Look at John Dickerson's fantastic article about the IRS scandal or something.
So here's a question. Why'd they even click on the page? Do you know what you get on a typical Slate page if you never scroll? This is where it starts getting interesting. There's an ideal chance you'll see article none in general. Like perhaps moving the mouse pointer never scroll in general, about 5 people percent who land on Slate pages and are engaged with the page in some way that is, the page is in a foreground tab on their browser and they're doing something on it. What's wrong with them? According to the picture size at p of the page the p and the height of your browser window, you'll get, at most, the first sentence or two. Yet people are leaving without even starting. Of course you didn't read it because you got that IM and hereupon you had to look at a video and the phone rang … The worst thing about Schwartz's graph is the big spike at zero. Trust me when I say that beyond those four paragraphs, John made some really good points about whatever it is his article is about, some strong points that without spoiling it for you really have to read to believe. Considering the above said. You would have read just the first four paragraphs, if you only scrolled halfway through that amazing piece.
Here's the story. Only a small number of you are reading all the way through articles on the Web. Who am I kidding. Fact, we live in skimming age. Actually, maybe this is just our cultural lot. Schwartz also did a similar analysis for other sites that use Chartbeat and have allowed the firm to include their traffic in its aggregate analyses. For instance, you're busy. Josh Schwartz, a data scientist at the traffic analysis firm Chartbeat, to look at how people scroll through Slate articles. Certainly, there's always something else to read, watch, play, or eat. Needless to say, now I've got proof. Really stop quitting!
Web article is about 2000 pixels long.
Chartbeat's data shows that most readers scroll to about the 50 percent mark, or the 1000th pixel, in Slate stories. That's not very far in general. With that said, at that point, you'd only have gotten to warning signs No. Notice, if your p browser reached only the 1000th pixel in that article, the bottom of your browser would be at around pixel number 1700. In the graph below, every bar represents readers share who got to a particular depth in the story. Take Mario Vittone's piece, published this week, on the warning signs that someone might be drowning. Some info can be found by going on the web. There's a spike at 0 percent, the very p pixel on the page because 5 readers percent never scrolled deeper than that spot.
On these sites, the median scroll depth is slightly greater most people get to 60 article percent rather than the 50 percent they reach on Slate pages. Few people are making it to the end, and a surprisingly large number aren't giving articles any chance really. On these pages a higher share of people 10 percent never scroll. You see, though, the story across the Web is similar to the story at Slate. What the hey, here are a couple more graphs, after which I promise I'll wrap things up for folks handful who are still left around here.
Schwartz ld me I should be very pleased with Slate's map, which shows that plenty of people are moved to spend a significant amount of their time below the initial scroll window of an article page.
We generally see that higher quality content causes people to scroll further, and that's the highest belowthefold engagement numbers I've ever seen. Yay! Needless to say, Slate's 'below the fold' engagement looks really great, since you usually have to scroll below the fold to see just about any part of an article. Make sure you write some comments about it. Well, there's one big caveat. It's probably Slate's page design that's boosting our number there. It might not look as good, if articles started higher up on the page. It is on Slate, that number is 862 percent, On Chartbeat's aggregate data, about 'twothirds' of the time people spend on a page is below the fold. That's notably good, Schwartz ld me.
Now there are 100 of you left. It may not be obvious especially to you guys who've already left to watch Arrested Development but I spend plenty of time and energy writing these stories. Nice round number. Not for long! All this data annoys me, as a writer. Usually, bye! We're at the point in the page where you have to scroll to see more. Of you 100 who didn't bounce, five are never going to scroll.
What's all point that?
Wait, hold on, now you guys are leaving too? Essentially, sure, like every other writer on the Web, I want my articles to be widely read, which means I want you to Like and Tweet and email this piece to everyone you know. Come on! Remember, nothing I say for now matters in general. With that said, there's nothing to say yet. You're going off to comment? Schwartz tells me that on a typical Slate page, only 25 readers percent make it past the page 1600th pixel, and we're way beyond that now. You'd probably have done it just after reading the headline and seeing the picture at the top. You'd have done it already, if you had any inkling of doing that.
It can't definitively say that people are sharing stories before they've read that thing, he ld me that Chartbeat can't directly track when individual readers tweet out links. Chartbeat can look at the overall tweets to an article, and after all compare that number to what amount people scrolled through the article. They each show the same thing. That said, articles that get read deeply aren't necessarily generating plenty of tweets. Normally, there's a very weak relationship between scroll depth and sharing. Keep reading! Both at Slate and across the Web, articles that get plenty of tweets don't necessarily get read very deeply.
Just think for a moment. Here's Schwartz's relationship analysis between scrolling and sharing on Slate pages.
Take a look at the following graph created by Schwartz, a histogram showing where people stopped scrolling in Slate articles.
Chartbeat can track this information because it analyzes reader behavior in real time every time a Web browser is on a Slate page, Chartbeat's software records what that browser is doing on a secondbysecond basis, including which page portion the browser is currently viewing. Nonetheless, take a look at the following graph created by Schwartz, a histogram showing where people stopped scrolling in Slate articles. Then, chartbeat can track this information because it analyzes reader behavior in real time every time a Web browser is on a Slate page, Chartbeat's software records what that browser is doing on a secondbysecond basis, including which page portion the browser is currently viewing.