You won't read this article either
November 30, 2017 12:44 PM Subscribe
New Study Finds That Most Redditors Don’t Actually Read the Articles They Vote On
In the spirit of the piece, all comments should be responses to what you think the study was about based solely on the headline rather than what it actually says or how Motherboard described it.
In the spirit of the piece, all comments should be responses to what you think the study was about based solely on the headline rather than what it actually says or how Motherboard described it.
This FPP completely validates my preconceived notions of reddit
posted by Dr. Twist at 12:46 PM on November 30, 2017 [17 favorites]
posted by Dr. Twist at 12:46 PM on November 30, 2017 [17 favorites]
Favoriting, sight unseen. Am I doing this right?
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:46 PM on November 30, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:46 PM on November 30, 2017 [19 favorites]
turns out
posted by entropicamericana at 12:48 PM on November 30, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 12:48 PM on November 30, 2017 [4 favorites]
I find this kind of study interesting but let's not kid ourselves that you couldn't probably say the same thing about Facebook, Twitter, and our very own MetaFilter.
But I haven't read the article yet so maybe not.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:51 PM on November 30, 2017 [25 favorites]
But I haven't read the article yet so maybe not.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:51 PM on November 30, 2017 [25 favorites]
i mean, yeah, but how else would someone interact with fifty ideas in a sitting?
Reddit, and other sites, are not much about deep engagement. And honestly, I don't have brainspace or time for deep engagement - like the article says, I'm overloaded.
But I will say, after leaving reddit about a year ago exactly, I've not missed it. It's strange, how something can be an "every day" habit and turn into a nothing.
posted by rebent at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2017 [5 favorites]
Reddit, and other sites, are not much about deep engagement. And honestly, I don't have brainspace or time for deep engagement - like the article says, I'm overloaded.
But I will say, after leaving reddit about a year ago exactly, I've not missed it. It's strange, how something can be an "every day" habit and turn into a nothing.
posted by rebent at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2017 [5 favorites]
Oh man, wait until they see how many Metafilter comments are written not only without having read the links, but that literally say "I haven't read the links but I am sharing my very important opinion".
posted by Nelson at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2017 [29 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2017 [29 favorites]
An article I cited in my dissertation, On the Obviousness of Social Science and Educational Results, suggests that for many, conclusions seem so obvious that you don't have to read anything but the titles, but the article goes on to say that the obviousness lies in the fact that ALL results seem obvious.
posted by Peach at 12:57 PM on November 30, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Peach at 12:57 PM on November 30, 2017 [8 favorites]
Huh. On reading the link, it seems my comment was actually somewhat relevant.
posted by Peach at 12:58 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Peach at 12:58 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
no
posted by bondcliff at 12:58 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by bondcliff at 12:58 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
reddit - more like haven't reddit, haha
posted by Sebmojo at 1:02 PM on November 30, 2017 [18 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 1:02 PM on November 30, 2017 [18 favorites]
Discussing based only on the title surprises me less than voting based only on the title. Do people actually click through at all? Do they know what they're voting on or just what they think they're voting on?
(Am I allowed to read it now that I've commented?)
posted by Sequence at 1:03 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
(Am I allowed to read it now that I've commented?)
posted by Sequence at 1:03 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Cat.
posted by Quindar Beep at 1:04 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Quindar Beep at 1:04 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
conclusions seem so obvious that you don't have to read anything but the titles, but the article goes on to say that the obviousness lies in the fact that ALL results seem obvious.
Well, obviously.
posted by nubs at 1:07 PM on November 30, 2017 [7 favorites]
Well, obviously.
posted by nubs at 1:07 PM on November 30, 2017 [7 favorites]
309 users for a one year period, self-selected. I'm. Mm. This is very confirmation bias for me, but that's not a great sample.
posted by peppercorn at 1:14 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by peppercorn at 1:14 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
⇩
posted by leotrotsky at 1:17 PM on November 30, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 1:17 PM on November 30, 2017 [4 favorites]
Pony request: down vote button for posts about reddit.
posted by sammyo at 1:17 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 1:17 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: haven't reddit
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 1:20 PM on November 30, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 1:20 PM on November 30, 2017 [6 favorites]
tl:dr, but I've got a major opinion. Where's the voting button in this post?
