At a glance credibility - link to content ratio

Have you ever mis-typed a domain name and been taken to one of these parked sites filled with links? It only takes you a fraction of a second to tell you’re in the wrong place. I’m not talking about porn, gambling or pop-up laden websites, just these squatter-style parked domain web pages with tons of links. Sometimes I’ve come across sites that are legitimate sites but my first thought is, uh-oh, I mis-typed, I hit a parked domain site. This is because something intangible about the site’s homepage is communicating that the site doesn’t really contain any information.

I’m going through a bit of a mental exercise to try and understand what about a site gives it instant credibility. What makes a site say to a person in the first fraction of a second, “you’ve found a real site, there’s good stuff here.”

I think there are a number of factors but the one I’m thinking about right now is the link to text ratio. That is the number of links a person sees in proportion to content. For example, see this screenshot of the free bsd homepage:

freebsd homepage

To my eye it feels like they’ve crossed the line where there are too many links. If it weren’t for the recognizable demon I’d probably have hit my back button without a second thought. (This shows that there is more than just this theoretical “link to text” ratio involved in the credibility of a site, but more on that later)

But then look at a site like Yahoo:

Yahoo! homepage

It has far more links than the freebsd site does. But there are differences:

  • When you go to Yahoo! you expect to see a bunch of links
  • Yahoo! does not use underlines
  • Many of the links on Yahoo are buttons or graphics

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject. What other elements give a site credibility? Is there something about the graphic design, the colours, the domain name or the layout that you can do to help?

Comments

I think it’s a personal

I think it’s a personal thing… because I take a moment to glance over the links, and they look legitimate (news, events..)

Suggestion from twitter

mpt (Matthew Paul Thomas) suggested this document from Stanford on this very subject. Perfect: http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/

Re: I think it’s a personal

I never take time to read the links :-)
if I hadn’t recognized Yahoo! as a brand name I wouldn’t skip that page instantly.
For me the ads/text ratio is also important. Large ads hurts credibility.

There's some kind of link ratio.

Basically if the site is all links, it has no credibility for me. If the site has some content on the other hand I might be fooled for a second, but it just depends. What I usually look for to determine if it’s a squatter site is whether all of the content is just about the same or if it has one keyword that’s displayed over and over throughout the page - these are dead giveaways.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • You can use Markdown syntax to format and style the text.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Back to top