It's like this http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/resources/topical/reading/reading.htm
<http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/resources/topical/reading/reading.htm> $FLESCH=206.85-(0.846*$S)-(1.015*$W) where $S = total number of syllables in 100 words $W = average number of words in a sentence. 2009/11/20 Chris Sizemore <[email protected]> > what's a "reading score", brian? > > > Best > > Cs > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 20 Nov 2009, at 12:55, "Brian Butterworth" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 2009/11/20 John O'Donovan < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> > >> Thanks Mo, Hi Brian. >> >> We thought long and hard about this, but basically we think it's an >> improvement. >> > > Surely the idea should be to demonstrate that something is an improvement, > rather than just changing it. > > As I pointed out if you calculate the reading score for these longer > headlines, they score higher, meaning they are less good to those (unlike > ourselves) who have lower reading skills. > > For higher skilled people, they just take longer to scan. > > If you said it was for SEO, that would be fine. But for usability, it > sucks. > > >> >> For example, this headline may be short, but what is the article really >> about? >> >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7390109.stm> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7390109.stm >> "Great tits cope well with warming" >> > > That's just a fantastic headline. > > >> >> >> As an example, I think for this story: >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8369764.stm> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8369764.stm >> >> "Procter & Gamble recalls 120,000 Vicks nasal sprays" >> >> ...is much clearer than... >> >> "Thousands of Vicks spray recalled" >> >> Especially if you don't know what Vicks is. >> > > Why would I be interested in this story if I don't use the product. I > would suspect that MORE people don't know what a Procter & Gamble is. > > >> >> >> John O'Donovan >> Chief Technical Architect >> > > > > >> >> BBC Future Media & Technology (Journalism) >> BC3 C1, Broadcast Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London >> >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/ >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/ >> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/ >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: <[email protected]>[email protected] >> [mailto: <[email protected]>[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts >> Sent: 20 November 2009 11:57 >> To: <[email protected]>[email protected] >> Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC News - Googlejuice vs Usability >> >> >> On 20-Nov-2009, at 11:45, Brian Butterworth wrote: >> >> > Here's a nice little dillemma. >> > >> > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/changing_headlines.html> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/changing_headlines.html >> > >> > BBC News headlines go from 33 characters (because of Ceefax) to 66 >> > >> > One the one hand, king of usability Jacob Neilson has said the BBC >> News headlines are the "world's best" >> > >> > <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/headlines-bbc.html> >> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/headlines-bbc.html >> > >> > On the other, Google likes lots of relevant keywords, the higher the >> "reading score" the better in fact. >> > >> > It's not like BBC News comes bottom of any Google search, is it? >> > >> > My question - which is more important, SEO or usability? >> >> Given the context: short headlines on the linking pages, longer >> headlines on the pages themselves, I'd suggest it strikes a good >> balance. >> >> However, I can't stand the short headlines. Everything's phrased as >> though it's a lie. Yes, I know the reasons, it still reads terribly, no >> matter what Neilson reckons. So in fact, I'd actually prefer to see the >> longer headlines all of the time (which does SEO no harm at all). >> >> BBC headlines 'lengthened'. >> >> M. >> >> -- >> mo mcroberts >> <http://nevali.net>http://nevali.net >> iChat: <[email protected]>[email protected] Jabber/GTalk: >> <[email protected]>[email protected] Twitter: >> @nevali >> >> Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook - >> <http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/>http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> Sent via the <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk>backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion >> group. To unsubscribe, >> please visit >> <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html> >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> - >> Sent via the <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk>backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion >> group. To unsubscribe, please visit >> <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html> >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > > > > -- > > Brian Butterworth > > follow me on twitter: <http://twitter.com/briantist> > http://twitter.com/briantist > web: <http://www.ukfree.tv>http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital > television and switchover advice, since 2002 > > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
