What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
109 Comments
- str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+41Well back in the 90s (a horrible way to start a sentence), click here was one of the best ways to draw users attention. But then after heavy use it lost its power, since everything was click here - "click here for viagara" "click here to sign up for spam" "click here for never-ending popups". Nowadays we use "Warning" or "[pic] / breaking news / Ron Paul", how long till those solicit no response?
- mpn401, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35"Don't click here."
Works wonders because it's something people aren't supposed to do. - perkonis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24I'm hoping it will happen by this Friday.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24How to make a digg user "click here"....
Best Pics you will see all day! Kevin Rose and Ron Paul use Ubuntu Linux to hack their iPhones! (click here) - pikpikcarrotmon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I never read that memo. Nobody told me where to click.
- MatthewTheRaven, on 10/30/2007, -1/+19My only real problem with "Click Here" is that it violates the idea of proper hypertext altogether. A link should really be self-describing. "Click here" tells you nothing about the content to which you're being linked.
Unfortunately, how do you get away from making things for the lowest common denominator? Instead of making the users smarter, every metric seems to show that you're better off to make your site dumber. Clean site design? Fewer users. Contextual hypertext? Fewer clickthroughs. What do you do? - juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Actually, he dies many times in every Halo game, unless you're really, really good.
- justinjacobs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I clicked and nothing happened.
:( - crgnetworks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Oh my god... I hate you.
- Bobski, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17"Click Here" went out of style in 1998. Apparently no one read the memo.
- markus941, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16It's like having a long sales letter - seems archaic to those who "know" how the interwebs operate, but still effective - even if we don't want them to be.
- micropizzle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I HATE YOU!
- monkeycatDx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Curiosity gets the best of us.
- chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I think the horrible neon color text is a good indication of clickable text.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The W3C advises otherwise: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
- OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Must resist..
- kbeast, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9Click here if you want your web page to look like HTML 1.0
- astromodder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10***** you
- zweben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8NOOO!
Oh god owned so bad. - perkonis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I figured it would have been Goatse.
It's not every day that getting rick rolled is a relief. - sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Let's hug it out.
- sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I love the internet. :D
- perkonis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5With any luck it will be the day that "Warning" ,"[pic]", and "Ron Paul" cease to have any effect as sensational headlines.
Other than that, nothing. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes. They're not using AdBlock Plus. ;)
- sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Relax fool. It's not a virus.
- dalesmatrix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5As far as making a site accessible (in the visiually impaired sense) links should be short descriptive text. "Click here" as the entire link isn't appropriate, if you can imagine a page full of "click here's" being read out by a screen reader it's not very useful to the user, as they'd have no idea where they are heading. (a screen reader can be in a mode where they read out all the links, so they wouldn't hear the surrounding text that gives the click here meaning)
- bobartig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4whats also unforgivably bad is sites like engadget.com, whicj use an inscrutiable approach of hiding "something" behind an image. Sometimes its the most important link on the article. Sometimes its unrelated entirely. Sometimes clicking on thelink does nothing at all. The important thing to note here is that the user is forced to guess because they have no idea where the link is, or what it will do. This willful lack of meaningful interface completely flies in the face of making an usable site.
- dyranios2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Simply I find people don't often know something is a hyperlink unless it's at the top of a site in a menu or you tell them to "click here" for most things. I'm talking about Joe Sixpack 80% of people who don't understand how the internet works etc.
- cjellibebi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Click here" is an abomination that should never have existed!
"Click here" assumes the user is navigating the web with an interface that relies on a pointer-device (such as a mouse). If the user is using a text-based browser such as 'Lynx', or is using a browser that renders the web-page as speech (speaks the web-page instead of displays it), 'Click here' would not make any sense. Also, when printed out to paper, 'Click here' would not make sense either.
Instead, the developer should write the text in such a way that the text scans even if it is printed out. Alternatives like "More information on XYZ is available", or replacing "Click _here_ to view more information." by making the clickable words more descriptive, such as, "Read the _policies and procedures_ for more information."
