Comment by ctenb
6 months ago
I stopped after the first 3 slides, since the information density is too low and the animation too slow.
6 months ago
I stopped after the first 3 slides, since the information density is too low and the animation too slow.
This article definitely wins my award for the most unnecessary scrolljacking -- the animations add no value, are too short, and only serve to delay being to read further in the article.
> the information density is too low
You failed the marshmallow test [1]. There is a traditional, long-form article that presents a rewarding read.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experim...
Marshmallow test assumes the payoff exists and is worth it. Does it? Is it? IDK and I don't want to waste time finding out. I'm far more interested in information-dense sources that let me find out if I want to know what it's offering. That's why journal articles have abstracts.
> Does it? Is it? IDK and I don't want to waste time finding out
This is what goes through the toddlers’ heads too! Gauging credibility is inextricably entangled with patience and Kahmeman’s System 2 thinking [1][2].
If this were a random article, sure, you shouldn’t trust. But it’s not. It’s on HN’s front page.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730121/
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
8 replies →
This article is ADHD-walled. The long load time, the weird slide show. Then the first page has a jittery animation that makes it impossible for me to actually focus on reading the article.
It's less of a marshmallow thing (though I often fail that test) and more of an overwhelming impression that the article does not want me to read it.
Halfway down the downward scroll is subverted into a left -> right scroll.
No - just, no.
> This article is ADHD-walled
I mean yes, folks with untreated ADHD would fail a marshmallow test. Marshmallow test failure doesn’t mean you’re a bad person. It simply signifies impatience and trust issues.
The kid can see the marshmallow. I can’t see the payoff from this article.
The kid knows what the payoff is.
The payoff here is unknown.
I really hate how articles are starting with full page slides and animations now. This is the third article that I've seen this week following the format. I suppose since two of those three were on the HN front page it's a format that works, but I guess I'm not the target audience.
This one is different from most. The visual design is consistent, engaging, and well done. The pictures are relevant and interesting and complement the text.
I agree that most articles that start with slides are just dross, this one is an exception.
The article fails the marshmallow test - it needs to convince people that there is a traditional, long-form article that will be a rewarding read from the start.
Only then is the test relevant to humans. Otherwise, all that's really being tested is the reader's trust in the publisher.
>You failed the marshmallow test [1]. There is a traditional, long-form article that presents a rewarding read.
I didn't downvote but reading an unknown article with unknown or non-existent payoff is not the same premise as The Marshmallow Test because the Stanford experiment explicitly specifies the "reward" upfront: ">, a child was offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited for a period of time."
In contrast, reading unfamiliar articles to _maybe_ get a "reward" is a Bayesian Probability. As the one reads each sentence that's not engaging, the expectation that there might be a "reward" at the end is tainted by the fact that most long articles in the past that reader forced themselves to finish didn't present a worthwhile reward at the end.
Now, if JumpCrisscross explicitly told the reader that there would be a guaranteed mind-blowing insight payoff at the end of the long article before the reader started it, then the test of that patience would be closer to The Marshmallow test.
It’s not a random article. It’s been upvoted to the HN front page.
> if JumpCrisscross explicitly told the reader that there would be a guaranteed mind-blowing insight payoff at the end
I literally said it’s “a rewarding read.”
7 replies →
That's not failing the marshmallow test, because the reward is obvious at the start of the test.
Is the reward obvious for reading any random article? No, but it may be there. But I sincerely doubt that you, or anyone, devotes themselves to consuming 100% of the content they come across on the internet, in hopes for a payoff(which may never come) in the end.
Rather the article failed him.
I closed the page at "from banks to government to TikTok", of all the glorious applications of a world wide network, the most glaring is teenagers making dance videos.