Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Web Users Judge Sites in the Blink of an Eye

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the judging-a-book-by-its-cover dept.

The Internet 233

dogbolter writes "Nature.com is reporting on a study by Canadian researcher Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University that visitors to a webpage can make up their minds about the quality of the page within just 50 milliseconds." From the article: "We all know that first impressions count, but this study shows that the brain can make flash judgments almost as fast as the eye can take in the information. The discovery came as a surprise to some experts. "My colleagues believed it would be impossible to really see anything in less than 500 milliseconds," says Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University in Ottawa, who has published the research in the journal Behaviour and Information Technology. Instead they found that impressions were made in the first 50 milliseconds of viewing."

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

dupe (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489165)

I knew within 50 nanoseconds that this was a dupe.

And in other news (1, Funny)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489226)

/.ers pick dupes in the blink of an eye.

Re: dupe (1, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489235)

The pathetic thing is that they had the story up with the "notify the on-duty editor if you see any problems with this article" for a while before opening it up for comments, and it still got posted.

Re: dupe (2, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489327)

And the most pathetic thing is that, I knew I have seen this story before, but it was not on slashdot...

it was on Digg: Two days ago [digg.com] .

Now, because I do not want to have tens of comments bashing digg, I just have to say that I still prefer slashdot because of the summaries (digg articles never have decent summaries) and the comments (digg comments are never insightful).

Re: dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489390)

Yeah, and later today you will know that Fedora core 5 Test 2 to has been released.../a. [digg.com]

Haha, way to go Slashdot...

Tomorrows headlines (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489364)

Web Users Judge Sites in an Instant Blink!
Posted by Zonk on Monday January 16, @12:57AM
from the judging-quick-by-its-learners dept.

Ant writes "This Nature.com news article reports on a study by Canadian researcher Gitte Lindgaard of Carleton University that potential readers can make snap decisions in just 50 milliseconds: 'Like the look of our website? Whatever the answer, the chances are you made your mind up within the first twentieth of a second. From the article: "We all know that first impressions count, but this study shows that the brain can make flash judgments almost as fast as the eye can take in the information." A study by researchers in Canada has shown that the snap decisions Internet users make about the quality of a web page have a lasting impact on their opinions...'" who has published the research in the journal Behaviour and Information Technology. Instead they found that impressions were made in the first 50 milliseconds of viewing."

whatever... this was supposed to be funny

Re:Tomorrows headlines (1)

pswayze (893054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489425)

Guess what! It isn't!

humbug (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489166)

Another dupe another day

dupe in 50 milliseconds (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489167)

i judge slashdot lazy.

slash is lame-ass (0, Troll)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489202)

When I see articles here appear 3 days after they appear on a free paper newspaper on the local train, thats the
day when I think, man!! slash has lost it.... in 1997 it was all fantastic, not its utter lame. iexbeta.com is better, arstechnia is better.

Fix the damn boring green defaults.

Re:slash is lame-ass (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489357)

Metro [freemetro.be] ?
I've been thinking the same.

Re:slash is lame-ass (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489426)

Fix the damn boring green defaults.

  • Fixing the boring green defaults has nothing to do with the "problem" you describe.
  • A lot of us value the fact that slashdot isn't preocupied with colors and looks, like gradient-whore digg.com whose interface is so flashy they forgot to make it work well
  • Slashdot isn't a news source, it's a news aggregator. It only has to keep up with the curve, it doesn't aim to be 100% bleeding edge
  • What's really hurting slashdot in my opinion is the amount of self-important twats who in every story tell us all how they hate the modern slashdot - it lowers the tone and annoys people. The way to solve is is not to mod pricks like this guy up, so not only do they not get to bitch so loud, but also they won't get mod points as often (though they will continue to post despite their views and may get points anyway).
  • Fuck off

This is SO a dupe. (0, Offtopic)

toby (759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489169)

n/t

Re:This is SO a dupe. (1)

troc (3606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489189)

Yep, took me less than 50 milliseconds to work that out :)

T.

Re:This is SO a dupe. (0, Redundant)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489252)

I'd like to know how much time the /. editors spent working it out. 50 ms seems such a long time.

