Users follow paths according to information scent

What it is

Information foraging theory compares finding information with foraging: users use the information scent emitted by links, titles, snippets, icons, filters, and results to predict which path is most likely to reach the goal, then invest attention and clicks.

Why it happens

Users do not enumerate every branch; they match task words, synonyms, content type, and social evidence against current cues. Stronger scent raises expected gain, and candidates are compared. Navigation labels using only internal concepts, snippets lacking keywords, or results without the target sentence fail even when the destination exists.

Studying it

Run goal-based tasks and record first-click accuracy, path sequence, backtracking, abandonment time, and mentioned cues. Eye tracking shows which links are compared; logs reveal mismatches between query words and clicked labels. In usability tests, ask users why they did or did not choose a path.

Where it stops holding

Scent is not true relevance; a promotional title may attract the wrong click. Experienced users may rely on history, bookmarks, or commands instead of navigation. Social recommendation, external search, and autocomplete also change the starting point.

Applying it

• Write navigation, buttons, and empty states in task language, including user synonyms and object names.
• Show target sentences, dates, types, permissions, and next steps in search results and cards.
• Review top-level entries: every label should answer “what will I get if I click?”
• Test first-click accuracy and reasons for backtracking, not only eventual completion.

Related

• Same group: B4.09.2 Weak scent leads to abandonment rather than deeper search · B4.09.3 Link and label wording directly determines scent strength · B4.09.4 The theory borrows optimal-foraging models and explains path choice by benefit-to-cost ratio · B4.09.5 Users leave an information patch only when its yield falls below the environment’s average · B4.09.6 Scent is a subjective judgment of cues and may mismatch true relevance · B4.09.7 Increasing cue density and shortening path length are different interventions with noninterchangeable effects · B4.09.8 The theory explains abandonment and retreat, not why the goal arose
• Nearby: G1 Navigation and Information Architecture · B3.06 Recognition over Recall
• Search terms: information foraging · information scent · navigation label