tips and tricks for a high click rate

October 22, 2001 8:05 AM

Good thread, bad thread. Simultaneously posted Metatalk topics in two different styles. No surprise that the thread with the topic as the link has 57 posts while the cutesy thread has none. What other tips and tricks are there for guaranteeing a high click rate into a link and its thread?
posted by werty to Etiquette/Policy at 8:05 AM (11 comments total)

Well slap me twice and call me Susan! :)
posted by owillis at 8:15 AM on October 22, 2001

i was there when they both started, and there was very little confusion (for me at least) over what the more cryptic one was about

i'm thinking that in this instance, it has more to do with sensible user behaivour in posting comments to the thread on top? the 0 comments in the other thread says to me that everyone realised right away that it was a double (of sorts)

obviously a descriptive link and comment make for the best sort of front page posting, but i dont think there's any sure fire way to cause conversation to happen if the link isn't conversation worthy (without getting off topic)

also:



(sorry)
posted by sawks at 8:17 AM on October 22, 2001

I thought owillis's link text was just fine; the URL clearly says "textads" you'd have to be web-illiterate indeed not to be able to figure out what the subject of the post was.

I think metatalkers posted to the thread that got the first comment, since no one wants to have the same conversation in two places at once.
posted by rebeccablood at 8:19 AM on October 22, 2001

*slaps owillis*
*slaps owillis*

Hey, Susan!
posted by iceberg273 at 8:20 AM on October 22, 2001

I think it's the combination of placement and popularity. The one on top is seen first when looking at the page, and it was the one with the most discussion going on. Like sawks & rebecca said, people realized there were 2 conversations going on about the same thing and simply decided to participate in the one offering the most opportunity for discussion.
posted by Hankins at 8:27 AM on October 22, 2001

I think it's pretty clear that the best way to get people to click on your thread is to not be Oliver.
posted by Doug at 9:16 AM on October 22, 2001

Not to be Susan, rather.
posted by moss at 10:09 AM on October 22, 2001

phew. I was afraid you had to be toddshot....
posted by mattpfeff at 10:17 AM on October 22, 2001

No offense to Oliver, but I'd be far more compelled to explore the straightforward post, and I thought this would be an opportune (and low-impact) way to discuss good ways to make an initial post work well. (Again, no offense to Oliver, who's been around here long enough to know what he's doing, but who set up a nice case study.)

If toddshot's post appeared second sequentially, would it still have gotten 60+ comments? I believe it would have. Just a thought.
posted by werty at 11:42 AM on October 22, 2001

Well slap me twice and call me Susan!

You'll have to haul your credit card out for that one, too.
posted by websavvy at 1:06 PM on October 22, 2001

phew. I was afraid you had to be toddshot....

Actually, I'm afraid I have to be toddshot. Every day of my life.

I think, like it was said above, that it was just a case of 'my' thread' being topmost, so it got the first comment, then people came in, saw the two posts, realized they were linking to the same thing, and confined their comments to the thread that had already been posted to.

posted by toddshot at 1:32 PM on October 22, 2001