|
General » rec.autos.driving » Utah's back.
| Utah's back. [message #792956] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 20:21 |
|
Hi Viatologists,
The new Worldwide Highway Library (WHL) is here to serve you w/ the widest
sampling of highway media. As part of our new website interface, launched
in time for New Year's 2008, we continue to re-catalogue our photographs,
videos and WHL-360s into a more impressive organisation style. Effective
today, we have re-catalogued photographs of Utah (USA) State Routes:
http://worldwide-hwys.calrog.com
Photographs > Americas > United States > State Routes > Utah
In 2005, I personally took photos in Washington County as part of a
whirlwind trip through the Interstate 15 corridor. Other photos have been
taken by Chris Elbert, whose quality in daylight photographer makes him
amongst the elite in the viatological photographer community. Let's not
forget Denis Kieft, whose perpetual journey for wintertime powder and slopes
offer a great view of the wintertime Rockies:
Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
We hope you enjoy! The WHL is proud *not* to be W3C-compliant--after all,
compliance is for nerds and sheep. ;) lol
Stay tuned for re-catalogued media and more. As always, we thank you for
your time and readership. The WHL is your ticket to the world's highways.
Cheers,
Carl Rogers
"Adding human experience to transportology"
********
Calrog.com, Worldwide Highway Library:
http://worldwide-hwys.calrog.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An integrated media arm in International Transportation Research. Has
served your home country and ninety-nine of its worldwide neighbours
since 2000, through Internet downstream and published works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #792958 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 20:31 |
|
Around 2/3/2008 11:21 AM, Carl Rogers wrote:
> Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
> Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule? If it takes
more than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's not worth
visiting and people will likely give up in frustration. No wonder your
average visit time has dropped so significantly.
How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #792960 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 20:43 |
|
"Garth Almgren" <nospam [at] v6stang.com> wrote
>
> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule? If it takes more
> than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's not worth visiting
> and people will likely give up in frustration. No wonder your average
> visit time has dropped so significantly.
>
> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
>
>
The more times you "click" the more "site hits" it looks like he has and the
more revenue he can (supposedly) make.
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #792987 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 22:59 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #792995 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 23:22 |
|
"Garth Almgren" <nospam [at] v6stang.com> wrote in message
news:60mj0nF1rcaslU1 [at] mid.individual.net...
> Around 2/3/2008 11:21 AM, Carl Rogers wrote:
>
>
>> Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
>> Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
>
> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule?
Please define what you're talking about... Not everybody is in your
clubhouse!
> If it takes more than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's
> not worth visiting and people will likely give up in frustration.
Ok, so you operationally defined the second part of your opening argument
(i.e., "three click rule"). If something is "not worth it", it's an
opinion--not a fact. It doesn't matter how many people agree w/ you.
> No wonder your average visit time has dropped so significantly.
Nope, the number has actually risen... Therefore, I have advice for you.
Try not to think w/ your emotions and perhaps you'll see reality.
> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
Maybe if you followed the instructions I've given in the original post,
you'd get what you wanted. ...Want more advice? Try not hold onto your
three-click fundamentalism.
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #792997 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 23:58 |
|
On Feb 3, 4:22 pm, "Carl Rogers" <postmas... [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> "Garth Almgren" <nos... [at] v6stang.com> wrote:
> > Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule?
>
> Please define what you're talking about... Not everybody is in your
> clubhouse!
Sure, not everybody, but I'm willing to bet that more than a plurality
is in his "clubhouse."
> > If it takes more than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's
> > not worth visiting and people will likely give up in frustration.
>
> Ok, so you operationally defined the second part of your opening argument
> (i.e., "three click rule"). If something is "not worth it", it's an
> opinion--not a fact. It doesn't matter how many people agree w/ you.
Bullshit. Since the ultimate goal of any (in this particular case)
over-zealous webmaster is to get hits, making your website accessible
and easy to use is of paramount importance to attract hits, not to
mention not being an ass to it's core potential audience. Even your
girlfriend Eric should agree with that, being the web designer pro he
claims to be.
Okay, that all being said let's put it to a poll. In the case of
whether or not it is "worth it" to visit KrlRgZ site, based on the
difficulty of navigation and on other relevant, but not necessarily
related points, how many people here in m.t.r and r.a.d agree with
Garth?