For more information about the "Click here" syndrome: see:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
http://www.ology.org/tilt/cgh/
http://www.hawaii.edu/itsdocs/net/goodhtml/
And finally, just for a laugh: See:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~mukluk/HTMLTerroristsHandbook.html - Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You can have the best of both words with links like "click here for information about XXX" then it tells people to click and you also get the added bonus of SEO. Longer links tend to look less attractive but you can fix that with site design.
- chaoshauk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If you care about accessibility of your site, you'll never use the words "Click Here" as anchor text. Instead of using something like:
To learn more about waffles, "click here".
you should be using:
"Learn more about waffles."
Anybody that's done any amount of real web development should know that... - ibolt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm not getting my memo's.
- wbagdon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i had to fight the urge to click the link at the end of the article that said "Click here"
- RyeBrye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, you can fix it with CSS:
a:before { content: "Click here "}
Of course, that wouldn't work in IE - where a majority of the retards exist. - modusop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I remember this study- something like a graphical, full-bleed sales ad did worse than a plain page of block text. Very strange indeed.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We are taking your "dugg down" virginity right now.
- cjellibebi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Click here" is an abomination that should never have existed!
"Click here" assumes the user is navigating the web with an interface that relies on a pointer-device. And besides, it does not make sense when the web-page is printed out.
See my post below for more details (as well as some links on HTML style-guides). - freakystyley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think you can have the best of both worlds by simply linking both the "click here" as well as the descriptive text, as opposed to linking most of the sentence as Mononuclear suggests. For instance (quotes denote the links):
"Click here" to "learn more about usability"
Both links would lead to the same document. - oojamaflip2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Having 'click here' in anchor text is a really dumb idea. Google looks at your site's internal linking and compares the anchor text of a link to the destination page, if your anchor text contains your keywords you are more likely to find your website listed higher up in the search listing for those keywords.
- dudad, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4' * “Click to continue”: 8.53%
* “Continue to article”: 3.3%
* “Read more”: (-)1.8%'
It's easier to locate "Click to continue" immersed in oodles of text, pictures, and ads. - oneSaint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's actually called a "Call to action" in the Design Feild. CTA for short.
Used in a sentence: "Your CTA is hard to see." - sockpuppets, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You have only yourself to blame.
- simd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Splitting it into two doesn't make sense - why not "Click here to learn more about usability".
- ecidnac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Most of the time I try to avoid using links with text like "click here", because they don't make sense out of context. In the case of a post that is continued on another page (another thing I try to avoid, because it's just plain annoying), the "click here to continue" is generated by my blogging software, and not part of the article itself. In such cases, I think it's more acceptable.
- mrgoat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Most of these comments seem to be by people who don't actually know. Let me give you a real world example. I used to work for Playboy (w00t etc) and I sent the (double opt-in totally legit) email newsletters. On the pics of the girls I put CLICK HERE diagonal flash one day. It DOUBLED the click through rate on those images. I couldn't believe it. I did several A/B split tests over the next few weeks and it repeated itself every time.
But as I say, this is just an actual fact, from a real world example. Carry on with your conjecture now. - cjellibebi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I agree. "Click here" is an abomination that should never have existed!
"Click here" assumes the user is navigating the web with an interface that relies on a pointer-device. And besides, it does not make sense when the web-page is printed out.
See my post below for more details. - Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2depends on the site. If it's an ecommerce site then yes you do. Stupid people spend lots of money so you need to make things very obvious for them
- cjellibebi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Click here" is an abomination that never should have gone into style in the first place!
See my post below for more details. - firefusion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Click here" isn't good for SEO. Where are the keywords?
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's really not about dumb vs. smart. It's about human nature and how the brain works. I don't know the details about this specifically, but I'm sure it's analogous with things like "people can only hold about seven discreet things in their mind at the same time."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is