Remember, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Sometimes it seems like the real assholes have bigger and louder ones.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:21 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Remember, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Sometimes it seems like the real assholes have bigger and louder ones.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:21 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
does anyone read the posts down here?
posted by phooky at 1:23 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by phooky at 1:23 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
This FPP completely validates my preconceived notions of reddit
yes, and I knew that without clicking on the link
posted by idiopath at 1:25 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
yes, and I knew that without clicking on the link
posted by idiopath at 1:25 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
I also would like to contribute a somewhat needlessly defensive "lol reddit right guys?" comment
posted by ominous_paws at 1:29 PM on November 30, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 1:29 PM on November 30, 2017 [5 favorites]
I did actually read the article but the video at the bottom of the weird robot legs was more interesting.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:30 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:30 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
I did actually read the article but the video at the bottom of the weird robot legs was more interesting
Finally, the Mefi comment equivalent to the New Yorker's "I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn"
posted by ominous_paws at 1:33 PM on November 30, 2017 [7 favorites]
Finally, the Mefi comment equivalent to the New Yorker's "I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn"
posted by ominous_paws at 1:33 PM on November 30, 2017 [7 favorites]
oh it gets better: i didn't even watch the video, i just looked at the thumbnail and laughed
posted by poffin boffin at 1:35 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:35 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
Just popping in to say that I haven't read any of your comments but I'm pretty sure you're all wrong.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:38 PM on November 30, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 1:38 PM on November 30, 2017 [6 favorites]
I think it's easy to overlook that a lot of people on reddit just want to talk to each other, and each article thread provides a loose forum for doing that. So a lot of comments are only tangentially related to the article, because the point isn't always to discuss an article in depth, but to connect with people. Yeah, there are some stupid arguments about stuff that was addressed in the article, but that happens on every site (I saw it happen on this site yesterday). If you look closer, there's always a bunch of people commenting with personal anecdotes, or cracking jokes, or referencing something familiar to a bunch of people. It's casual chatting, or an opportunity to vent, or whatever people want to share.
I mean, frankly, this doesn't seem like as big a problem as it's made out to be. The purpose of these sites isn't always to educate, it's to make human connections, and that's what people are doing. Sometimes people just want an article or something as a launching point for a looser conversation. I mean, that's why I'm commenting here, now. I read the article, but if I'm being honest, it was just so I could be sure this point wasn't already covered (which would be embarrassing in this context).
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:38 PM on November 30, 2017 [11 favorites]
I mean, frankly, this doesn't seem like as big a problem as it's made out to be. The purpose of these sites isn't always to educate, it's to make human connections, and that's what people are doing. Sometimes people just want an article or something as a launching point for a looser conversation. I mean, that's why I'm commenting here, now. I read the article, but if I'm being honest, it was just so I could be sure this point wasn't already covered (which would be embarrassing in this context).
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:38 PM on November 30, 2017 [11 favorites]
The voting on Reddit has some other purpose than for me to register just how stupid I find a comment?
posted by humboldt32 at 1:40 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by humboldt32 at 1:40 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
Just popping in to say that I haven't read any of your comments but I'm pretty sure you're all wrong.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:38 PM on November 30 [+] [!]
This gal/guy reddits.
posted by Salient at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by tobascodagama at 3:38 PM on November 30 [+] [!]
This gal/guy reddits.
posted by Salient at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Is this something I'd need an article to understand?
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Greg_Ace at 1:50 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
I 100% agree that most articles are used just as jumping points for conversation, BUT that sort of thing does have real effects on public discourse.