Aye say I!
~D
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793014 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 03:14 |
|
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:58:53 -0800 (PST), Alternate US 71 wrote:
>Okay, that all being said let's put it to a poll. In the case of
>whether or not it is "worth it" to visit KrlRgZ site, based on the
>difficulty of navigation and on other relevant, but not necessarily
>related points, how many people here in m.t.r and r.a.d agree with
>Garth?
What is it Nirvana sang? "Here we are now, entertain us?"
People who are pressed for time like to get in, see what they want to see, and
move on. Anything that makes that process more difficult is off-putting and
after awhile, we just give up and say "screw it, it's not worth it."
I will be truthful. I would like to visit Carl's site. For the states I've
visited, I'd like to see his photos and videos and see if it's someplace I've
been. If I have, I'd like to see if his representation is older or more recent
than mine. Has a new sign been put up? Has the road been widened? (His US 31W
singing video from KY shows the service station where I had an engine failure
once.) If I haven't been there, would I like to someday?
But his site is so hard to navigate. All the click-throughs, the incessant
resizing of the browser window, definitely makes it user unfriendly and I have
no clue why anyone would want to make their site hard to navigate. I don't
pretend to be a pro at this, I do it more for a hobby and if anyone comes to
look at my pics or see what info I've put up, they're more than welcome and much
appreciated.
Carl's tendency to post every little addition to his site and his general
demeanor here aside, my main gripe with him is his site's difficulty to
navigate. If I could visit it and easily see what I wanted to see, I might have
a different feeling. But it's just not worth my effort to go there and resize my
browser window for every sign pic he has up.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793023 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 04:25 |
|
H.B. Elkins wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:58:53 -0800 (PST), Alternate US 71 wrote:
>
>> Okay, that all being said let's put it to a poll. In the case of
>> whether or not it is "worth it" to visit KrlRgZ site, based on the
>> difficulty of navigation and on other relevant, but not necessarily
>> related points, how many people here in m.t.r and r.a.d agree with
>> Garth?
>
> What is it Nirvana sang? "Here we are now, entertain us?"
>
> People who are pressed for time like to get in, see what they want to see, and
> move on. Anything that makes that process more difficult is off-putting and
> after awhile, we just give up and say "screw it, it's not worth it."
>
> I will be truthful. I would like to visit Carl's site. For the states I've
> visited, I'd like to see his photos and videos and see if it's someplace I've
> been. If I have, I'd like to see if his representation is older or more recent
> than mine. Has a new sign been put up? Has the road been widened? (His US 31W
> singing video from KY shows the service station where I had an engine failure
> once.) If I haven't been there, would I like to someday?
>
> But his site is so hard to navigate. All the click-throughs, the incessant
> resizing of the browser window, definitely makes it user unfriendly and I have
> no clue why anyone would want to make their site hard to navigate. I don't
> pretend to be a pro at this, I do it more for a hobby and if anyone comes to
> look at my pics or see what info I've put up, they're more than welcome and much
> appreciated.
>
> Carl's tendency to post every little addition to his site and his general
> demeanor here aside, my main gripe with him is his site's difficulty to
> navigate. If I could visit it and easily see what I wanted to see, I might have
> a different feeling. But it's just not worth my effort to go there and resize my
> browser window for every sign pic he has up.
>
>
I'm in that camp, as well. If CalQaeda wrote things simply and directly,
and went by standard, I'd be over to see what he has. The site is not
only user-unfriendly, but CalQaeda hates the *nix, as well, and makes
the site as hard to see under Linux as possible.
--
Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793024 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 04:29 |
|
On Feb 3, 9:14=A0pm, H.B. Elkins <hbelk... [at] mis.net.restrictorplate>
wrote:
>
> But his site is so hard to navigate. All the click-throughs, the incessant=
> resizing of the browser window, definitely makes it user unfriendly and I =
have
> no clue why anyone would want to make their site hard to navigate. I don't=
> pretend to be a pro at this, I do it more for a hobby and if anyone comes =
to
> look at my pics or see what info I've put up, they're more than welcome an=
d much
> appreciated.
>
> Carl's tendency to post every little addition to his site and his general
> demeanor here aside, my main gripe with him is his site's difficulty to
> navigate. If I could visit it and easily see what I wanted to see, I might=
have
> a different feeling. But it's just not worth my effort to go there and res=
ize my
> browser window for every sign pic he has up.