Re:This is SO a dupe. (-1, Offtopic)

toby (759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489287)

Can't believe I wasted a karma point posting about it though. :(

yesterdays news (4, Informative)

bobby1234 (860820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489170)

literally yesterdays news http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/1 6/0558244 [slashdot.org]

Re:yesterdays news (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489271)

But the "dept" is different, so that makes it a different story!

Am I seeing double? (0, Offtopic)

inf0rmer (545195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489171)

I'm sure I saw this yesterday on Slashdot!

Hah! Too slow! (0, Offtopic)

simpleguy (5686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489172)

I can find a dupe in less time than it takes for IE to become infested with crappola from the intarweb! Can you?

dupe (1)

mrselfdestrukt (149193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489173)

Anotha fuckin mothafuckin dupe.

I was going to RTFA (5, Funny)

Iron Fusion (591400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489175)

But after 50 milliseconds I decided I didn't like the page.

Re:I was going to RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489216)

Even the jokes are duped !!

Kinda like slashdot editors... (4, Funny)

packeteer (566398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489176)

Slashdot editors appear to only spend 50 nanoseconds checking an article before posting.

In other news... (4, Funny)

Jetekus (909605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489178)

...book judged by cover.

Re:In other news... (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489335)

You copied that from the dupe! [slashdot.org] Nice way to improve your karma ;-)

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489345)

Yeah, it is called Plagiarism, and it happens a lot during slashdot dupes.

Shame on the plagiarist

Coming up next: (5, Funny)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489180)

Dark Energy May Be Changing

Re:Coming up next: (1, Redundant)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489243)

Slashdot users judge dupes within 1/20th of a second!

Re:Coming up next: (3, Funny)

slashdot.org (321932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489279)

Dark Energy May Be Changing

For subscribers only

Re:Coming up next: (1, Funny)

matthew.thompson (44814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489286)

But first, a look at what's still to come.

Home Storage - what should I do, where should I go?

Followed by

Home Storage - where should I go and what should I do?

Coming up a review of the past hours' news.

Re:Coming up next: (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489431)

Coming up a review of the past hours' news.

Yeah,
Slashback:Home Storage, Web Sites Judging and Home Storage Web Judging.

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Home Network Data Storage Device, Users Judge sites in the blink of an eye, Storage networks for home devices and Web Users Judge Sites Instantly.

What about... (0, Redundant)

yobjob (942868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489181)

The second time round? [slashdot.org]

Re:What about... (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489263)

Which is why slashcode really should add a check in to see if the link has been already used. I mean, come on, this isn't even a different link, there is no excuse for that. After it was coded it wouldn't even take the editors any extra time, if they hit "submit" it could flash up a warning saying that link was already used. They could still override it if they wanted, but it would spare us at least some dupes.

so eeeh dupe he (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489183)

eeeh he

Small Mercies (0, Offtopic)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489184)

At least it wasn't posted by **(You know who).

ScuttleMonkey, please take five and get some coffee, and try reading the front page every once in a while.

Re:Small Mercies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489377)

> At least it wasn't posted by **(You know who).

You're referring to that fucktard Zonk, right?

(That's right, ./ finally hired an editor who actually makes me miss JonKatz.)

Yep, Dupe (0, Redundant)

Fiachra06 (945611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489185)

And hey, It would have only taken 50 milliseconds to look at yesterdays news :).

dupe (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489186)

It took me just 50 milliseconds to realize this was a dupe [slashdot.org]

Apparently, some minds are faster than the slashdot editors

Re:dupe (1)

HoneyBunchesOfGoats (619017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489221)

It took me just 50ms to see that your post was redundant.

Apparently, some Anonymous Cowards are slower than others.

Re:dupe (0, Redundant)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489265)

Close, but it would have been funnier if you said 'It took me just 50ms to see that your post was a dupe.'

Re:dupe (1)

mysticwhiskey (569750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489294)

I disagree. It would have been funnier if they had said 'It took me just 50ms to see that your post was a dupe.'

Seriously, dupes are just asking to be lampooned, and almost none more so than this one. And now, cue the "50 millisecond" jokes...

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489188)

Slashdot Users Detect Dupes in the Blink of an Eye

This really makes me wonder (0, Redundant)

tannhaus (152710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489190)

Do the slashdot editors ever actually do something radical like....oh, I dunno

READ SLASHDOT?!

