Half of Google News Users Browse But Don't Click 237
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times: "Nearly half of the users of Google News skim the headlines at the news aggregator site without clicking through to the publisher, according to new research. ... Outsell analyst Ken Doctor said in a statement that 'among the aggregators, Google's effect on the newspaper industry is particularly striking.' 'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. 'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.' ... With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access."
Re:Slashdot did it first (Score:5, Funny)
Nrly hlf of ggl nws usrs dnt click thru to articles. News sites upset. Only 10% of usrs wllng to pay. Click Here [slashdot.org] for full article. ($10)
Re:Slashdot did it first (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I only click-thru for the comments.
(For those of you too young to get the joke, it was originally said by a comedian who claimed to read Playboy only for the articles.)
GASP! (Score:3, Funny)
You mean to tell me that 44 percent of visitors to Google News aren't actually interested in the listed headlines, and therefore don't click through!? Let me put this to the test...
"Democrats see Mass. message: Jobs, jobs, jobs" - boring, pass.
"Alternate supply routes could open Haiti aid bottleneck" - just got all info I needed.
"Americans See Economic Recovery a Long Way Off" - no duh.
"Airstrikes Target al-Qaida in Yemen" - woot, bombs, but I'll pass.
"Netanyahu turns fire on Abbas as US envoy flies in" - whattahootey?
"Powers 'shifting to sanctions' in dealing with Iran" - invasion timer started.
"Intel chief concedes errors in Christmas bomb case" - and?
"Michelle Obama to launch initiative fighting child obesity" - by dressing fashionably?
"Alleged dinner crashers invoke Fifth Amendment" - reality TV series coming to NBC in spring.
Didn't click on anything, until I got to my custom filter:
"Twisted Physics: Scientists Create Knots of Light" - Oh wait, this is from fox news. Never mind.
Re:Slashdot did it first (Score:3, Funny)
How'd you figure that out?
From the RSS feed.
Re:Slashdot did it first (Score:3, Funny)
So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.
Um, ever hear of a little thing called the Slashdot effect? Post your website URL, let's see if we'll read it :-D
Oh, we click on them, sure, but we don't read them.
Re:GASP! (Score:4, Funny)
I dunno, I'm pretty interested in finding out what errors Intel could have made with regards to the Underpants Bomber. Is it related to the FDIV bug?
RTFA? (Score:4, Funny)
Why would anyone Read The Fucking Article when the heading and introduction/opening paragraph give us everything we need to know...
Here is an example from a real headline...
Michael Jackson's Giraffes Murdered?
(RTTNews) - Bizarre events surrounding the late Michael Jackson's continue to unfold, this time with the death of two giraffes that once lived at the King of Pop's Neverland Ranch.
Ok so by seeing this on my RSS reader I now know that Michael Jackson's Giraffes were indeed murdered and that cops are still incompetent and much like myself don't really care enough to delve deeper into this topic. On the other hand if the news blurb had come across my reader as "Michael Jack's Giraffe Murderer Found - The Giraffes were killed as part of an illegal Giraffe fighting operation ran by Michael Vick" then I probably would actually take the time to read the article...
Who knew that people would only click what they're really, really interested in or what sounds really really crazy? Anyone for watching the "Sanctity of Marriage" oh I mean "The Bachelor"...
Re:in-depth reporting on a topic (Score:3, Funny)
Fucking gag me with a spoon.
But... I thought there was no spoon ?