After the election (maybe a little before), to combat fake news stories, Google News introduced a Fact Check section on their front page. Thing is, they cite Snopes there all the time, and Snopes, in pursuit of clicks, just publishes the usually fake claim, sometimes with a question mark, sometimes not. So it's useful to have some verification that people are seeing headlines and blurbs and forming strong enough opinions on them to pass judgment. So Snopes has literally devolved into a vector for false and misleading stories.
It's understandable that people use headlines as conversation starters, and if it's all just tangentially related personal stories on a general topic, that's one thing. But it's not always just that. It's people forming judgments based almost entirely on their personal biases and then digging their heels in to defend their positions. That part is bad. Really bad.
And it's not just people who aren't reading the articles, either. It's people who do read the articles but still manage to skip anything that doesn't align with their initial bias. It's almost as though people skim text for keywords and then just use them to make up their own narratives.
And I don't know if social media has made this worse, but I think it has: People seem to think they have to have an opinion on everything. No matter how little they actually know about it, they feel they need to register an opinion, and once someone has reached the 'opinion' stage, they have a really hard time processing any information that conflicts with it. That part is really, really bad, too.
posted by ernielundquist at 2:21 PM on November 30, 2017 [8 favorites]
After the election (maybe a little before), to combat fake news stories, Google News introduced a Fact Check section on their front page. Thing is, they cite Snopes there all the time, and Snopes, in pursuit of clicks, just publishes the usually fake claim, sometimes with a question mark, sometimes not. So it's useful to have some verification that people are seeing headlines and blurbs and forming strong enough opinions on them to pass judgment. So Snopes has literally devolved into a vector for false and misleading stories.
It's understandable that people use headlines as conversation starters, and if it's all just tangentially related personal stories on a general topic, that's one thing. But it's not always just that. It's people forming judgments based almost entirely on their personal biases and then digging their heels in to defend their positions. That part is bad. Really bad.
And it's not just people who aren't reading the articles, either. It's people who do read the articles but still manage to skip anything that doesn't align with their initial bias. It's almost as though people skim text for keywords and then just use them to make up their own narratives.
And I don't know if social media has made this worse, but I think it has: People seem to think they have to have an opinion on everything. No matter how little they actually know about it, they feel they need to register an opinion, and once someone has reached the 'opinion' stage, they have a really hard time processing any information that conflicts with it. That part is really, really bad, too.
posted by ernielundquist at 2:21 PM on November 30, 2017 [8 favorites]
*SH!TPOSTS LOUDLY*
posted by LegallyBread at 2:24 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by LegallyBread at 2:24 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
People seem to think they have to have an opinion on everything. No matter how little they actually know about it, they feel they need to register an opinion, and once someone has reached the 'opinion' stage, they have a really hard time processing any information that conflicts with it.
Yes, absolutely.
One thing I wish I could get from the original article (which is IEEE paywalled) is some references to the idea of "cognitive fatigue", especially since it resonates with this from another of today's FPPs:
It bothers me, because it seems inevitable, and it plays out on social media networks as well. You go from reading everything from people you follow to just letting the feed scroll by and wash over you without comprehending or processing any of it. Because you can't, it's a moving target. And even if you start with the intent of just following a small group of people, they're reposting stuff from other people and oh that person's feed looks interesting I should follow them and suddenly you're following 500 people and not reading anything from any of them.
It's bad.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:41 PM on November 30, 2017 [7 favorites]
Yes, absolutely.
One thing I wish I could get from the original article (which is IEEE paywalled) is some references to the idea of "cognitive fatigue", especially since it resonates with this from another of today's FPPs:
Did you drop social media because you got sick of reading the sky? Is there a phobia attached to the contemporary—a kind of comprehension fatigue? Weather predictions are wrong all the time.This is a pattern I've noticed with myself, dating back to when I first started using RSS feed readers. Used to be I'd do a rotation of a couple of blogs and just read one thing from each of their front pages. But then I subbed to the RSS feeds for them. And then I'd try to read everything they posted, as it came up. At first, I might be successful. But that's not sustainable, so instead I'd just skim everything and read nothing. More stuff was passing in front of my eyes, but I would be reading and retaining less of it than when I'd just randomly load stuff from my bookmarks folder when I had some free moments.
