Does the internet encourage short attention spans?

Or is mine just really short anyway...

[pixel_juice]

I was at an internet site a few minutes ago looking up some code (DOM event models as it happens ;)) and although I was at an excellent, visually appealing site with just the sort of content I was looking for, I found myself instinctively scanning the page to find the information I wanted as quickly as possible, get the information in a hurry and then head off (after a quick bookmark I will probably never see again) somewhere else.

I think this might be a symptom of internet search culture, in that you are forced to analyse information at a fast rate in order to find the best site and good content, or risk getting bogged down in poor sites and pages.

I scan the serps looking for the ideal match, click through several sites after looking around briefly to see if the result was a good match. If I don't find it fast, I'm outta there.

Which would be fine if I only did this when trying to find a good site, but now I'm catching myself doing it on really useful sites too...

I'm sure we've all seen lots of 'hit and runs' on our sites in referrer logs. Designers (and SEOs) are encouraged to put the content we think visitors want as noticeably and as high up the page as possible, so we are teaching visitors that if it's not there, it's not a match.

Is it just me? Do I need to take some deep breaths and stop drinking so much coffee, or are attention spans on the web destined to go the same way as TV audiences?

Be interested to hear any thoughts :)

pixel

[martinibuster]

I was always told that MTV was to blame.
:) Y

[pixel_juice]

Don't even say mtv to me ;)

I'm waiting for all the posts like "Sorry, what were we talking about again?"

[ken_b]

uhhh.... what was the question again?

I don't know about encouraging it. In my case there wasn't much to start with.

Which makes the web a really cool thing, brcause I can go back and look again, any time of day or night.

[oh good, I fullfilled pixel-eyes premonition :) ]

[pixel_juice]

pixel-eyes?

Pay attention ken_b!

lol

[pendanticist]

pixel_juice, does the above post answer your question sufficiently?

Ahhhh, the wonders of cut and paste. <chuckle>

Pendanticist.

[miles]

I have always had a short attention span. To get my attention you have to be very good at writing, speaking, or have some kind of visual display.

I have learned to skim web pages really well. But when it comes to reading skimming sucks. Its hard to sit down and read a good book without skimming. One of my favorite authors is Stephen Hunter. He gets me hooked in the first 20 pages. I have a rule about books; "If it does not get my attention in the first 100 pages I dont finnish it.

[DrCool]

100 pages? I only give them 5 or so to hook me.

[miles]

Sometimes the book is slow and Stephen hunter gets me in the first two pages so its good. There are some comentaries that a guy in Kalifornia writes that I am not even interested in....at all. Its too heady. But 100 is standard for most books.

[Brett_Tabke]

>100 pages? I only give them 5 or so to hook me.

5!? as in the number that follows 4?

If the info doesn't match the query - why stick around? WOM sites are the only ones that warrent more than 1 click.

This is why Flash sites die. They try to blame it on search engines not indexing them or allowing cloaking, but flash sites die because no one wants to set through a 5 second "click here" logo screen. One of the great browser addons of 2004 will be just printing "click here" under the back button.

[pixel_juice]

You're right to say 'why stick around', but I'm talking about the effect of this on good sites, with useful content.

i'm losing interest already...

[edited by: pixel_juice at 11:16 pm (utc) on April 9, 2003]

[dvduval]

I am really good at starting all sorts of projects, but I have to really work hard to focus on completing projects. This topic serves as a greatreminder to me.

[mivox]

>100 pages? I only give them 5 or so to hook me.
5!? as in the number that follows 4?

Um... they were referring to books right there, Brett... you know, the things they print on lots of sheets of paper, all stuck together down one side? hehehe. How's that attention span doing?

Personally, for search results if I can't find it on the first 1-2 pages, I refine my search and try again. For paper books, I'll give it 10 or 20 pages.

[Brett_Tabke]

>when it comes to reading skimming sucks.

[miles]

>when it comes to reading skimming sucks.

