<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Scent of Chunked Content</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html</link>
	<description>DanZarrella.com, Social &#38; Viral Marketing Scientist</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: 7 Chunks are Better Than 10 &#187; Dan Zarrella</title>
		<link>http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html#comment-18547</link>
		<dc:creator>7 Chunks are Better Than 10 &#187; Dan Zarrella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 12:49:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html#comment-18547</guid>
		<description>[...] A while back I mentioned the cognitive science behind chunking and studies that show that 7 chunks of data is easier for humans to process. Then I asserted that information scenting means that articles with indications they&#8217;re chunked would do better on sites like digg. I was speculating that this is why &#8220;Top 10&#8243;-type posts work so well. And now, study done by Russ Jones backs that up. He counted up how many &#8220;top 12&#8243;, &#8220;top 11&#8243;, &#8220;top 10&#8243; etc, lists that made it to the front page of digg, and what number comes out on top with a 59% success rate? 7. (to be fair, his data set seems a little small, especially for non-10 numbers) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A while back I mentioned the cognitive science behind chunking and studies that show that 7 chunks of data is easier for humans to process. Then I asserted that information scenting means that articles with indications they&#8217;re chunked would do better on sites like digg. I was speculating that this is why &#8220;Top 10&#8243;-type posts work so well. And now, study done by Russ Jones backs that up. He counted up how many &#8220;top 12&#8243;, &#8220;top 11&#8243;, &#8220;top 10&#8243; etc, lists that made it to the front page of digg, and what number comes out on top with a 59% success rate? 7. (to be fair, his data set seems a little small, especially for non-10 numbers) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don&#8217;t be a Punk, be a Hunk and Chunk &#124; The Marketing Technology Blog</title>
		<link>http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html#comment-15244</link>
		<dc:creator>Don&#8217;t be a Punk, be a Hunk and Chunk &#124; The Marketing Technology Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html#comment-15244</guid>
		<description>[...] That really stunk, sorry! Hopefully it got your attention, though. Dan Zarrella has a great post on chunking your content. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] That really stunk, sorry! Hopefully it got your attention, though. Dan Zarrella has a great post on chunking your content. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Karr</title>
		<link>http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html#comment-15241</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Karr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danzarrella.com/the-scent-of-chunked-content.html#comment-15241</guid>
		<description>Great post.  I struggle writing this way but am forcing myself to utilize subheadings, spacing, and 'chunks' more and more.  Thanks for this tip!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post.  I struggle writing this way but am forcing myself to utilize subheadings, spacing, and &#8216;chunks&#8217; more and more.  Thanks for this tip!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