It bothers me, because it seems inevitable, and it plays out on social media networks as well. You go from reading everything from people you follow to just letting the feed scroll by and wash over you without comprehending or processing any of it. Because you can't, it's a moving target. And even if you start with the intent of just following a small group of people, they're reposting stuff from other people and oh that person's feed looks interesting I should follow them and suddenly you're following 500 people and not reading anything from any of them.
It's bad.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:41 PM on November 30, 2017 [7 favorites]
And I don't know if social media has made this worse, but I think it has: People seem to think they have to have an opinion on everything. No matter how little they actually know about it, they feel they need to register an opinion, and once someone has reached the 'opinion' stage, they have a really hard time processing any information that conflicts with it. That part is really, really bad, too.
Yeah, I agree with that completely. Honestly, I think any sort of commentary makes things worse. Ideally, comments and discussions would lead to bigger insights, and would provide a forum for pointing out errors and flaws in the article. In practice, it's frequently dominated by all these social factors that end up only reinforcing what we already believed. Isn't there research on this? It strikes me as one of those things about the internet that seemed really promising, but doesn't scale up to the level it's at now.
Of course, now I feel self-conscious for sharing an opinion on something I don't know a whole lot about.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:42 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I agree with that completely. Honestly, I think any sort of commentary makes things worse. Ideally, comments and discussions would lead to bigger insights, and would provide a forum for pointing out errors and flaws in the article. In practice, it's frequently dominated by all these social factors that end up only reinforcing what we already believed. Isn't there research on this? It strikes me as one of those things about the internet that seemed really promising, but doesn't scale up to the level it's at now.
Of course, now I feel self-conscious for sharing an opinion on something I don't know a whole lot about.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:42 PM on November 30, 2017 [3 favorites]
I can honestly say that I rarely do this (I can't say that I've never done it). My bullshit detectors are way too skeptical of headlines, and the general surface-level framing of web content.
I won't upvote something until I trust it (at least provisionally), and I don't trust it until I've at least skimmed it, y'know? The web is clogged with clickbait, posts which don't actually demonstrate what the title suggests, articles which ridiculously overstate or misrepresent scientific research or statistical findings, etc. So I pretty much assume that everything is unreliable until it's proven itself to be a plausible and sober representation of the subject at hand.
I certainly can't claim that I'm immune to confirmation bias and other forms of self-serving intellectual laziness. But if this (admittedly imperfect) research is any guide, many folks are just gleefully wallowing in that shit.
[looks around at the internet and contemporary civilization in general]
...I guess that shouldn't surprise me. But, damn.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 3:48 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
I won't upvote something until I trust it (at least provisionally), and I don't trust it until I've at least skimmed it, y'know? The web is clogged with clickbait, posts which don't actually demonstrate what the title suggests, articles which ridiculously overstate or misrepresent scientific research or statistical findings, etc. So I pretty much assume that everything is unreliable until it's proven itself to be a plausible and sober representation of the subject at hand.
I certainly can't claim that I'm immune to confirmation bias and other forms of self-serving intellectual laziness. But if this (admittedly imperfect) research is any guide, many folks are just gleefully wallowing in that shit.
[looks around at the internet and contemporary civilization in general]
...I guess that shouldn't surprise me. But, damn.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 3:48 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
But I will say, after leaving reddit about a year ago exactly, I've not missed it. It's strange, how something can be an "every day" habit and turn into a nothing.
Jesus, as somebody still at the 'every day' habit, I'm really hoping this is what I'll end up at.
posted by kurosawa's pal at 3:49 PM on November 30, 2017
Jesus, as somebody still at the 'every day' habit, I'm really hoping this is what I'll end up at.
posted by kurosawa's pal at 3:49 PM on November 30, 2017
It doesn't say which subreddits were counted, but it seems plausible to me that they might be ones where it's within the bounds of reason to judge most things posted to them from only the headline. Looking at /r/all for a stereotypical example of the kind of thing they might include, I see for instance "Russia says it will ignore any UN ban of killer robots. (businessinsider.com)". It fits in to my mental picture of how the world works well enough that I can immediately decide that following a link to Business Insider is unlikely to tell my anything interesting beyond what's in the headline. Clicking on it, the results are as expected.
