You won't read everything in this thread......

[Leifer]

In debunking, it is very important that we read the entire article, look-up unknown words, and attempt at least a superficial analysis when reviewing scientific papers or articles.....if indeed we want to use these written texts, as reference.

There is an article is by Farhad Manjoo, and it's titled, "You Won't Finish This Article, why people don't read to the end" (2013)
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...online_why_you_won_t_finish_this_article.html

I'm going to keep this brief, because you're not going to stick around for long. I've already lost a bunch of you. For every 161 people who landed on this page, about 61 of you—38 percent—are already gone.
............

.....We're getting deep on the page here, so basically only my mom is still reading this. (Thanks, Mom!) But let's talk about how scroll depth relates to sharing. I asked Schwartz if he could tell me whether people who are sharing links to articles on social networks are likely to have read the pieces they're sharing

I try to read the whole shebang......sometimes without success.

I've seen evidence on many FaceBook personal profiles, that daily, people will post links to written articles, perhaps posting these articles about 60 seconds apart.....meaning they post the links to the articles, and certainly have had no time to completely read them. Perhaps the article's title and first paragraph is enough to warrant a shared link.
They could have not read the entire article.

Website and brand marketers are deftly concerned with this.....from the all-important catchy ad title, to the "please-stick-around" article content writers.
Landing on an advertized web-page (and staying there) is all too important to advertizers. Sharing the article on social media is a top-priority, and the article title is usually the bait.
http://attentionmachines.com/the-secrets-to-subheadings-that-keep-people-reading/

 

[Mick West]

I increasingly think that infographics are the way to go. Text is more like background supporting info for what most people see in annotated images

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

I increasingly think that infographics are the way to go. Text is more like background supporting info for what most people see in annotated images

Reading as a lost art. What's up with that?

 

[Mick West]

Reading as a lost art. What's up with that?

A picture has always been worth a thousand words.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

I guess. I can only get so far with an annotated still myself. I'd rather have more text than picture.

 

[Mick West]

I guess. I can only get so far with an annotated still myself. I'd rather have more text than picture.

I thing ideally there would be both. The pic is for accessibility, sharing, and a minimum takeaway for people who don't get much past headlines. Maybe include a shortened URL in the image with supporting evidence - a link to a full article.

 

[Pete Tar]

Reading as a lost art. What's up with that?

Skimming is an essential method of navigating the internet these days.
And formatting and paragraph spacing makes a real difference as to what catches the eye.

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Skimming is an essential method of navigating the internet these days.
And formatting and paragraph spacing makes a real difference as to what catches the eye.

That at least I can agree with.

 

[Leifer]

In one of these forums, I once suggested, if Mick could employ a larger "top" button, on this forum.
(an easy large clickable button to 'top-of-page' )

I wanted to note (here) ...that that would be counter-productive - in the context of this thread.
Making it easier to "go-to-top" or "go back" or "go somewhere else".... makes it too easy to leave - and not finish reading an article or post (posts) ....through to the last sentence.

Of course advertisers want this to happen... to prematurely click on their ads.

 

[Leifer]

Taking the idea that people often do not read the whole: article, forum thread, or academia...... long texts are rarer, and short texts are popular.
Brainstorming here..... regarding social media sites/articles.......
(1) Advertisers like short texts because: it's just short enough for the reader to finish and feel satisfied, then hopefully click on an ad. (surfers)
(2) Advertisers like long texts because they know many people may get bored quickly, and hope their next click in on their ad.
I dunno. I rarely click on ads.
And I can see how "links" in the text can be something advertisers frown upon, because it can move people off the page, and away from their ad.

 

[SR1419]

TLDR.

A picture has always been worth a thousand words.

Indeed but it has been the ability to read (and write) that has allowed for greater analysis and exploration of knowledge...I fear now the internet is short attention span theater and we are devolving into narrative by memes and "truth" is just pretty graphics.

 

[Rory]

Indeed but it has been the ability to read (and write) that has allowed for greater analysis and exploration of knowledge...I fear now the internet is short attention span theater and we are devolving into narrative by memes and "truth" is just pretty graphics.

