What the hey, there're a couple more graphs, after which I promise I'll wrap things up for folks handful who are still left around here.
Schwartz told me I gonna be very pleased with Slate's map, that shows that lots of people are moved to spend a significant quantity of their time below the initial scroll window of an article page. On Slate, that number is 862 percent, On Chartbeat's aggregate data, about two time thirds people spend on a page is below the fold. That's notably good, Schwartz told me. We generally see that higherquality content causes people to scroll further, and that's amid the highest below the fold engagement numbers I've ever seen.
Yay! Well, there's one big caveat. Known it's probably Slate's page design that's boosting our number there. Slate's belowthefold engagement looks really great, since you usually have to scroll below the fold to see just about any part of an article. On top of this, it might not look as good, I'd say if articles started higher up on the page. Maybe this is just our cultural lot. We live in skimming age. Anyway, really stop quitting! Who am I kidding. You're busy. Fact, there's always something else to read, watch, play, or eat.
Web article is about 2000 pixels long.
In the graph below, each bar represents readers share who got to a particular depth in the story. There's a spike at 0 percent, the very top pixel on the page because 5 readers percent never scrolled deeper than that spot. Chartbeat's data shows that most readers scroll to about the 50 percent mark, or the 1000th pixel, in Slate stories. Basically, that's not very far really. Take Mario Vittone's piece, published this week, on the warning signs that someone might be drowning. On top of this, if your top browser reached only the 1000th pixel in that article, the bottom of your browser would be at around pixel number 1700. At that point, you'd only have gotten to warning signs No.
Here's the story. Only a small number of you are reading all the way through articles on the Web. Now I've got proof. Normally, josh Schwartz, a data scientist at the traffic analysis firm Chartbeat, to look at how people scroll through Slate articles. Nonetheless, 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. So here's the question. Wait, hold on, now you guys are leaving too, right? Considering the above said. You're going off to comment, is that the case? Come on! Although, there's nothing to say yet.
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.
On these pages a higher share of people 10 percent never scroll. Though, the story across the Web is similar to the story at Slate. Few people are making it to the end, and a surprisingly large number aren't giving articles any chance really. I'm sure it sounds familiar.|Doesn't it sound familiar, am I correct?|Sounds familiar, am I correct?|does it not, is that the case? look at John Dickerson's fantastic article about the IRS scandal or something. You would have read just the first four paragraphs, I'd say if you only scrolled halfway through that amazing piece. 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.
The worst thing about Schwartz's graph is the big spike at zero.
Like perhaps moving the mouse pointer never scroll whatsoever, 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. Essentially, do you know what you get on a typical Slate page if you never scroll? Of course bupkis. Determined by the picture size at top of the page the top and the height of your browser window, you'll get, at most, the first sentence or two. There's a good chance you'll see article none whatsoever. That's right! Yet people are leaving without even starting. What's wrong with them, right? Why'd they even click on the page, is that the case?
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. Now there are 100 of you left. Besides, nice round number. Not for long! We're at the point in the page where you have to scroll to see more. Of course of you 100 who didn't bounce, five are never going to scroll. Bye!
It can't definitively say that people are sharing stories before they've read the whole thing, he told me that Chartbeat can't directly track when individual readers tweet out links.
Chartbeat can look at the overall tweets to an article, andbasically thence compare that number to what amount people scrolled through the article. Remember, here's Schwartz's relationship analysis between scrolling and sharing on Slate pages. They each show the same thing. Ok, and now one of the most important parts. There's a very weak relationship between scroll depth and sharing. Both at Slate and across the Web, articles that get lots of tweets don't necessarily get read very deeply. Articles that get read deeply aren't necessarily generating a bunch of tweets.
all this data annoys me, as a writer. 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. Schwartz, or perhaps I should skip them because they would cause folks to tune out, and maybe it's time to wrap things up anyway … what's all point that, am I correct? 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. Sure, like every other writer on the Web, I want my articles to be widely read, that means I want you to Like and Tweet and email this piece to everyone you know. You'd have done it already, if you had any inkling of doing that. You'd probably have done it just after reading the headline and seeing the picture at the top. Nothing I say now matters really.