Once again a case for article moderation (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489192)

*shakes head*

Re:Once again a case for article moderation (1, Insightful)

n54 (807502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489372)

What kind of sniveling brownnosing asshole mods the parent Offtopic? It's +5 Insightful and not in any way Offtopic.

After enough encouragement CmdrTaco solved the link abuse and deserves accolade for that, hopefully the next priority will be enabeling article moderation (no it won't make Slashdot Digg, it will make Slashdot a better Slashdot).

Hmm (4, Funny)

adinu79 (860333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489195)

Fresh coffee and fresh dupes ... what more do you want to start the day?

Hmm, well. (3, Interesting)

omeg (907329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489196)

I modded yesterday's article, so now I have a chance to say something about this. I think that if the user can't make up his mind whether he likes the site or not in such a short period of time, then the site is obviously broken.

If I can't tell what a site is about by looking at the way it presents itself, then its design is flawed and I simply don't want to be visiting it anyway.

Re:Hmm, well. (4, Funny)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489276)

Excuse me, you're not supposed to be posting about the article. This is a chance for everyone to complain about /.'s dupe policy.

To appreciate the effect fully, go back to the original article and (if you have points left) moderate everything redundant.

Aah, the power of Slashdot...

If we can judge webpages this fast... (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489199)

I wonder how this ability to rapidly judge things correlates to everyday life. The 50 millisecond snap decision we make when accessing a website is frequently correct. Websites with poor layout, bad colors, busy graphics, etc. all point to bad websites and typically bad content.

If we can accurately judge a website in 50 milliseconds, can we also do so with people? Is there something to the snap decision that the group of black youths 20 meters ahead of me are probably trouble? How much should we suppress our natural instinct when it has been shown to be correct for webpages?

Re:If we can judge webpages this fast... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489383)

It hasn't been shown to be correct. No-one seriously thinks that snap decisions are quality decisions. This is a fact to be exploited by websites you don't want to visit to make you think you do want to visit them.

It won't justify your racism.

Re:If we can judge webpages this fast... (1)

magores (208594) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489409)

Have mod points, and would have given an Insightful to parent if he hadn't been AC.

Oh, deja-vu ! (5, Funny)

javaDragon (187973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489205)

It happens when they change somthing in the Matrix, so beware, agents are coming!

Re:Oh, deja-vu ! (4, Funny)

john83 (923470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489264)

Yeah, and Smith's bringing his dupes.

Is it Too Much.... (0, Redundant)

tealover (187148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489206)

to ask the editors to use the search feature provided on Slashdot to search the past stories using the keywords from the submission? Using the following would have found the dupe:

web users blink eye

Similiar entry feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489314)

All they need is a similiar entry feature, such that when they make or approve a post, a list of similiar entries is shown. We can call that the dupe detector when something is posted, and similiar posts if it gets used on a post's page.

Now excuse me while I take a dupe.

Holy dupe batman (0, Redundant)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489209)

Third time's the charm, ready for tomorrow's "Web users judge sites in the blink of an eye"?

Posted Yesterday by Zonk (5, Funny)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489210)

Grab your +5 comments here [slashdot.org] for some instant karma. Well, the editors dupe the articles, we might as well dupe the comments...

That's Crap (1)

aurb (674003) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489350)

This article is obviously rubbish

... oh yeah..

Re:Posted Yesterday by Zonk (3, Funny)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489353)

Man, I was trying to find a +5 Informative or Interesting comment, but darn... I could only find +5 Funny, ya know, those does not give karma...

the only one I found was:

"as a funny offtopic info. [slashdot.org] apparently playboy mirrors files for eclipse, apache, freebsd, and some other stuff! coolness. I fuond this out in some other article clicking around. look"

The funny thing is that the poster specified his comment was "Funny" and "Offtopic"... and it got modified as +5 Informative haha

paper (2, Interesting)

19061969 (939279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489218)

I'm just reading the paper myself. More interestingly than judgements being made on gut reaction, it discusses the characteristics of attractive websites. It appears that complexity (as long as it isn't confusing) has no effect on how attractive websites are rated.

Interestingly, the experiments participants agreed strongly with each other, but there was less agreement between them as a group, and a separate group of "experts".

Perhaps the moral of the story is: don't bother with usability analysis - get an artists to design a "cool" site.

