ReadWriteWeb (aka Read Write Web and Read / Write Web) changed from using non-pagination to paginating some (thankfully not all) single blog posts. Strangely, the site owner/operator Richard MacManus is trying to sell this to readers as some kind of benefit. I’ve met Richard in person (at Search Champs v4) and he seemed like a nice enough guy but he’s deluding himself if he honestly believes any of the BS he’s been writing in his comment area that pagination is any kind of benefit for RWW readers. Sure, it’s a benefit to publishers (ahem, him) because they get more page views and thus can boast about their arguably artificially inflated numbers to current and prospective advertisers but it’s not a benefit to me – or you - as a reader.

But pagination [is] useful for long articles, so get used to it
- Richard MacManus October 9, 2008

Get used to it? Why should we have to, Richard? We’ll just unsubscribe if the fumes become too noxious. I know there’s a smiley there, but seriously Richard, why do you think pagination is useful for “long articles”?

Let’s dissect this.

Splitting single posts into multiple pages is a disincentive for visiting and reading your site. Let’s say I’m on a mobile device like an iPhone or Pocket PC viewing the web page (and not using the RSS feed). Mobile devices don’t have as much viewing space so having one page that can be worked in and scrolled is easier than loading a second page and continuing. Readers are being forced to wait for the continuance or conclusion of the post. How is this useful?

When your internet connection is spotty

Or what if I’m reading your blog post while traveling and am losing internet? On long trips this can happen as you come in and out of range. So I can’t load the conclusion of the article until I get internet again because of the pagination. How is this useful?

But wait, devil’s advocate, more text = bigger page = longer page loading, right? You’re saving me time by paginating the blog post?

Splitting up a long article so the post loads ‘faster’

This is weak too. Don’t forget to add the combined time of loading all pages versus loading a single page.

What’s the longest post ever made on ReadWriteWeb? The longest one here to date in over five years is almost 4,800 words. That post page size is 47K. The average length of a post here is 330 words. I checked a post that size for comparison and it was 15K. So there’s what, 32K difference in page size? I realize we aren’t calculating in images or other media used in posts so an image heavy post would be a different discussion, but for a primarily text blog post, there isn’t a huge difference here. Certainly not worth splitting the page and trying to pass this off as useful for readers.

There probably is a ceiling number of words where having a single post paginated starts making a little sense. Is it more than 5,000 words? 10,000? Tell me what you think in the comments area. I know after thousands of posts here I haven’t seen this ceiling even one time. I can’t remember reading a post from others where I thought, hey it would have been a reader benefit to me if this post was broken into pieces.

Conversely, I’ve read many, many articles broken into self-serving pieces and been annoyed that it wasn’t a single page.

Broadband users would see very little difference in page-loading speed between 15K and 47K. For those still on dial-up there would be a delay loading the single page but if you calculate the additional delay of loading the second or subsequent pages required by pagination the speed would likely be negated.

Richard responds to Zemanta CTO on “horrible experience for the readers” comment

Andraz Tori might have some self interests in his dislike in pagination, but Richard’s reply makes no sense (emphasis mine).

Andraz, pagination is perfectly legit way to break up long articles. That’s why we are doing it. I honestly don’t know why people moan about it. It’s one click extra, is that so bad? Why is clicking one more time a "horrible experience"?
- Richard MacManus December 10, 2008

The emphasized confusion Richard seems to be experiencing can be easily explained. People are “moaning” about it because they. Don’t. Like. It.

Richard please explain somewhere why you think pagination of blog posts is a “perfectly legit” way to break up long articles? There is nothing perfect about it. As for legitimate? To whom? Why would you even want to do something the vast majority of readers don’t like. Let me stop you from using the “not many people complain” line. The reality is very few will complain like Andraz, myself and others are doing. The ones that don’t complain and just leave might be the ones to worry even more about.

As for it being one click extra? Come on, it’s more than that. It’s loading/reloading your progressively worse ad-filled page around the content. It’s not just a click to have AJAX populate more content on the page. If that’s all you were doing you might be able to hold to that excuse.

Blog history without pagination

Using the WayBackMachine let’s go back in time to see what ReadWriteWeb looked like when it started and compare to today. It’s interesting to note that from 2003-2007 no pagination within posts was used. Why after five years would Richard’s feelings about pagination within single blog posts changed? I think the pictures tell the story better than words.

2003 - ReadWriteWeb Oct 14, 2003 – no pagination

 

Amazing how clean a blog starts out, eh? Now see this same post today, some 5+ years later:

 

2004 - ReadWriteWeb Oct 10, 2004  (side by side with same post 4+ years later) – no pagination

2005 – ReadWriteWeb Oct 12, 2005 (side by side with same post 3+ years later) – no pagination

2006 – ReadWriteWeb Oct 10, 2006 (side by side with same post 2+ years later) – no pagination

2007 – ReadWriteWeb Oct 9, 2007 (side by side with same post 1+ year later)

Don’t take only my word on pagination on single blog posts as a NON reader benefit 

I asked on Twitter if anybody else saw any reader benefit in pagination for blog posts. Here are the responses from MikeG1, addictedtovinyl, pwinn, jason_z, Rocinante and pugofwar:

One of my twitter updates this morning specifically mentioned @rww which is Richard’s Twitter. He hasn’t responded yet but I’ll be happy to update this post with his thoughts, if he doesn’t leave them in the comments and/or trackback area below.

No absolutes, is there ever a good time to break up single blog posts?

I can think of two good times I’d like to see blog posts paginated: when they aren’t single blog posts and for dramatic effect.

For example: a blogger telling me a story in chapters. Each chapter could be broken up into parts and put on separate pages. I could even see breaking up major dramatic moments in the story – for added effect – into multiple posts. Paginating fiction makes sense as a reader benefit. It’s intentional for dramatic effect.

I was tempted to paginate this post for dramatic effect. Really. Like imagine if each bolded heading was a different page? I think that would have been fun in an artistic way. I understand and appreciate style and humor. But back to the title … would this dramatic execution have been a benefit for readers? Probably more like a Hitchcock device.

Can you think of any other time that would be a benefit to you as a reader to have a blog post and/or article paginated?

Jump the shark moment for RWW?

In fairness to Richard and RWW it’s important to end reminding they are not doing pagination on every post (yet). Don’t jump the shark, please.

Since it’s not happening on every post I’m not going to stop following the signal. Consider this a reader correction that a likable publication is doing something reader unfriendly and is misguided if they believe it’s some kind of benefit to readers. If they – or any other blog we follow get too annoying with and obvious with unnecessary pagination – and even one post paginated that doesn’t need not be is eyebrow raising – we should vote with our feet. Should they care? Why not, we’re just readers and there are many other readers to abuse, right? (wrong)

Proponents of single post pagination might say: but wait, just read the RSS feed, no pagination there. When you want to interact as a reader with a blog, you don’t inside the RSS reader. When you want to show a site you generally like some comment love and/or follow the advertisements they offer, you don’t do that from the RSS reader. Most blog posts I like, I check the web version to see if there are embeds or IFRAMEs I might have missed – again, you don’t do that from the RSS reader.

Will end by asking Richard to remember where he came from and that part of the reason RWW gained readers was because it provided good content in a clean, reader-friendly environment. Never forget your roots.

Did this post make you go hmm?

Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)

• [site news] Average post length numbers
• 10 (deadly sins) ads in a single RSS feed post, get out of here
• How to add Sphere It function based on number of words in post
• Please don’t go Feedburner promo link crazy like this
• [site news] Slow page loading issues
• Transparent Adsense posts