Brett when I am reading books I like to take my time and enjoy them. Most times I start skimming and miss a turn in the book and cant figure it out for a few chapters or the end of the book. I dont like skimming particular books.

[ken_b]

opppppssss

My apologies to... Pixel-Juice!

Ok, sooooo..... proof reading is off my list of career choices, I guess.

[SuzyUK]

I've enjoyed reading books for too long to mention...;)
(used to read 2-3 novels, Stephen King size!, per week)

now I haven't been to do so since "the information revolution" called the Internet..which answers pixel_juices original question..yes it's the internet ;) sorry what were you saying again....

However there are times when I do really want to learn something and I then get annoyed with a web page and will print it out so I can read it properly

Doesn't make sense really
Suzy

[pixel_juice]

Hehe, I post about people's short attention span, and I've got one forgotten name and one misread cos of skimming already.

I rest my case your honour!

:)

All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone - Pascal

[Webber]

And this is how I miss a lot of usefull info.

For example this thread:
-1- I read (well, actually glanced at) the original post.
-2- Checked what Brett had to say.
-3- Checked the last post

And joined.

Especially those long threads on who has the best site, which keywords are most competitive, bla bla. Are there some people out there, who actually read the whole thread?

And this is probably why many comments are made 5, 6, 7, 10 times in one thread and questions derived from the original post are never answered.......

If I find an interesting site, I print is first. Reading requires paper.

[georgeek]

"The addictive nature of web browsing can leave you with an attention span of nine seconds - the same as a goldfish" says Ted Selker, self confessed expert in the online equivalent of body language at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.........yawn, clicks on recent posts [webmasterworld.com]

[Josk]

Was going to reply, but the discussion was > 1 page, and I forgot.

[pixel_juice]

Maybe I should have changed the title of this thread to 'does the internet encourage pedantry and short sarcastic posts...' ;)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts everyone.

[killroy]

I read every last port... I've always been a cover to cover person. I'm the kinda guy who even reads the dedications and blurbs on novels, and never puts one down no matter how bad.

But websites as such... well I tend to get hogged down, spending hours reading after just wanting to look one thing up. the hyperlinked nature of the web makes it endless, and impossible to read cover to cover.

SN

[mivox]

I've always been a cover to cover person. I'm the kinda guy who even reads the dedications and blurbs on novels, and never puts one down no matter how bad.

Hehehe... but do you read everything on the cereal box, including the top and bottom? ;)

Really, I think some people just naturally tend to have shorter attention spans than others, and if that sort of person is plopped down in front of an internet connection every day for hours, of course it will have a "complimentary" effect on their already fragmented thought patterns.

OTOH, there are people who tend to get utterly immersed in whatever they're doing, for hours on end, only to look up and realize, "Goodness! It's dinner time and I forgot breakfast and lunch!" We aren't in danger of having our attention spans diminshed, IMO... we are in danger of becoming so immersed in something that we starve to death at our computer desks.

Which is much more serious a problem than a short attention span. ;)

[pixel_juice]

The anorexic vs disruptive-disorder future!

Point taken Mivox ;)

Many people were talking about reading books in this thread. SuzyUK said that to read things properly you need a physical copy in front of you, and there seemed to be some agreement.

So if books hold your attention better than web sites, why is this? Is it because the internet and reading off a monitor is inherently less 'attention-grabbing' or is it a fault with websites themselves?

If websites are at fault to some degree, what can I do to make the experience of my website closer to that of reading a book? Or is this a pointless way of looking at things?

[snowman]

Does the internet encourage short attention spans?

Possibly about as much as TV and videos do.

I'd probably be better inclined to say that people who prefer, for any reason, not to exercise their mental faculties towards patient and slower rates of data entry, and often seek a quick thrill, might find themselves with short attention spans.

I have a friend of mine who is exactly like this, and not only hates reading books but will only use computers and especially video tape, and even in this, not for learning anything, just for entertainment.

Perhaps we've become a society of entertainment junkies. I don't know.

Writing is good and educational, we should encourage ourselves to write and explore what we need to express.