L long — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:03:39 GMT

Bryce. I submitted this to Digg because it is something that audience would find interesting. I’m regretting it now however. It is my fault I didn’t do the due diligence and read the entire article carefully.

The two part thing is crap. Your business module (of gaining subscribers) is in direct conflict with your users’ needs. On a usability site none-the-less. The only user-centric valid reason a for time delayed 2 part article online is you don’t have the information yet. If you were running a batch of tests and want to report the first half – that makes sense. All you are doing here is transcribing an interview and the first part barely introduces the subject. If you wanted a couple pages, fine. But this is manipulative and excessive.

L long — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:23:54 GMT

Then I pass my crass disapproval on to them.

Why knowingly crass? Because I was treated as an ad impression instead of a reader. Give me a low marginal value and I will return the favor.

I don’t buy the reasonable size argument because this whole page is under 100k with the comments. The text is only 9k compressed. None of the constraints in other mediums apply: there’s no paper costs to cover and you don’t have to fit into a 30 minute time slot.

Here are just a few ways to present an extra long article and leave the choice in the readers’ hands:
- Link to full article at the end of intro. The reader will know what they are getting into.
- Pagination would allow limitless content in manageable sizes.
- Editorial titles to delineate conversation topics.
- Make content more stimulating with relevant images and figures (I’m guessing these are in the next part??? This is about a richly designed video game and not even a screen cap.)

I never blamed anyone for my mistake. This was feedback. Interesting to see if any real conversation will occur over my feelings however. So far only smug deflection.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by L long