However, the design of this study (relying on 500ms views - yes, that's five hundred milliseconds - read the paper if you don't believe me) may not be the best way to rate sites. There is a high correlation between the "short" ratings (500 & 50ms duration) and longer term ratings, but I'm still skeptical.

And yes, this paper is a dupe [slashdot.org]

Re:paper (1)

19061969 (939279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489331)

Having read a bit further, I'm less sure about this papers veracity now: they tested the agreement between the 500ms and 50ms exposure conditions. There were 40 participants, 20 in each condition (ie, 20 people viewed at 500ms and 20 viewed at 50ms). Ratings were made for 50 websites.

The way they judged the inter-rater agreement was to collapse the scores for each participant across all websites - ie, the mean rating applied by participants to all websites. These were then correlated, and not surprisingly the r was high (r = 0.947).

But this is mistaken because it is expected that the mean rating will tend towards the centre of the scale. A lot of variance is also lost in this process (much like with Brinley plots) so the correlation will likely appear higher than it actually is.

Remedy: the authors should have used an intra-class correlation and reported that. I bet the inter-rater agreement would have been much lower. The authors also do not test the agreement between the 50ms ratings and ratings made at longer intervals than 500ms (ie, long term ratings).

Conclusion: the 50ms ratings might be worthless and not related to ratings made on a longer term. Don't worry all you crazy web designers: you have longer than 50ms to make an impact.

Question (5, Insightful)

Fiachra06 (945611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489220)

I may be asking for it here but I always wondered this. I've been reading /. for years but only recently started posting and my question is, why do some people get so angry about dupes? They can be a bit annoying, yes but I've read some really horrible and insulting remaks to the editors in the past because of dupes. I mean people seem furious. It's like the editors kicked their children and stole the ice-cream while delivering the household bills. Have I missed something that makes this crime so heinous.

Re:Question (5, Funny)

Antony.S (813668) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489229)

Have I missed something that makes this crime so heinous.

Yes but don't worry, it'll be posted again soon

Re:Question (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489231)

Dupes imply that slashdot submitters don't actually bother to read Slashdot. They also spread comments between two news stories which is just a pain in the ass and leads to a lot of redundancy.

Re:Question (1)

Fiachra06 (945611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489247)

You're right but some people take it so seiously they nearly threaten lives over it. It's the extreame way in which some people react which confuses me.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489283)

If you're confused now, just wait 'til the spelling nazis get hold of your post.

Re:Question (1)

Fiachra06 (945611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489394)

I'm for it, if that's the case. Spelling and me never really got on. Maybe I should post in irish. The conversation would be lacking but very few would notice how crap my spelling is.

Re:Question (4, Insightful)

mysticwhiskey (569750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489282)

Dupes imply that slashdot submitters don't actually bother to read Slashdot

It's not the submitter's fault, rather the editors who post the story submissions.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489237)

Well, actually I don't have much problems with dupes on some _important_ topics. Stuff that matters, you know. It's when such ... uhm, how do I say it... crap snippets get _duped_ whereas many, many readers think they should not have been posted even the first time, it's this that makes us somewhat angry.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489254)

I think it's frustration, really. Dupes happen quite frequently and every time potential easy solutions are pointed out by readers.

Most people are only here for the discussion these days, anyway, the article summaries are generally either poorly written, incorrect or confused.

Re:Question (3, Funny)

pmc (40532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489322)

the article summaries are generally either poorly written, incorrect or confused

That is very unfair. Some manage to be all three.

But, in reply the the GPP, the reason that people get worked up is that it serves as a demonstration that the editors don't appear to care. They don't read the site, and they don't even bother to read the "problems with the article" e-mails that people send in. It is possible that dupes are a deliberate ploy to generate page hits - after all who can be that consistents careless - but this would be even worse. Or it could be just plain incompetence.

None reflect well on the site.

Re:Question (1)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489285)

Actually, there are a few website owners out there who enjoy the buzz of a slashdotting, but twice in two days?

Re:Question (1)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489310)

Answers?
Here are a few reasons that spring to mind. I don't think they warrant the responses that the duplicate stories get, however some people get fired up a whole lot easier than I do =)

Lots of people here pay for subscriptions [I don't, however]
If you're paying for a subscription, it removes the ads from a certain number of articles you read.
If you hit a dupe, and actually click on it, as anyone would have to in order to post, then you've paid twice to remove the ads from one story.

