as the voice of the newspaper. Elements such as letters to the editor and reader feedback were categorized as voice of the reader. Voice of the reader elements in broadsheets drew 68 percent more attention than expected based on the number of those elements available to be seen. In tabloids voice of the reader elements drew 30 percent more attention than expected. The voice of the paper elements (editorials, columnists) in broadsheets and tabloids generated less attention than expected.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHICS Large photos and documentary photos drew more eyes than small photos or staged photos. Mug shots received relatively little attention. This included pictures of columnists.

Readers preferred live action photos, such as this image from the St. Petersburg Times sports section. (Photo by Dirk Shadd)

Color photos receieved more visual attention than expected among readers of broadsheet papers, while black and white photos received less attention than expected. Cutlines or captions were popular and well read. Those that accompanied photos that were part of a lead story or story package were more likely to be seen than cutlines that appeared with standard stories.

INFOGRAPHICS Maps and explanatory graphics were viewed more than charts in print and online. An overwhelming majority of graphic eye stops online, 88 percent of the total, were on weather graphics. Graphics showing traffic patterns also received a lot of attention online. ADVERTISING With broadsheet ads, bigger might not always be better. As powerful as full page ads are in broadsheet, a half-page or almost full-page attracted as much attention. This leads us to think that adjacency to editorial content increases the likelihood of an ad being seen.

Color was a big draw in both print formats. And a color ad in broadsheet format generated well more than twice the attention of a black and white ad. Almost half of the print ads were small (less than a quarter page) and they drew less attention than their presence would suggest in both broadsheet and tabloid. Online ads with moving elements attracted a lot of eye stops, more than a quarter of the total on ads. Banner ads and small ads generated the most eye stops, and it was equal.

New rule: Cover what you do best. Link to the rest (Jeff Jarvis)
Try this on as a new rule for newspapers: Cover what you do best. Link to the rest. Thats not how newspapers work now. They try to cover everything because they used to have to be all things to all people in their markets. So they had their own reporters replicate the work of other reporters elsewhere so they could say that they did it under their own bylines as a matter of pride and propriety. Its the way things were done. They also took wire-service copy and reedited it so they could give their audiences the world. But in the age of the link, this is clearly inefficient and unnecessary. You can link to the stories that someone else did and to the rest of the world. And if you do that, it allows you to reallocate your dwindling resources to what matters, which in most cases should be local coverage.

This changes the dynamic of editorial decisions. Instead of saying, we should have that (and replicating what is already out there) you say, what do we do best? That is, what is our unique value? It means that when you sit down to see a story that others have worked on, you should ask, can we do it better? If not, then link. And devote your time to what you can do better. In the rearchitecture of news, what needs to happen is that people are driven to the best coverage, not the 87th version of the same coverage. This will work for publications and news organizations. It will also work for individuals; this is how a lone reporters work (and reputation) can surface. We saw that happening with the Libby trial and Firedoglakes liveblogging of it. As Jay Rosen said at our NPR confab last week and Ive heard this elsewhere theirs became the best source for keeping up on the trial. Reporters and editors knew it and were using it. So those same reporters and editors should have been sending their readers to the blog as a service: Were not liveblogging it, but they are. Well give you our analysis and reporting later. Enjoy. That is where the architecture of news must go because links enable it and economics demand it. *** Theres another angle to this: News is not one-size-fits-all. We dont get all our news from one source anymore. We get bombarded with news all around us. So we all knew that Anna Nicole Smith was dead (or, in Jack Caffertys immortal words, still dead). So that means that not every newspaper needs to cover that story in depth. It certainly means that The New York Times neednt. So why did the Times devote considerable space and reporting and editing talent to the Anna Nicole story this week? They added nothing more to the story. Its not what they do best. At the least, if they felt they really needed to cover it, they should have used the AP. Online, they certainly should have just linked to the many, many other sources that are covering it. And then the paper could have used its resources for news that matters and news that they can do uniquely well. So why did they do it? They didnt want to be left behind. They perhaps even didnt want to seem snotting (as if the Anna Nicole story were below them and their readers). But thats not the issue. Making the best use of their resources and talent it. They need to take advantage of the link. Newspapers are getting more comfortable with linking out even to competitors. This takes it farther. It says that the best service you can perform for yourself and your readers is to link instead of trying to do everything. And once you really open yourself up to this, then it also means that you can link to more people gathering more coverage of news: We didnt cover that school board meeting today, but heres a link to somebody who recorded it. Thats really no different from saying after a big news event, We werent there to take pictures, but lots of our readers were and here they are.

