The problem with the site "Billboard"

In fact, this entry was not planned here at all. Moreover, I thought for a while that it would be pointless to write a negative review on a completely decent-looking site that lives for itself and develops, successfully acquiring social functions and a web-based two.

But recently it so happened that I spoke out loud about my unsuccessful “user experience” on afisha.ru, when I opened another review. A colleague who was sitting next to me began to support my complaints about how inhumanly to make a link to the author’s profile where the heading is usually located.

Then I suddenly wanted to find out how much I am not alone. Over the course of a few days, I interviewed seven of my friends about how they had a poster interface for viewing reviews. To my surprise, virtually everyone doesn’t like this practice of putting the author’s name into the title.

Honestly, I can hardly remember even at least one site, where in the title part of the abstract there will be the name of the author, written in large letters and presented as a link. In general, it is quite rare to observe an annotation without a title. Why did the Poster site go this way?
')
I do not know. It seems to me that the site interfaces simply were not prototyped. Because, if everything is different, any little bit designer would insist that here:

... any user will have the desire to continue reading more likely to click on the first link rather than the second (with the original “Read full” in each annotation).

If you just enter the headlines for the annotations (“The Coens returned with a masterpiece” or something like that would be completely appropriate), slightly shifting the giant links-names, lowering them with a size, then do you think the site’s user experience would be better?


And Cohen's new film is truly a masterpiece. Be sure to take a look.