Some article websites (I’m looking at msn.com right now, as an example) show the first page or so of article content and then have a “Continue Reading” button, which you must click to see the rest of the article. This seems so ridiculous, from a UX perspective–I know how to scroll down to continue reading, so why hide the text and make me click a button, then have me scroll? Why has this become a fairly common practice?
Web Manager here. Some good answers here. Let me add a few more.
Engagement. If you land on a page and don’t engage on the page and leave, Google doesn’t even count you as a User. The more things you do on the page, Google will rank you higher.
Data analysts: we are testing if the article is valuable or not. If nobody is clicking continue, we know that we might need to rework the article.
Page load: The biggest and I mean biggest reason someone leaves a page is page load speed. If you’re deep in researching some information, regardless of your internet speed or if the fault is on the user side and your page load is over 3 seconds, you will leave the site. Loading only 1/4 of the page helps with this along with other tricks like caching at the CDN and lazy loading.
There are tons more reasons, but we found that with the “Continue” button, it wasn’t detrimental to the site performance.
regardless of your internet speed or if the fault is on the user side and your page load is over 3 seconds, you will leave the site
As both a developer and an end user, this drives me batshit.
Seemingly no one has figured out that if users are bouncing due to page load times, maybe the problem is actually because your page that was supposed to be, say, a recipe for a bologna sandwich doesn’t need to first load an embedded autoplaying video, an external jQuery library, a cookie notice, three time delayed popovers, an embedded tweet, and a sidebar that dynamically loads 20 irrelevant articles, and a 2600x4800 100vw headline image that will scroll up at half speed before the user can even get any of the content into the viewport. Just a thought. I don’t care what your dog-eared copy of Engagement For Dummies says. It is actually wrong.
I have made the business I work for quite successful online by taking all of the alleged “best practices” things that clearly annoy the shit out of everyone, and then just not doing those things.
Also, a lot of websites are built on CMS that has [Read More]… baked in. eg wordpress is designed around the concept of an excerpt of each page/post as it was built 30 years ago. Although as others have pointed out, the time/data savings are minimal - that mattered when wordpress was invented and is a vestigial part of the system.
As a person who knows nothing about web development, can you not load the pages in smaller chunks, so that the first screen or two worth of stuff loads fast and the rest could load while you are looking at it. That way, to the user, it appears to load quickly enough to keep them from leaving?
What you’re talking about is called lazy loading. It loads text first and CSS and then images after.
Most modern sites now do this along with needing to load it at all until you hit the continue button. That not only reduces your browser load, it also reduces server load as well.
There are many other reasons to have the continue button, but the positives outweigh the negative. It’s not considered a dark pattern and helps the content team improve on their content.
Page load: The biggest and I mean biggest reason someone leaves a page is page load speed. If you’re deep in researching some information, regardless of your internet speed or if the fault is on the user side and your page load is over 3 seconds, you will leave the site. Loading only 1/4 of the page helps with this along with other tricks like caching at the CDN and lazy loading.
The thing that always bothers me about this is that I’ve been using the internet since 90s dial-up, and even 90s dial-up never had a “page load speed” problem when loading text-based articles. An extremely conservative estimate is that modern broadband speeds are 1000x what they were then so “page load speed” is entirely about the design of the website, and it seems that mostly the excuse is “we want to spy on people”. Am I wrong? Otherwise why not write an HTML page that would be just as compatible with Geocities as it would now?
How does Google know if you interacted with something on the page?
Chrome. You’re likely using their product. They know everything.
I am not using Chrome.
Google offers an analytics package that a huge amount of sites embed. Many other companies like Facebook have software available as well. Mostly people have these to track performance of Google-published ads, but it gathers a LOT more data than that. You also don’t need to use their ad system to put it on your site.
Anyway, it runs JavaScript to gather information about everything that a visitor does on the site and sends it to Google. You can “opt out” by using a browser extension like NoScript. I assume ad blockers could work too.
For people developing or running a site, it really gives you a ton of useful information - where your visitors are from, what pages people viewed, how they got to your site (search terms, ads, referrers), how long they spend on your site, even a “heat map” that shows what parts of the page people hovered on with their mouse pointer. The tradeoff is that Google gets all of this information too.
page load
It would be fine if they only loaded a partial page so that it will render in my browser quicker.
However, what usually happens is that the entire page loads, then an overlay pops up to get me to register or pay, or whatever.
Being a web developer, it’s not hard for me to inspect the page and remove the overlay so I can read everything, but it is an annoyance.
My guess is that this gives them data they can analyze on how many people actually read the page that far.
Because they want you to obnoxiously see as many ads as possible because they don’t care if you read the article, only view ads. This is the new shitty web. MSN, Newsweek and Yahoo are the scummy kings.
Just a guess: to prevent bots from scraping the full content?
Fuckingcapitalists
Apparently it can boosts engagement?
At the Times, which got 60 percent of its June visitors from mobile, the “show full article button” has resulted in “moderate increase” in the time readers spend, according to Paul Werdel, senior product manager on mobile.
Quartz, which also introduced its own “read full story” button alongside its design refresh in June, has used the button to boost the performance of its mobile Engage ads, which appear directly below the button. The Huffington Post uses a similar approach, presenting readers with a 300 x 250 banner ad below its own “read more” button. Huffington Post VP of Engineering Sam Napolitano said that preliminary data on the feature has been “very positive” since its addition.
Maybe to make the article seem shorter, so you’re more inclined to keep reading. Once you’re halfway through, you’re more likely to want to read the rest. Both halves are probably filled with ads, so the longer you stick around, the better.
