I\u2019m going to keep this brief, because you\u2019re not going to stick around for long. I\u2019ve already lost a bunch of you. For every 161 people who landed on this page, about 61 of you\u201438 percent\u2014are already gone. You \u201cbounced\u201d in Web traffic jargon, meaning you spent no time \u201cengaging\u201d with this page at all.So now there are 100 of you left. Nice round number. But not for long! We\u2019re at the point in the page where you have to scroll to see more. Of the 100 of you who didn\u2019t bounce, five are never going to scroll. Bye!OK, fine, good riddance. So we\u2019re 95 now. A friendly, intimate crowd, just the people who want to be here. Thanks for reading, folks! I was beginning to worry about your attention span, even your intellig \u2026 wait a second, where are you guys going? You\u2019re tweeting a link to this article already? You haven\u2019t even read it yet! What if I go on to advocate something truly awful, like a constitutional amendment requiring that we all type two spaces after a period?Wait, hold on, now you guys are leaving too? You\u2019re going off to comment? Come on! There\u2019s nothing to say yet. I haven\u2019t even gotten to the nut graph.<\/p>\n
via How people read online: Why you won\u2019t finish this article. – Slate Magazine<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I\u2019m going to keep this brief, because you\u2019re not going to stick around for long. I\u2019ve already lost a bunch of you. For every 161 people who landed on this page, about 61 of you\u201438 percent\u2014are already gone. You \u201cbounced\u201d in Web traffic jargon, meaning you spent no time \u201cengaging\u201d with this page at all.So … Continue reading How people read online: Why you won\u2019t finish this article. – Slate Magazine<\/span>