11. Neuberg & Neuberg Entrepreneur: Larry Neuberg Product/Service: Importing gold for gilding Start Date: 1962 Startup Costs: Virtually none Revenue: Estimated $3 million in 2010

12. Deeplocal Entrepreneur: Nathan Martin Product/Service: Promotions mixing the digital and physical Start Date: 2006 Startup Costs: Financed out of initial $30,000 contract Revenue: Estimated $1 million-plus in 2010

13. BlackSocks Entrepreneur: Samuel Liechti Product/Service: Sock subscriptions Start Date: 1999 Startup Costs: $30,000 Revenue: $5 million in 2009

14. DNA 11 Entrepreneurs: Adrian Salamunovic and Nazim Ahmed Product/Service: DNA artwork Start Date: 2005 Start-up Costs: $2,000 Revenue: $1.4 million in 2009

15. The Fiero Store Entrepreneur: Matthew Hartzog. Product/Service: Parts and accessories for the Pontiac Fiero Start Date: 1991 Start-up Costs: $5,000 Revenue: $2 million in 2009

16. Heritage Link Brands Entrepreneurs: Selena Cuffe and Khary Cuffe Product/Service: African wine Start Date: 2005 Start-up Costs: $75,000 Revenue: $1 million in 2009

17. Jimmy Beans Wool Entrepreneur: Laura Zander Product/Service: Knitting and crochet supplies Start Date: 2002 Startup Costs: $30,000 Revenue: $2.8 million in 2009

18. PetRelocation.com Entrepreneur: Kevin O'Brien and Angie O'Brien Product/Service: Pet travel Start Date: 2004 Start-up Costs: $97,000 Revenue: Estimated $4 million in 2010

19. Murray Associates Entrepreneur: Kevin D. Murray Product/Service: Eavesdropping detection and counterespionage Start Date: 1978 Startup Costs: $5,000 Revenue in 2009: $760,000

thank you so much. I was interested in the article, but couldn't continue reading past the labels. I'm surprised that forbes.com (ostensibly a reputable magazine) has gone with a "2leep" style layout.

Adsense "clickbombs" everywhere and completely unreadable.

This is 'content farm' quality at best, which is a shame because it seems an interesting article.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As a Forbes developer, I can tell you we are trying to make the site as usable as possible. If you have any specific feedback I can pass along drop me an email at buley.reports at gmail

Summarize in as few as pages possible - the less clicks needed the better. Not sure how well that works with the management since they are probably interested more in pageviews than anything else, but it would be a start. Second, the information in this "article" was factual, not pictorial, so why was it in a slideshow? The pictures are second to the numbers - they certainly aid in telling the story, but they aren't THE story.

I don't care so much about the all in one page, but having to roll over the image to see the text was too difficult. Took me a minute just to figure it out. Have the text below the image without having to roll over it. I also had trouble figuring out at the opening shot where to click. Took me forever to find the next button, I found it just in time. I almost left!

Check out the design books: The Design of Every Day things Designing the Obvious Information Dashboard Design

for a primer on UI design.

You have a whole heap of space, why would you overlay the text over the image, it also feels like their is more advertising space than content space.

An ideal layout would be all one page, it would have the text nicely under or around the images. Even if the ad in the top and side bars was still there at least they wouldn't seem like the most prominent thing on the page.

The NYTimes does all this quiet well, they page but at least their pages are quiet long. They may even have the same amount of ads on the page but the content is so much more dense that it doesn't feel spammy.

We've still got plenty of room for improvement, clearly, but the editorial team just recently introduced a new version of the gallery slides that get us a bit closer to what you're describing: http://blogs.forbes.com/bruceupbin/2010/12/08/spacex-gets-ku...

I think the "all one page" idea is a good one, and I'll talk to the right folks about it. My only concern is that such a media-heavy page is going to be pretty rough in terms of page speed.

Yes, that's a gallery where the text is not overlaid on the photo, and the Google ads are not quite as tacky, but I think this is missing the point: the content in the OP doesn't belong in a photo gallery format at all.

Notice how many points the posts summarizing the article received - NOBODY to whom you actually want to advertise has any desire to sit around clicking through a gallery to read text.

Yes, your single page load speed may be good, but imagine how much slower your total gallery experience is. You can always have a load more content on scroll if it's really a problem.

To add to this, consider how the Big Picture does it, probably "suited" to a gallery but it's all in one big page.

EVERYONE feels that way. I don't bother sending around Forbes links anymore because they require so many clicks. One piece of advice - make a printable page that way we don't have to click so many times

I certainly agree. The real problem is what mandatory interstitials (not in this case, I see), AdSense boxes next to content and tiny amounts of content per page do to a site. They exude an aura closer to desperation than success. I'm guessing Forbes readers can pick up on that better than most.

I know internet publishing is a tough business, but we all know there's a problem here.

Oh wow, I didn't even notice that there was an 'article' behind it. All I saw was a single image and didn't notice the 'next' button and originally thought the posters above put up more examples of these sort of businesses

>Biodiesel fuel from restaurant frying oil

My sister-in-law sells restaurant equipment. One of her products is a catalyst (some sort of metal mesh, I think) that you put in the fryer to keep the oil fresh--makes it last 3 times as long, I think. That sort of thing will make it harder to find oil for biodiesel.