Words I'd ban from all websites | Hacker News Reader

Words I'd ban from all websites

imediaconnection.com

#2? Feh. Keep "Please" and "Thank you", just use them with reasonable frequency. Politeness doesn't hurt anything.

Yes, it seems like she's totally ignoring psychology and actual research that's been done, and is just listing things that personally annoy her.

The “Thank You! As a small business, your purchase means the world to us. Let us know if we can ever be of assistance for anything!” on Panic’s receipt made me very happy.

I don’t really have to know that they are a small business and happy about my purchase – I don’t need that info to use the software – but I very much appreciated them putting that “Thank You!” there.

#5 is untrue, I'm a Brit and run Brit focused sites; there is little difference between using tick or check. Shipping is also better understood over delivery in the context of the internet too.

(I've done no testing on this; purely based on various pieces of feedback over the years)

Agreed. I'm a Brit and I moved to Canada, I've noticed very little difference in the commercial-language we use.

Brits are like the tale about the Eskimo's and their quantity of words for snow; only we have 30 slang words for every common word we use. I personally didn't realise it, it was my wife who has to ask me to repeat things in English because we'll get onto a conversation subject we haven't touched before (or in a long time) and I'll be full-accent, full-slang and she doesn't have a clue what I just said.

Honestly, through the multitude of accents present in the UK, I found that 95% of people can understand anything you present to them so long as it's in some acceptable (note not accepted) form of the English language. The similar is wholly untrue of Americans and Canadians who are just shit out of luck when it comes to accents.

Good stuff there, but her point #3, eliminating "click here" is misinformed if you're transacting commerce / leads / etc.

I see her point for content sites, but one of the easiest ways to lift action conversions is to add "Click Here" to your link / button / etc.

Two reasons this works:

a) Most people recognize that underlined text is a link, but a signifigant proportion do not.

b) Adding clear action-oriented verbiage drives conversion increases nearly every time - people want to be told what to do next and the clearer it is, the higher your conversions.

- buy

- read more...

- next step

- sign in

- watch the full video

Every 'click here' has a meaningful replacement for the desired call-to-action.

Also, you need to read everything around the 'click here' to know what the 'click' does. Naming it with a meaning can result a quicker action.

no research made, just my POV

Great point. Put into the list of "always be testing" and run all variantions.

While your (a) point might be true, the 'click here' response is not the optimal solution. If the user can't work out that they can click on the 'thing' to get where they need to go, you need to redesign the 'thing'. If your audience doesn't know to click on a underlined link, then change it to something they will click on.

I just visited a site not 10 minutes ago which had big, coloured boxes with descriptive text as to what was behind them. I couldn't click on anything in the box, but right down in the lower corner was a little 'click here' link. Why didn't they just make the whole box clickable?

Please remove the number from the title.

From the guidelines: If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

I was hoping that "N $somethings$" was part of the list of things to ban.

I'd ban 'sexy'... it's one of the most overused adjectives to describe products.

The war on "Click Here" has been waging since at least 2003 or so, but you know what? "Click Here" works. It works really well too.

You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

First of all there is no data presented to back what she is saying. She is implicitly asking people to stop using these ten words based on her own authority. Also, I dislike the tone of the article; it seems like it's, again, coming from an authority, using words like :"Wrong","Pointless","Fine". I guess I like my pieces to be written with humility and facts. :D

The problem is, the author suggests banning words just based on her personal impression of them without testing or feedback. Some of those words or phrases - Welcome, please, click here - might perform better in A/B testing than anything else for some sites and products. If so, they should be used. "Features" is the understood jargon and common navigation in certain industries.

Actually, she did mention testing once:

> After I mentioned this at an industry event last year, a travel company contacted me to say they simply removed ' * denotes mandatory field' and replaced it with 'you must fill in the boxes marked * ' and saw an immediate uplift in conversions.

See, that's good. That's how you do it. Change if conversions or goals reached are going up when there's measurable goals. For more subjective stuff, sure, maybe make it spicier, entertaining, literally descriptive, or concrete. But it's a bit silly to say "the word 'solutions' is overused, don't use it". There's a reason people use the word solutions, which is that it's the most effective word lots of times. But don't take anyone's word on it, split test it on your own site and use whatever works best. Don't blindly go with intuition, intuition is often wrong.

Here's what I would do. I would run A/B tests on all these different flavors of copy. If conversions are higher or equal, sure make the change. But if conversions are lower with these phrases removed, leave them up!

Very good. Here's one of the less obvious ones (at least it was to me):

"4. ' * denotes mandatory field'

No one uses this language in the real world."

The article goes on to e.g. say has measurable bottom line consequences.

Except I always see "is a mandatory field" or at worst "indicates a mandatory field", which people understand just fine.

Well, denote is by far the worst offender, but I'm sure you'll lose people on mandatory as well.

Or " * is a required field", or even " * required."

I didn't agree with this one out of the principle that, perhaps, just PERHAPS, it's a valid English word from a very large bucket of words. Some of us even gasp use these words in our day-to-day language. You could phrase this any which way until Tuesday, but the net result is the same.

Why are people afraid of words?

Also, there are a lot of bold assertions made without any actual, measurable success. This whole list is "because I said so". In other words, "citation needed".

Although the article has valid points, banning these words would be the last thing on my mind. I think it is all about creating a better experience for your users/readers.

#11. "Rockstar"

She lost me at "welcome". Come to think of i'd actually use most of what she'd ban.

This is off-topic, but I see in some legal documents the phrase "internet website" as in "The comment summary is also available on our Internet website at <http://www.sec.gov/rules/extra/s71002commsumm.htm>. http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2091.htm

Are there any other kinds of websites that they need to refer to their site as "internet website?"

Intranet websites.

Is there a need to emphasize that the website referred to is an "internet" website and not an "intranet" website? Should Yahoo! say "visit our internet website at yahoo.com?" Or even the least sophisticated user knows that yahoo.com is an "internet" website? Wikipedia does not even list "internet" website as "type of website." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website#Types_of_websites

It's not a "type of website", but instead "location of website", identifying the network that the website lives on. Let's say there's an intranet, internet and extranet available. Identifying the specific network that a resource lives on is important to distinguish if it's publicly accessible and what handling procedures are used when working with it as dictated by the policies of the particular network it resides on.

This is a bigger deal in the government, especially the DoD, where there might be an Internet website, a NIPRnet website, a SIPRnet website, a JWICS website, etc. So, sometimes it's appropriate - for most companies, probably redundant.

Legal documents are always overly verbose. You should see what most contracts describe a fax or email as : something like 'written electronic communication to a specified recipient, carried over a public network of limited security'

I was really trying to hate on this chicks page, and then I checked it out, and it is the type of conciseness I could only dream of.