On that thought, I really enjoy your galleries, HB.
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793025 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 04:30 |
|
On Feb 3, 9:25 pm, EAST COAST HIVE MIND <calq... [at] jih.ad> wrote:
> I'm in that camp, as well. If CalQaeda wrote things simply and directly,
> and went by standard, I'd be over to see what he has. The site is not
> only user-unfriendly, but CalQaeda hates the *nix, as well, and makes
> the site as hard to see under Linux as possible.
>
> --
> Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamotohttp://mryamamoto.50megs.com
> 'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
Eh, if you can't see a site well under Linux, it can't be THAT
good. ;)
Been experimenting with Fedora 8... it's nice.
~D
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793027 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 04:56 |
|
Richard wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:14 pm, H.B. Elkins <hbelk... [at] mis.net.restrictorplate>
> wrote:
>> But his site is so hard to navigate. All the click-throughs, the incessant
>> resizing of the browser window, definitely makes it user unfriendly and I have
>> no clue why anyone would want to make their site hard to navigate. I don't
>> pretend to be a pro at this, I do it more for a hobby and if anyone comes to
>> look at my pics or see what info I've put up, they're more than welcome and much
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Carl's tendency to post every little addition to his site and his general
>> demeanor here aside, my main gripe with him is his site's difficulty to
>> navigate. If I could visit it and easily see what I wanted to see, I might have
>> a different feeling. But it's just not worth my effort to go there and resize my
>> browser window for every sign pic he has up.
>
> On that thought, I really enjoy your galleries, HB.
Best coverage of KY and WV you're gonna get :)
--
Comrade Otto The Duke Of Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
'The Quality goes in before the Name goes on'
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793037 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 06:01 |
|
On Feb 3, 6:14=EF=BF=BDpm, H.B. Elkins <hbelk... [at] mis.net.restrictorplate>
wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:58:53 -0800 (PST), Alternate US 71 wrote:
> >Okay, that all being said let's put it to a poll. =EF=BF=BDIn the case of=
> >whether or not it is "worth it" to visit KrlRgZ site, based on the
> >difficulty of navigation and on other relevant, but not necessarily
> >related points, how many people here in m.t.r and r.a.d agree with
> >Garth?
>
> What is it Nirvana sang? "Here we are now, entertain us?"
>
> People who are pressed for time like to get in, see what they want to see,=
and
> move on. Anything that makes that process more difficult is off-putting an=
d
> after awhile, we just give up and say "screw it, it's not worth it."
>
> I will be truthful. I would like to visit Carl's site. For the states I've=
> visited, I'd like to see his photos and videos and see if it's someplace I=
've
> been. If I have, I'd like to see if his representation is older or more re=
cent
> than mine. Has a new sign been put up? Has the road been widened? (His US =
31W
> singing video from KY shows the service station where I had an engine fail=
ure
> once.) If I haven't been there, would I like to someday?
>
> But his site is so hard to navigate. All the click-throughs, the incessant=
> resizing of the browser window, definitely makes it user unfriendly and I =
have
> no clue why anyone would want to make their site hard to navigate. I don't=
> pretend to be a pro at this, I do it more for a hobby and if anyone comes =
to
> look at my pics or see what info I've put up, they're more than welcome an=
d much
> appreciated.
>
> Carl's tendency to post every little addition to his site and his general
> demeanor here aside, my main gripe with him is his site's difficulty to
> navigate. If I could visit it and easily see what I wanted to see, I might=
have
> a different feeling. But it's just not worth my effort to go there and res=
ize my
> browser window for every sign pic he has up.
>
> --
> To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
More importantly (at least IMO), I won't visit his website anymore,
because he's arrogant asshole. Need I say more?
-Brent
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #793040 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 06:31 |
|
"Carl Rogers" <postmaster [at] calrog.com> writes:
>"Garth Almgren" <nospam [at] v6stang.com> wrote in message
>news:60mj0nF1rcaslU1 [at] mid.individual.net...
>> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule?
....
>> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
>Maybe if you followed the instructions I've given in the original post,
>you'd get what you wanted.