So you do what you do best. And you link to the rest. That is the new architecture of news. *** LATER: But this is the kind of red-herring arguments we still hear in this discussion. Al Eisele, editor-at-large for The Hill, complains about criticism of MSM and points to the Washington Posts excellent investigation of the conditions at the Walter Reade Army Medical Center. This Jurassic journalist is tired of all the bitching and moaning by denizens of the blogosphere about the deficiencies of the Mainstream Media (MSM in the snarky parlance of blognoscenti). Out of touch, corrupted by proximity to power, dinosaur media, inside gasbaggery of the Beltway these are some of the kinder descriptions of those of us who believe that traditional journalism is still a necessary and honorable trade, like garbage collection or undertaking. . . . Citizen journalism is fine, and its great that vigilant readers are keeping journalist, and politicians, on their toes. But whens the last time it prodded the bureaucracy into action to fix a problem or correct an injustice? Thats what watchdog journalism, with the veteran reporters and vast resources like that of the Washington Post, does so well. And thats why the Mainstream Media is still an essential part of the brave new world of journalism in the Internet age. I havent seen a single blogger say that they could do this or that they dont want MSM to do this. Shoot down that canard. Pickle that herring. What Im saying above is that we want MSM to do more of this. Instead of covering Anna Nicole and Britney. : Jeffrey Dvorkin, ex of NPR and now of the Center for Concerned Journalists, echoes my view from above in relation to foreign reporting. As summarized by Romenesko: * There are local, foreign reporters who are knowledgeable and whose English is excellent. They need to be identified and trained. * The role of the blogger in foreign reporting needs to be rethought. It is just possible that a blogger-correspondent might be the next phase of reporting. * The BBC may be a model where eager and often young journalists are given the basics of news gathering then sent overseas to act as one-person bureaus. These journalists may not have all of the experience that old hands may have, but they are willing and adept. : Richard Sambrook reminds me of a report (PDF) on use of wires vs. original reporting. The Associated Press has been the center of this architecture for years: if you dont do it, get it off the wire. Only now, there are more ways to follow that same model.

So, Mr. Eisele, rather than whining about bloggers, it would be better to find more ways to work with them and to link to competitors so you can concentrate on just the reporting you and I admire. : SEE ALSO: This earlier post: Nobody wants less reporting. : LATER STILL: Cory Bergman makes a great point about the parallel world of TV: Theres an interesting implication here for TV news, as well. The majority of stories in local TV newscasts (and the networks, too) are exactly the same. This sameness is not a detractor in a linear world: most people who watch TV dont turn off a newscast if theyve already read or seen a story somewhere else. But on the web, sameness is a drawback: people who have already read or seen a story somewhere else arent going to click on it to read it again. Posting the same stories as everyone else has a more tangible impact on pageviews than airing the same stories has an impact on ratings. This becomes even a bigger drawback when you consider all the stories TV newsrooms get from newspapers, which have already been online for most the day before they end up on the TV websites. In the end, covering unique, original stories is a must for TV sites resources willing even if it means diverging from TVs daily coverage. Or better yet, TV newsrooms should cover more enterprise stories as a percentage of daily assignments. Yes, and then TV news might actually be valuable. Like newspapers, the have resources. Its a question of priorities.
April 9, 2006

IDEAS & TRENDS

This Boring Headline Is Written for Google

By STEVE LOHR

JOURNALISTS over the years have assumed they were writing their headlines and articles for two audiences fickle readers and nitpicking editors. Today, there is a third important arbiter of their work: the software programs that scour the Web, analyzing and ranking online news articles on behalf of Internet search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN. The search-engine "bots" that crawl the Web are increasingly influential, delivering 30 percent or more of the traffic on some newspaper, magazine or television news Web sites. And traffic means readers and advertisers, at a time when the mainstream media is desperately trying to make a living on the Web.

