One thing I like about PJ Media is that even though they have multiply paginated articles, they offer the "view as single page" option. I usually click that.

Heal thyself, blogger!

No one has ever explained to me why web pages appear in a tiny little strip down the center of my big white computer screen.

If I cant find a single page link, or a print article link, I usually skip it and avoid ever going back to that web page for anything

Now, why wouldn't the single page allow you to display just as many ads?

Shouldn't just having one long page yield the same length of margin display ads?

"No one has ever explained to me why web pages appear in a tiny little strip down the center of my big white computer screen."

There is an ideal line width in respect to text size for maximum readability. (Usually about 12 words per line.) It's the same reason newspapers (with type size usually about 9 or 9.5 points) are broken into 6 columns -- quicker reading. More leisurely reading can be in wider columns, like in long essays or books.

As for online pagination, when so many mainstream sites spread stories over multiple pages clogged with widgets and autoplaying ads leading to slow-loading pages (in essence, interfering with getting the whole story), I just go elsewhere. The irony is that with dying newspapers’ print editions, the stories that “jumped” pages weren’t for the page views, but just a way to squeeze stories into the space left over after the ads are in place. (The ad profile determines the “news hole”). Plus, print ads didn’t scream at you and get in the way of your reading. Anyway, there is a reasonable amount of clicking online to get through a story. Some sites just go too far.

I have HughesNet - only available highspeed (ha) internet available here. There isn't enough time in the day to have to keep clicking to a new page. Like Lujlp, I just don't go there anymore, or just read the first page.

Thank goodness someone finally said it! I've lways loathed this.

Yes BlogDog, but PJMedia are one of the worst when it comes to *automated* pagination. How many of their articles have two sentences "after the break"? If they offered a single page option before you clicked on the article sure, but you can't get to the single page option without reading the first page. They're just making you feel better.

In this case (and it's well worth reading, despite the insane 59 page pagination) I can understand why they wanted to break it up a bit. But HTML offers all these options for contents and organisation and whatnot. This is purely a click through. And from Wired, no less.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html

Also, and it wasn't like this last time I read it, the "page 1" "page3" links are suspiciously close to the ad underneath. I wonder how many click throughs they're getting from the mouse pointer not being just so?

Ltw - I agree, it would be nice to load the article as a single page from the get go but I can still live with having to click once more. Amy, I wouldn't say it's the best option (a la that on which I agree with Ltw) but it's not enough to particularly bother me.
What's more bothersome to my aging eyes is a site that doesn't bake increasing the font size into the page. I can use the browser to zoom but that can screw up the text horribly. Sometimes I just resort to a "Readability" view and heave my sighs into an uncaring world....

Another irritating thing webzines do is use big headline fonts like dead tree magazines use. It's different on a computer screen and they bother my eyes. You don't need "eyecatching" pull quotes and lead-in paragraphs at that sight range.

E.g Kaus's site at Daily Caller, complete with big scary photo.

Google also likes sites with low bounce rate more than those with high bounce rate.

Ads on the following pages cost more because going to a following page indicates some level of interest.

I hate ridiculously long pages as much as too many pages.

Amen Amen Amen. And I'm not religious.

This reminds me of one of my favorite pet peeves. No wait. It's more like a deep-seated loathing. Adobe Reader. You put two pages side by side. Inevitably one, the one on the right, has something on it that is explained, refined, or otherwise dependent upon something on the *next* page. Where is the next page? Hidden below the current page. So tell me, Adobe, you repository of geniuses, WHY can't you make pages scroll R-L instead of U-D? A R-L scroll would solve ALL the unnecessary continuity problems. But NOOOOOOOOOoooooooo. You've ALWAYS DONE IT THAT WAY, right? No room for any ACTUAL THOUGHT into the way people actually use your crappy products, right? That's why Photoshop is so intuitive too, eh?

> I hate ridiculously long pages as much as too
> many pages.

What's the ridiculous part? Seriously curious about what you mean

>> I hate ridiculously long pages as much as too
>> many pages.
>
>What's the ridiculous part? Seriously curious about >what you mean

Yesterday I was looking at a page for work that was referenced in an email. On my browser, the scroll bar slider was as small as it gets and even the tiniest movements I could imagine were jumping about 15 pages (as defined by the page-up/down buttons). The reference was something like "read section 17.29.5 section 'interacting with outside entities with existing NDA'" I have to scroll somewhat close and then hit the page down key like 50 times. The length of the page is just ridiculous.

An extreme example, in general I find web pages that are more than about 10 screens long to be too long.

Press the F3 button and an on screen test search search bar will pop up. Copy&Paste, or type what you are looking for and it will scan the page for you