Beyond news headlines, there are the dumb jokes based on a single image that you can make out well enough from the thumbnail, the anecdotes that you know are going to be unconfirmed but plausible, and the links to things you've already seen elsewhere. It's plausible to me that Reddit is 73% made of stuff you don't need to read to know exactly what it says.
Metafilter, more like 30% I guess.
posted by sfenders at 3:52 PM on November 30, 2017
Beyond news headlines, there are the dumb jokes based on a single image that you can make out well enough from the thumbnail, the anecdotes that you know are going to be unconfirmed but plausible, and the links to things you've already seen elsewhere. It's plausible to me that Reddit is 73% made of stuff you don't need to read to know exactly what it says.
Metafilter, more like 30% I guess.
posted by sfenders at 3:52 PM on November 30, 2017
Also: I wonder whether the short-attention-span style of interaction that prevails on Reddit is a factor here. There are certainly subreddits where more thoughtful discussion happens. But, when it comes to the biggest and most active subreddits: they're almost entirely pile-ons of one-liners. Thousands of them, nested twenty levels deep, surging past on a context-free sea. Substantive discussion is impossible with that volume of posts, so it doesn't happen - and we're left with the one-liners.
Point being: perhaps the type of user who participates compulsively in this substance-free froth is, like, not the sort of person who's likely to stop and carefully consider whatever shiny object has landed under his cursor.
(Not Reddit-ist. I enjoy a few specific communities. Just not the 15,000-comment threads of one-liners.)
posted by escape from the potato planet at 4:03 PM on November 30, 2017
Point being: perhaps the type of user who participates compulsively in this substance-free froth is, like, not the sort of person who's likely to stop and carefully consider whatever shiny object has landed under his cursor.
(Not Reddit-ist. I enjoy a few specific communities. Just not the 15,000-comment threads of one-liners.)
posted by escape from the potato planet at 4:03 PM on November 30, 2017
Well, actually...not all reddit users don't not upvote the narwhal cats-wagon blindly, m'lady. Deltas awarded, mic dropped. < /s>
posted by enfa at 4:15 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by enfa at 4:15 PM on November 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure this is Millennials’ fault somehow, not that I read the article.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:37 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 7:37 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]
wait what if you read articles but never comment?
oh crap am i breaking my own habit right now?
posted by numaner at 12:08 PM on December 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
oh crap am i breaking my own habit right now?
posted by numaner at 12:08 PM on December 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
So, I did carefully read the article, which is how I noticed this deafening absence: did they check on what types of posts are being down-voted or up-voted?
> I think we can mostly agree that this is bad.
Is it though?
I don't read my spam emails before deleting them (hell, I don't even bother checking my spam folder). I think we can all agree that Reddit has a ton of garbage posted to it (Cue: Reddit, amirite?). I hang out on the r/learnprogramming subreddit where TONS of people ask the same questions that are already answered in the FAQ. I'm down-voting stuff all the time without reading the post, and Reddit is better for it.
posted by AlSweigart at 2:04 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
> I think we can mostly agree that this is bad.
Is it though?
I don't read my spam emails before deleting them (hell, I don't even bother checking my spam folder). I think we can all agree that Reddit has a ton of garbage posted to it (Cue: Reddit, amirite?). I hang out on the r/learnprogramming subreddit where TONS of people ask the same questions that are already answered in the FAQ. I'm down-voting stuff all the time without reading the post, and Reddit is better for it.
posted by AlSweigart at 2:04 PM on December 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older Save Our Stories | These Girls Gonna Run the World Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kikujiro's Summer at 12:46 PM on November 30, 2017 [2 favorites]