Number of Stories.
Vast numbers of people post stories to be submitted. If a dupe is accepted for the front page, that means that someone missed out on their submission being accepted.

Quality of Editing
The editors of /. (whether they like it or not) wield quite a significant amount of influence and (probably) get paid pretty well for what they do. Some people see dupes as the editors not doing their jobs properly.

And so on...

Re:Question (1)

Jetekus (909605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489373)

I think it's basically that if I, a casual /. browser can instantly tell it's a dupe, shouldn't the people in charge also be able to tell?

Also, it's hardly a rare occurance.

Answer Re:Question (1)

n54 (807502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489399)

Because we want Slashdot to be better.

That simple, really, and we can't understand why the powers that be wouldn't jump at this opportunity of making it better.

Re:Question (1)

Hosiah (849792) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489411)

Well, now, I wouldn't judge the remarks as all *THAT* hot. Most of the comments in here seem to be humorous. Keep in mind (a) some people actually *pay* for membership here (I don't), so would be a little more entitled to gripe when they didn't get their money's worth.

Let's face it, it does show gross neglect. How many of the group blogs that you know have a problem with duplicated effort? How many websites, period, with a group maintaining them do this? When's the last time you saw this on another news site? This would be so easy to fix: a simple shell script could scrape the RSS feed for at least the past month and grep for keywords.

Finally, there's some sore spots over story submission. Some folks take it quite personally when they've had 25 stories by them rejected in a row, but the same story shows up three times or the same member seems to get a disproportionately large number of submissions through all at once.

As for me, I'm mostly amused by the whole thing. I'm not a paying member, so to me Slashdot is just another web site in the whole wide internet, albeit one which strokes my geek side in a way that few other sites know.

Re:Question (5, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489417)

There are a number of reasons; here are some, in no particular order:

1) There are people whose job it is to edit and approve submissions; these people are paid to do this. Some people find it annoying when people are apparently not doing a very good job of something.

2) Every dupe posted is a potential new and interesting article rejected.

3) Some people pay a subscription to the site; some of these people feel (rightly or wrongly) that as they're paying money, they have a right to expect a certain level of quality and profesionalism, and feel that the number and frequency of dupes does not meet this level.

4) It's primarily a technical problem, and the audience is tech-heavy; thus many of us can think of (and sometimes suggest) potential solutions, and it's frustrating that nothing seems to be being done about it

5) Many of us think (rightly or wrongly) that the major strength of the site is in the discussions that the articles generate - that is, in the comments that we post. Some people think (rightly or wrongly) that as they therefore provide most of the value of the site, they should have some kind of say in how it works, or at least have their concerns and complaints acknowledged.

6) As you note, there are many, many complaints about dupe articles, yet I have not seen any official reply to any of these. While it's entirely possible that I've just missed it, it does seem that our comments are falling on deaf ears. People don't like to feel ignored.

Now, there's no excuse for all the vitriol, but some people are really getting frustrated about things. Between the lack of any apparent action or even response about dupes (and **Beatles-Beatles posts, apparent moderation abuse, Roland P, etc), some people are over-reacting and lashing out. The rest of us, well, we just wish that something would be done about it, or at least that there would be a public announcement (or a even FAQ entry) stating the official position of the editors, and what (if anything) they intend to do about it.

Wow.. I must be blinking fast.. (2, Funny)

Pranjal (624521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489230)

..I have already judged this article twice!

It is proven! (2, Funny)

mstefanus (705346) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489255)

It is proven!

Slasdot editors spend 50 miliseconds before approving stories. No wonder so many dupes...

On-topic comments here (1)

achurch (201270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489269)

So people can find them amid the flood of dupe reports.

Re:On-topic comments here (1)

arose (644256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489289)

I think you meant to say: "On-topic comments here [slashdot.org] ."

loading time (1)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489272)

I dont know how they tested this (probably with screenshots) but a page never loads within 50ms. In real life the way (speed, layout correct, banners slowing down, etc) a page loads is also imporant.

The 50ms cant be right how do they even measure such a response you do not click within 50ms.

Basicly I do not trust this research.

too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489300)

this news should have been posted yesterday, then we would have the original and the dupe on the same site! Wouldn't that be fun?

