同打一个球（35-36）

三十五

Tony Haile，How people really read and share online

A widespread assumption is that the more content is liked or shared, the more engaging it must be, the more willing people are to devote their attention to it. However, the data doesn’t back that up. We looked at 10,000 socially-shared articles and found that there is no relationship whatsoever between the amount a piece of content is shared and the amount of attention an average reader will give that content.

提要：你的文章被喜欢或被分享的次数和人们实际花在你的文章上的时间并无正向关系，特别的，那些最火的文章，可能绝大部分人只看了15秒（三分之一的人在一篇文章页面上停留的时间也就是15秒）就分享了。

update：魏武挥在这篇《自媒体时代的电子阅读》里也谈到了这个现象：

但到了数字时代后，基于社交的阅读已经越来越不像个人的行为。如果说收藏这件事还属于内省的话，分享就全然不同。分享是很“集体”的，也是充满着一种作秀成分的：看，我看的东西都是这类的。就我个人观察的经验来看，很多分享者其实压根没心思阅读ta所分享的那篇长长的文章。注意，他们不是在分享阅后心得，而是分享阅读物本身。

分享行为，很大程度上已经成了一种“游戏”。

三十六

Mikhail Simkin，PhDs couldn't tell an actor from a renowned scientist

My own interest in such phenomena started with the discovery that 80% of scientific citations are not read by the citing authors but copied from the lists of references used in other papers. Thus, an act of scientific citing is not a result of independent evaluation of the quality of the cited paper, but merely an imitation of other citer's selection. This way when a paper was once cited it is more likely to be cited again, and after it was cited again it is even more likely to be cited in the future. As a result of this chain reaction the paper can become highly cited independently of its content. The degree of authority of a scientist is determined by the number of citations to his papers. Thus, a scientist can become an authority independently of the content of his papers. This conclusion seemed bizarre to the people who could not imagine that a person who knows nothing can pass as an authority. Dr. Fox lecture demonstrates that it is quite possible. 

提要：1973年，有个演员假扮成一位应用数学家（从图可见，演技很好），在南加州大学给心理学专业的博士生做了一个讲座《博弈论在医科教育的应用》，反响很好，讲座结束后的满意度调查评价很高。学生们还问了他很多问题，没有一个人发觉这个人其实完全不知道他在说什么。

现在论文通常有很多引用文献，但实际上那些引用文献基本都是从别的论文里的引用文献里直接复制过来的，对于绝大部分引用的论文，作者并没有认真读过。