So news organizations large and small have begun experimenting with tweaking their Web sites for better search engine results. But software bots are not your ordinary readers: They are blazingly fast yet numbingly literal-minded. There are no algorithms for wit, irony, humor or stylish writing. The software is a logical, sequential, left-brain reader, while humans are often right brain. In newspapers and magazines, for example, section titles and headlines are distilled nuggets of human brainwork, tapping context and culture. "Part of the craft of journalism for more than a century has been to think up clever titles and headlines, and Google comes along and says, 'The heck with that,' " observed Ed Canale, vice president for strategy and new media at The Sacramento Bee. Moves to accommodate the technology are tricky. How far can a news organization go without undercutting its editorial judgment concerning the presentation, tone and content of news? So far, the news media are gingerly stepping into the field of "search engine optimization." It is a booming business, estimated at $1.25 billion in revenue worldwide last year, and projected to more than double this year. Much of this revenue comes from e-commerce businesses, whose sole purpose is to sell goods and services online. For these sites, search engine optimization has become a constant battle of one-upmanship, pitting the search engine technologists against the marketing experts and computer scientists working for the Web sites. Think of it as an endless chess game. The optimizer wizards devise some technical trick to outwit the search-engine algorithms that rank the results of a search. The search engines periodically change their algorithms to thwart such self-interested manipulation, and the game starts again. News organizations, by contrast, have moved cautiously. Mostly, they are making titles and headlines easier for search engines to find and fathom. About a year ago, The Sacramento Bee changed online section titles. "Real Estate" became "Homes," "Scene" turned into "Lifestyle," and dining information found in newsprint under "Taste," is online under "Taste/Food." Some news sites offer two headlines. One headline, often on the first Web page, is clever, meant to attract human readers. Then, one click to a second Web page, a more quotidian, factual headline appears with the article itself. The popular BBC News Web site does this routinely on longer articles. Nic Newman, head of product development and technology at BBC News Interactive, pointed to a few examples from last Wednesday. The first headline a human reader sees: "Unsafe sex: Has Jacob Zuma's rape trial hit South Africa's war on AIDS?" One click

down: "Zuma testimony sparks HIV fear." Another headline meant to lure the human reader: "Tulsa star: The life and career of much-loved 1960's singer." One click down: "Obituary: Gene Pitney." "The search engine has to get a straightforward, factual headline, so it can understand it," Mr. Newman said. With a little programming sleight-of-hand, the search engine can be steered first to the straightforward, somewhat duller headline, according to some search optimizers. On the Web, space limitations can coincide with search-engine preferences. In the print version of The New York Times, an article last Tuesday on Florida beating U.C.L.A. for the men's college basketball championship carried a longish headline, with allusions to sports history: "It's Chemistry Over Pedigree as Gators Roll to First Title." On the Times Web site, whose staff has undergone some search-engine optimization training, the headline of the article was, "Gators Cap Run With First Title." The Associated Press, which feeds articles to 11,000 newspapers, radio and television stations, limits its online headlines to less than 40 characters, a concession to small screens. And on the Web, there is added emphasis on speed and constant updates. "You put those demands, and that you know you're also writing for search engines, and you tend to write headlines that are more straightforward," said Lou Ferrara, online editor of The Associated Press. "My worry is that some creativity is lost." Whether search engines will influence journalism below the headline is uncertain. The natural-language processing algorithms, search experts say, scan the title, headline and at least the first hundred words or so of news articles. Journalists, they say, would be wise to do a little keyword research to determine the two or three most-searched words that relate to their subject and then include them in the first few sentences. "That's not something they teach in journalism schools," said Danny Sullivan, editor of SearchEngineWatch, an online newsletter. "But in the future, they should." Such suggestions stir mixed sentiments. "My first thought is that reporters and editors have a job to do and they shouldn't worry about what Google's or Yahoo's software thinks of their work," said Michael Schudson, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, who is a visiting faculty member at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. "But my second thought is that newspaper headlines and the presentation of stories in print are in a sense marketing devices to bring readers to your story," Mr. Schudson added. "Why not use a new marketing device appropriate to the age of the Internet and the search engine?"

In journalism, as in other fields, the tradition of today was once an innovation. The socalled inverted pyramid structure of a news article placing the most important information at the top was shaped in part by a new technology of the 19th century, the telegraph, the Internet of its day. Putting words on telegraph wires was costly, so reporters made sure the most significant points were made at the start. Yet it wasn't all technological determinism by any means. The inverted pyramid style of journalism, according to Mr. Schudson, became standard practice only in 1900, four decades or more after telegraph networks came into use. It awaited the rise of journalists as "an avowedly independent, self-conscious, professionalizing group," confident of their judgments about what information was most important, he said. The new technology shaped practice, but people determined how the technology was used and it took a while. Something similar is the likely path of the Internet. "We're all struggling and experimenting with how news is presented in the future," said Larry Kramer, president of CBS Digital Media. "And there's nothing wrong with search engine optimization as long as it doesn't interfere with news judgment. It shouldn't, and it's up to us to make sure it doesn't. But it is a tool that is part of being effective in this medium."