How can dupes like this happen? (1)

rollerbob (739079) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489302)

It amazes me how dupes appear on Slashdot like this. I mean how can this happen? Please don't make me start reading all my tech/nerd news from digg.com [digg.com] instead.

50 milliseconds huh (1, Troll)

SilverwoodUG (853342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489303)

50 milliseconds huh?

Here's my list of things that almost guarantee that I'll leave your site behind, never to look back.

1 - Music - Your taste in music is not mine. Your music sucks!
2 - Pages that don't load - It's usually the page that looks like it has exactly what you were searching for too!
3 - Pages that don't contain the information "as advertised" - you know the ones...you click on a link and it goes to some search page that tries to reset your home page.
4 - Pages that are more banner ad than web page - Get over it. No one wants to see that much advertising.
5 - Anything that blinks - Thank god the W3C deprecated the blink tag
6 - Anything that demands I install a plug-in for "the user experience" - espeically those stupid cursors
7 - Anything that spawns pop ads
8 - Anything that doesn't present easy to read and use navigation (www.thetrueagency.com/true.html is a prime example of this)
9 - Anything that doesn't have a sufficient amount of contrast between the text and the background.
10 - Anything that uses more than 5 different fonts on the same page - Its a web site, not a comic book.
11 - Sites that redirect to another redirect - We get the idea that you move - a lot.
12 - Anything that uses more than 6 colors on the same page - It looks like a circus barfed on your page.

Re:50 milliseconds huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489325)

Re:50 milliseconds huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489370)

If the editors can do it, so do I.

dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14489309)

nice work with the dupe, duper

Free will is exercised unconsciously (4, Interesting)

tehanu (682528) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489311)

You know this idea that people make judgements in the first 50ms before you can really gain a conscious impression of it (though probably something flashes in your subconcious) remind me of one of the entries in the "Dangerous Ideas" article in Edge (slashdot had it as a story a short while ago) in which Nobel Prize winning biochemist Eric R. Kandel argues that much of what we call "free will" is processed unconsciously without awareness:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_5.html [edge.org]

ERIC R. KANDEL
Biochemist and University Professor, Columbia University; Recipient, The Nobel Prize, 2000; Author, Cellular Basis of Behavior

Free will is exercised unconsciously, without awareness

It is clear that consciousness is central to understanding human mental processes, and therefore is the holy grail of modern neuroscience. What is less clear is that much of our mental processes are unconscious and that these unconscious processes are as important as conscious mental processes for understanding the mind. Indeed most cognitive processes never reach consciousness.

As Sigmund Freud emphasized at the beginning of the 20th century most of our perceptual and cognitive processes are unconscious, except those that are in the immediate focus of our attention. Based on these insights Freud emphasized that unconscious mental processes guide much of human behavior.

Freud's idea was a natural extension of the notion of unconscious inference proposed in the 1860s by Hermann Helmholtz, the German physicist turned neural scientist. Helmholtz was the first to measure the conduction of electrical signals in nerves. He had expected it to be as the speed of light, fast as the conduction of electricity in copper cables, and found to his surprise that it was much slower, only about 90m sec. He then examined the reaction time, the time it takes a subject to respond to a consciously a perceived stimulus, and found that it was much, much slower than even the combined conduction times required for sensory and motor activities.

This caused Helmholz to argue that a great deal of brain processing occurred unconsciously prior to conscious perception of an object. Helmholtz went on to argue that much of what goes on in the brain is not represented in consciousness and that the perception of objects depends upon "unconscious inferences" made by the brain, based on thinking and reasoning without awareness. This view was not accepted by many brain scientists who believed that consciousness is necessary for making inferences. However, in the 1970s a number of experiments began to accumulate in favor of the idea that most cognitive processes that occur in the brain never enter consciousness.

Perhaps the most influential of these experiments were those carried out by Benjamin Libet in 1986. Libet used as his starting point a discovery made by the German neurologist Hans Kornhuber. Kornhuber asked volunteers to move their right index finger. He then measured this voluntary movement with a strain gauge while at the same time recording the electrical activity of the brain by means of an electrode on the skull. After hundreds of trials, Kornhuber found that, invariably, each movement was preceded by a little blip in the electrical record from the brain, a spark of free will! He called this potential in the brain the "readiness potential" and found that it occurred one second before the voluntary movement.