I suppose the question is: before the internet, did people read more? Were they more well-informed? Were they less likely to believe things that aren't true? Were they better able to put together a decent argument to back up their beliefs?

I'm not so sure the answer to those questions is "yes": I think it's very likely that our lack of education is simply much more visible these days. Though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

 

[SR1419]

before the internet, did people read more? Were they more well-informed? Were they less likely to believe things that aren't true? Were they better able to put together a decent argument to back up their beliefs?

All very good questions. I suppose you have to define "read more". I can only speak to my own experience but I read fewer books than I did before the internet...but read perhaps more words (but I am not even sure of that). I dig less deeply into topics than I normally would before the Internet but do more cursory research into more topics than I did before the internet.

There is certainly more information available to people than before the internet but that doesnt mean people are necessarily more well informed if the ability to read for comprehension is diminished by short attention and the ability to discern truth from fiction is challenged by a deluge of words and images and opinions as fact mentality.

Being able to put together a decent argument to back up their beliefs, in my opinion, is diminished by the deteriorating writing skills and lack of argument mechanics that come with trying to win an argument in 141 characters or less or in a pretty chart or graphic that tortures the data until it says what the narrative-pusher wants it to say.

 

[deirdre]

All very good questions. I suppose you have to define "read more".

the topic here, OP, is really are people sharing links/clickbait titles without actually reading the articles they share. from the OP link:

Schwartz's data suggest that lots of people are tweeting out links to articles they haven't fully read. If you see someone recommending a story onl[ine, you shouldn't assume that he has read the thing he's sharing.

[..] They each show the same thing: There's a very weak relationship between scroll depth and sharing. Both at Slate and across the Web, articles that get a lot of tweets don't necessarily get read very deeply. Articles that get read deeply aren't necessarily generating a lot of tweets

This actually happened to me yesterday. I see an unbelievable title shared from Newsweek. She posted the share about 3 minutes before I saw it. I clicked the article because the title was so suspicious. And sure enough the title in the article was really the exact opposite as what was in her shared link, at the bottom of the article was a "correction" that explained the original not accurate title and that they changed it 3 days ago.

so I responded to her rant "Did you even read the article you shared?"
She replied "yes [you ignorant blah blah blah] I did".

I didn't question her further, but if she had read the article her comments would have been different.

And just to note.. I clicked the OP article as I wanted to confirm the topic since this thread is so old. and the dang thing kept freezing. That's the main reason I don't scroll on many websites... I literally can't. it took way too long to even wait for scrollability to the part I quoted here.. no way I'm gonna wait another 2 minutes as ads try to load, to try and finish this article.

 

[Rory]

One of the best things about the internet, I think, is that it's so easy to find the truth about all the nonsense one reads on the internet.

 

[SR1419]

One of the best things about the internet, I think, is that it's so easy to find the truth about all the nonsense one reads on the internet.

I don't know that it is all that easy amidst a deluge of "information". Moreover, there seems to be a lack of willingness to look beyond one's own echo chamber. One person's nonsense is another person's "truth"....pizzagate, chemtrails, vaccines, false flags and on and on and on...

 

[Leifer]

And just to note.. I clicked the OP article as I wanted to confirm the topic since this thread is so old. and the dang thing kept freezing. That's the main reason I don't scroll on many websites... I literally can't. it took way too long to even wait for scrollability to the part I quoted here.. no way I'm gonna wait another 2 minutes as ads try to load, to try and finish this article.

It may be a browser issue. I can still click on the old link fine. I'm using Firefox, on a Win7 machine.
But my Eset (brand) internet filter does occasionally say "the site is using an 'Untrusted Certificate' ".
But it is a Slate.com site... so I trust it. (gullible ? )
Perhaps try another browser app.

 

[deirdre]

Perhaps try another browser app.

it's mostly my connection. sometimes I can search such sites ok and some days/times it is best to just clean everything and reboot. But it has to be one wicked enticing article to go through all that