Obviously, you're without a clue. Why not provide a link of the form
http://www.disney.com/whatever/whereever/something.html? Don't answer,
since several others have already done so.
And, if one does follow those instructions? Looks like if someone did,
they'd have to follow 5 clicks to get to the Utah SR photos, and another
7 links to get to I-80 in Utah. More than double the 3 click rule?
I'm not going to verify this. I visited a while ago and it started
messing with my browser so I gave up.
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793041 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 06:37 |
|
Alternate US 71:
> Okay, that all being said let's put it to a poll. In the case of
> whether or not it is "worth it" to visit KrlRgZ site, based on the
> difficulty of navigation and on other relevant, but not necessarily
> related points, how many people here in m.t.r and r.a.d agree with
> Garth?
>
> Aye say I!
Aye say I, too!
--
"What about you? You got a problem with this?"
--Tony Soprano
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #793043 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 06:39 |
|
Garth Almgren:
> Around 2/3/2008 11:21 AM, Carl Rogers wrote:
>
>
> > Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
> > Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
>
> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule? If it takes
> more than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's not worth
> visiting and people will likely give up in frustration. No wonder your
> average visit time has dropped so significantly.
>
> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
Alas, Garth, its a losing battle. Carl is going to be the same
pretentious prick nomatter how much someone tries to reason with him.
The best we can do is to not visit his site in hopes that he will
eventually dry up and blow away.....
I think the .sig sums up Carl and his attitude rather nicely.
--
"You can't legislate away people's right to be assholes!"
--Wesley Snipes as Simon Phoenix
in "Demolition Man."
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #793051 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 07:17 |
|
Around 2/3/2008 2:22 PM, Carl Rogers wrote:
> "Garth Almgren" <nospam [at] v6stang.com> wrote in message
> news:60mj0nF1rcaslU1 [at] mid.individual.net...
>> Around 2/3/2008 11:21 AM, Carl Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
>>> Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
>>
>> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule?
>
> Please define what you're talking about...
If you don't know, you probably shouldn't be trying to design a website
intended for public consumption...
> Not everybody is in your clubhouse!
Clearly true since you're not, but most people I've met are, at least
when it comes to website usability.
>> If it takes more than three clicks to reach any page on your site,
>> it's not worth visiting and people will likely give up in frustration.
>
> Ok, so you operationally defined the second part of your opening
> argument (i.e., "three click rule").
> If something is "not worth it", it's an opinion--not a fact.
True, but it is opinions (more specifically, positive first impressions)
that will keep people coming back to your website for more.
> It doesn't matter how many people agree w/ you.
Again, true: it doesn't matter to me (though they do agree).
It *should* matter to you though, if you want people to come back to
your site for a second look.
>> No wonder your average visit time has dropped so significantly.
>
> Nope, the number has actually risen...
Didn't you say that it had fallen? Maybe I'm thinking of someone who was
responding to you.
Eh, even if true then it's not surprising if it takes 7+ clicks to get
to content.
> Maybe if you followed the instructions I've given in the original post,
> you'd get what you wanted.
What I want is for you to stop spamming your website across USENET on a
multiple-times-a-day basis. Failing that, I want a website where I can
find info quickly and don't need to turn off JavaScript to view it on my
terms. Failing *that* (and I'm sure you will), you won't be getting my
click$.
Neither I nor my browser history can remember the last time I visited
your site, and much like you I'm not very good at following instructions. :)
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #793053 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 07:29 |
|
Around 2/3/2008 9:39 PM, necromancer wrote:
> Garth Almgren:
>> Around 2/3/2008 11:21 AM, Carl Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
>>> Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
>> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule? If it takes
>> more than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's not worth
>> visiting and people will likely give up in frustration. No wonder your
>> average visit time has dropped so significantly.
>>
>> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
>
> Alas, Garth, its a losing battle. Carl is going to be the same
> pretentious prick nomatter how much someone tries to reason with him.
> The best we can do is to not visit his site in hopes that he will
> eventually dry up and blow away.....
I can't remember when I've ever visited his site... I think I did once,
but it must have been over a year ago, somewhere around the time he was
kicked off Wikipedia.
I was just offering my constructive criticism as a third-party observer.
> I think the .sig sums up Carl and his attitude rather nicely.