Libet followed up on Kornhuber's finding with an experiment in which he asked volunteers to lift a finger whenever they felt the urge to do so. He placed an electrode on a volunteer's skull and confirmed a readiness potential about one second before the person lifted his or her finger. He then compared the time it took for the person to will the movement with the time of the readiness potential.

Amazingly, Libet found that the readiness potential appeared not after, but 200 milliseconds before a person felt the urge to move his or her finger! Thus by merely observing the electrical activity of the brain, Libet could predict what a person would do before the person was actually aware of having decided to do it.

These experiments led to the radical insight that by observing another person's brain activity, one can predict what someone is going to do before he is aware that he has made the decision to do it. This finding has caused philosophers of mind to ask: If the choice is determined in the brain unconsciously before we decide to act, where is free will?

Are these choices predetermined? Is our experience of freely willing our actions only an illusion, a rationalization after the fact for what has happened? Freud, Helmholtz and Libet would disagree and argue that the choice is freely made but that it happens without our awareness. According to their view, the unconscious inference of Helmholtz also applies to decision-making.

They would argue that the choice is made freely, but not consciously. Libet for example proposes that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain, but that just before the action is initiated, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not.

Whatever the reasons for the delay between decision and awareness, Libet's findings now raise the moral question: Is one to be held responsible for decisions that are made without conscious awareness?

Please note ... (0, Offtopic)

4Dmonkey (936872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489315)

Never double post.
Never double post.

In other news (-1, Offtopic)

peterpi (585134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489316)

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that a Canadian company, Delcan NET, will begin testing a technology that determines the flow of automobile traffic by monitoring cell phone traffic. The company promises a revolutionary way to determine backups, but privacy advocates fear the implications of a third party tracking users by their cell phones.

Dupes, lame dupes & late lame dupes. (2, Insightful)

Jivha (842251) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489329)

What really irks me is the fact that the dupe refers to an article that is almost pointless in that it merely attaches a "scientific number" to a process most of us already know/follow - quick judgement. So what?

Will we have articles saying how motorists can spot an accident within 75 milliseconds? Or that long-time hunters can spot an alarmed bird a full 60 milliseconds before the rest of us? Or that being scalded by hot coffee takes 25 milliseconds to register in the brain?

The original post was based on a lame article. This one is a dupe of a post that was based on a lame article which appeared 3 full days ago across almost all Internet sites and publications. Thats what makes this so damn irritating!

true (0, Redundant)

mennucc1 (568756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489340)

hey , it is true! It took me only 50ms to detect this newspost as a dupe. Cool!

Comic Sans (2, Insightful)

BibelBiber (557179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489371)

Whenever I see Comic Sans it's pretty much worthless on academic information. Problem is, many unis still think it's cool to use it for application forms such as family accomodation. It's hard to take such things serious.

Slashdot DupeBlock (1)

obender (546976) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489384)

I think leaving this for the editors to solve is not getting us anywhere. Maybe a Firefox extension to filter out dupes is the way out.

The question is how does a program recognise a dupe? My first guess would be to verify the links in the story intro against a list of already posted ones. I would not go for read links as not that many people read the articles first.

Any other ideas?

Ah (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489392)

So that would be why none of my websites seem to do very well. Sigh.

Shows the problem... (0, Redundant)

peteremcc (913806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489393)

Before i say anything, i'm not a fanboy etc, and i've been reading slahdot for quite a while. I recently started reading digg, and this article is just another example of the difference between the two and the problem with slashdot. Whoever the editors here are, they clearly don't have enought time to cover everything they are trying to. Peter http://peteremcc.wordpress.com [wordpress.com]

What the hell... (1)

Shardis (198372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489408)

Okay, why can't I find one fucking comment at +3, +2, or +1 that's actually on topic? *sheesh* I'm starting to not even read the comments here...

Anyway, I'd like to call bullshit on this article. Granted, this is only anecdotal, but when visiting the local Science Museum I couldn't even *react* within 70ms. I play MUD's a lot, I can *tell* the difference between 50ms and 100ms, but to make an intelligent judgment about what I'm seeing?

Forget it.

Yeah, gut 'instinct' will affect you - this is news how?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

cralewyth (934970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14489427)

Websites judge YOU!
...in the blink of an eye!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>