No one clicked on 6 out of 10 links on Twitter (they are retweeted instead)
In early June, the satirical Science Post news site published the text-fish "lorem ipsum" under the heading "Research: 70% of Facebook users read only the headline of scientific research before commenting." The post received 46 thousand reposts, most of which were made without a hint of sarcasm. People themselves have confirmed the joke.
But the idea required scientific justification. Scientists estimate that no one clicked on 59% of the links that people shared on Twitter in a certain period. At the same time, “blind” reposts affect public opinion — including the formation of political preferences.
Links that people share on social networks affect public opinion. We see news headlines published by our friends, we make reposts and discuss them. Viral news diverge very quickly, including due to the fact that their content is not interesting to anyone - the message is important. It is important under what “sauce” the news is presented - the headline is able to give a diametrically opposite meaning to the event, thereby forming the opinion of a certain number of people about this news. This applies to socially significant things, including the political preferences of our friends. This hypothesis was confirmed by research from specialists at Columbia University and the National Institute of France.
')
Scientists have collected all the tweets containing links to five news resources, shortened with the help of the Bit.ly service, and published during one month in the summer of 2015, and data on links clicks. We are talking about 2.8 million posts with links that could potentially be viewed 75 billion times, and 9.6 million completed transitions to 59 thousand unique resources. So the researchers made a picture of how news becomes viral on Twitter.
As a result, scientists have found several patterns. First, the news is more likely to retweet than read. Secondly, people are more willing to click on links published in the accounts of ordinary users, rather than on the official media pages. Thirdly, links are sometimes clicked a few days after publication, rather than immediately.
The study, the reason for which was the joke of the satirical Science Post site, showed that 59% of the links were not clicked. “People are more willing to share an article than read it. This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on the description, without making an effort to understand the topic more deeply, ”the study co-author writes.
But the idea required scientific justification. Scientists estimate that no one clicked on 59% of the links that people shared on Twitter in a certain period. At the same time, “blind” reposts affect public opinion — including the formation of political preferences.
Links that people share on social networks affect public opinion. We see news headlines published by our friends, we make reposts and discuss them. Viral news diverge very quickly, including due to the fact that their content is not interesting to anyone - the message is important. It is important under what “sauce” the news is presented - the headline is able to give a diametrically opposite meaning to the event, thereby forming the opinion of a certain number of people about this news. This applies to socially significant things, including the political preferences of our friends. This hypothesis was confirmed by research from specialists at Columbia University and the National Institute of France.
')
Scientists have collected all the tweets containing links to five news resources, shortened with the help of the Bit.ly service, and published during one month in the summer of 2015, and data on links clicks. We are talking about 2.8 million posts with links that could potentially be viewed 75 billion times, and 9.6 million completed transitions to 59 thousand unique resources. So the researchers made a picture of how news becomes viral on Twitter.
As a result, scientists have found several patterns. First, the news is more likely to retweet than read. Secondly, people are more willing to click on links published in the accounts of ordinary users, rather than on the official media pages. Thirdly, links are sometimes clicked a few days after publication, rather than immediately.
The study, the reason for which was the joke of the satirical Science Post site, showed that 59% of the links were not clicked. “People are more willing to share an article than read it. This is typical of modern information consumption. People form an opinion based on the description, without making an effort to understand the topic more deeply, ”the study co-author writes.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/395411/
All Articles