I never knew Mr. Snipes (or his writers) could be so philosophical! :)
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793054 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 07:27 |
|
"necromancer" <55_sux [at] worldofnecromancer_nospam_noway.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.22106eadbf58722298aa1a [at] newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> Alternate US 71:
>
>> Okay, that all being said let's put it to a poll. In the case of
>> whether or not it is "worth it" to visit KrlRgZ site, based on the
>> difficulty of navigation and on other relevant, but not necessarily
>> related points, how many people here in m.t.r and r.a.d agree with
>> Garth?
>>
>> Aye say I!
>
> Aye say I, too!
>
An I for an Aye or an Aye for an I ? ;)
The I's have it
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #793067 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 15:49 |
|
"Carl Rogers" <postmaster [at] calrog.com> wrote in message
news:x8rpj.10525$hI1.8363 [at] nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Garth Almgren" <nospam [at] v6stang.com> wrote in message
> news:60mj0nF1rcaslU1 [at] mid.individual.net...
>> Around 2/3/2008 11:21 AM, Carl Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Photographs > Americas > United States > USA Interstate Highways >
>>> Interstates > Interstate 80 > Utah
>>
>> Holy crap, ever heard of usability and the 3 click rule?
>
> Please define what you're talking about... Not everybody is in your
> clubhouse!
>
>> If it takes more than three clicks to reach any page on your site, it's
>> not worth visiting and people will likely give up in frustration.
>
> Ok, so you operationally defined the second part of your opening argument
> (i.e., "three click rule"). If something is "not worth it", it's an
> opinion--not a fact. It doesn't matter how many people agree w/ you.
>
>> No wonder your average visit time has dropped so significantly.
>
> Nope, the number has actually risen... Therefore, I have advice for you.
> Try not to think w/ your emotions and perhaps you'll see reality.
How are you calculating visits? Page requests? Unique IPs? Do tell. You
are also the last person who should be talking about "seeing reality," as
your site is made of cow pies and hot air.
>> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
>
> Maybe if you followed the instructions I've given in the original post,
> you'd get what you wanted. ...Want more advice? Try not hold onto your
> three-click fundamentalism.
You're a fucking asshole, Carl. You attack a potential visitor for daring
to question your site architecture? That's bad PR, and what makes it worse
is that you are dead-set against "three click fundamentalism" on grounds
that it dampens your click-through counts.
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793076 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 16:18 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793086 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 17:16 |
|
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:29:52 -0800 (PST), Richard wrote:
>On that thought, I really enjoy your galleries, HB.
Thanks, I appreciate that, and I'll see you in Dayton in May when the Ohio
chapter of the ECHM gets together.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. Poll added. [message #793088 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 17:23 |
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:56:49 -0500, EAST COAST HIVE MIND wrote:
>Best coverage of KY and WV you're gonna get :)
Yeah, but that's regional and provincial and not truly nationwide in scope.
Plus there's OH and VA and TN and even a little IN, MD, PA, IL, MI, NC, MO, AR
and now a little GA.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
|
|
|
| Re: Utah's back. [message #793089 ] |
Mon, 04 February 2008 18:02 |
|
Around 2/4/2008 6:49 AM, Ron's Inspector's Inspector wrote:
> "Carl Rogers" <postmaster [at] calrog.com> wrote in message
> news:x8rpj.10525$hI1.8363 [at] nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "Garth Almgren" <nospam [at] v6stang.com> wrote in message
>> news:60mj0nF1rcaslU1 [at] mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> How about providing a direct link to the page in discussion?
>> Maybe if you followed the instructions I've given in the original post,
>> you'd get what you wanted. ...Want more advice? Try not hold onto your
>> three-click fundamentalism.
>
> You're a fucking asshole, Carl. You attack a potential visitor for daring
> to question your site architecture? That's bad PR, and what makes it worse
> is that you are dead-set against "three click fundamentalism" on grounds
> that it dampens your click-through counts.
I think he's also missing the point that IME the fewer clicks it takes
to find something, the more likely a visitor is to wander around the
site producing more clicks (assuming interesting content, which sounds
like it would be a stretch for Carl):
"Click click, found what I want. Click click, here's something else
that's interesting. Let's see what's over here, click click click. Off
on a tangent I go, click. That's cool, how about over here? Click
click." Etc.
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 02:11:32 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.15980 Sekunden |
