The density barbell

By Felix Salmon
December 8, 2011

Virtually everybody I know with Instapaper and/or Read It Later uses it all the time — the ability to read long articles in a clean format, at your leisure, on planes or subways or just when you have a few minutes to kill standing in line at the supermarket, is a great improvement to quality of life. And both of them are now popular enough that they can start extracting interesting patterns from their data.

Read It Later has a new post up about which authors are the most read on its platform, and the results are quite startling: the list of most-saved authors, and the list of authors with the highest return rate (the authors who people actually read, after they’ve saved an article) are both dominated by a lot of Gawker Media writers. “Nick Denton’s Gawker Media properties (Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Deadspin, Gawker),” write Coco Krumme and Mark Armstrong, “are among the most popular any way you cut it.”

This is partly because Gawker Media is a big and popular media company. But it’s also, I think, indicative of an important trend in the way that information is presented and consumed online.

There’s no doubt that our digital lives are becoming increasingly cluttered, and that we’re presented with more information per minute spent online than at any time in the past. There’s been a steady rise in the density of information that websites present to us, and the most successful websites (the Huffington Post and the Daily Mail are prime examples here) tend to fill their pages with enormous numbers of links and shiny things to click on.

One of the things that the Gawker redesign did was to make every Gawker Media webpage extremely dense, with lots of links to lots of stories. That’s a good thing. But it also makes it harder to give individual stories, especially long ones, the kind of space that readers like. And so those readers turn to tools like Read It Later when they come across a Gawker Media post they want to give real attention to.

Call it the density barbell: information is being presented in either a very dense form, or else in a very clean and sparse form. Both have their uses. And as tools like Instapaper and Read It Later become more widely used, websites can be even more aggressive in ramping up the density on their pages, safe in the knowledge readers can easily strip it away if they want to.

This kind of binary approach to information stands in stark contrast to what’s going on at Google, where a redesign of Google Reader, Gmail and other web apps has met with a vast outpouring of unhappiness. What’s happened there is that Google, in an attempt to make information easier to read, has massively decreased the density of its pages — even as the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction. For any one piece of information, that’s great — it’s easier to find and read. But for information consumption and navigation purposes, it’s dreadful: the redesigns slow down productivity, in a world where Reader and Gmail are key productivity tools.

What Google should have done, I think, is go in the other direction, and increase the density of the information in its apps — while adding some kind of simple tool allowing extraneous information to be eradicated at the touch of a button. People like simple and uncluttered in theory, but in practice we’re on an inexorable ride towards complex and cluttered — with tools then added on top for the purposes of filtering or reading. Give me everything, and then give me an easy way to find and read what I want. Don’t give me an unacceptable subset of everything and ask me to make do.

4 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

People are probably sharing more Gawker Media content not because the redesign “[made] every Gawker Media webpage extremely dense”, but because the redesign made every Gawker Media webpage *unreadable* and they’d would prefer to read it, y’know, like a webpage instead of a faux iPad (which somehow looks even worse on the iPad than on a desktop computer). The current format constantly has flow problems, with text running over ads (which isn’t intentional) and ads taking over images (which certainly is).

Posted by gwaitersesq | Report as abusive

Gawker = unreadable. I was especially depressed after the redesign because I liked io9. But so it goes; you sell yourself to the devil then you have to dance the devil’s tune.

It seems to me over the past 8 years or so that all redesigns are aimed at increasing ad impressions and clicking. Also, clean RSS feeds have dwindled – in fact, I don’t even bother to subscribe feeds like Wired that only give you the title, one sentence, and a link.

So, ultimately, everything is Google’s fault!

Posted by sretuers | Report as abusive

Count me among the folks who HATE much of the recent redesigns at Google, especially GMail. My biggest beef is that they’ve compressed all the left-sidebar widgets (calendar, docs, chat, labels) into a single floating pseudo-frame. So now instead of being able to simply scroll among those widgets with a flick of my finger, I have to actually focus my attention in that area, find the appropriate teeny little button, move the pointer there, and click it. After having had a simple, easy way to get access to all these things for years, this is INTENSELY annoying.

Posted by Auros | Report as abusive

I agree I definitely don’t like the new google interfaces either, but essentially I’d disagree with anything that changes just because I’m used to it. I’m sure in 6 months I’ll never remember the old interfaces anyway. The sidebar in gmail is pretty dang annoying though.

http://www.PureLivingPeroxide.com

Posted by H2O2 | Report as abusive