1. 31
  1.  

  2. 4

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid

    Generations of Journalists have trained us that anything that matters in your article is in the first paragraph.

    1. 2

      And oh yes, just in case you think I didn’t read the full article…..

      “mangosteens”.

    2. 3

      I like the idea behind this post. Measuring read times, however, isn’t really a fair assessment. I’m a speed reader, and English is my native language; naturally my read times will look quite different from those of someone for whom English isn’t their first language. I’ve run into this a lot where it’s assumed that finishing reading something quickly means it was just skimmed.

      1. 3

        I love the idea of this, but we still are guessing that when someone (slowly) scrolls to the bottom that they read the page content. Answering a quiz about the content seems like a lot of work. It could, however, be combined with a scroll depth metric to create a richer understanding of content consumption. Score everyone on scroll depth, but also give them the option the take a quiz for more points. Weight the quiz points higher than scroll points.

        1. 2

          One of the rare articles I wish I could upvote more than once. The problem outlined is a critical issue with Internet discourse.

          Favorite quotes:

          The best conversations are with people who spend most of their time listening. The number of times you’ve posted in a given topic is not a leaderboard; it’s a record of failing to communicate.

          Let’s say you’re interested in World War II. Who would you rather have a discussion with about that? The guy who just skimmed the Wikipedia article, or the gal who read the entirety of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?

          1. 2

            people who spend most of their time listening.

            I have a measure of discomfort with that.

            I hate talking to mouldy dish rags who have no ideas, no thoughts, no knowledge, no opinions of their own. Do they agree with me? Do they disagree so violently but daren’t start a fight here and now? Do they not give a shit about what I’m saying? Did they even understand a word?

            Equally I hate being talked at by by someone who never listens.

            The very best conversations are 45% person A, 45% person B, 10% thoughtful silence.

            I always, as a matter of personal principle, answer rhetorical questions… (Teaches them not to. :-D)

            Who would you rather have a discussion with about that?

            Hmm.

            Have you ever had a discussion with a real live living Nazi, who lived through WWII and who still thought Hitler was A Good Thing?

            I have.

            Fascinating.

            But the discussions didn’t go anywhere, because my very basic axioms of what was Good and Evil were different, and where the same, in very different order of priority.

            Fascinating glimpse into another world view… but utterly unproductive.

            I can’t say they were comfortable, enjoyable or productive discussions. Not my favourite.

            I prefer discussions where we enhance each others understanding and build a richer world view together.

            1. 1

              Haha, yes, taken literally your quite right.

              Normally though I associate listening with contemplation, composing your thoughts and then clearly articulating a response of some kind.