A recent article from Time presented several myths about online activity. I found the second myth of greatest interest.
The second myth is exposed by data that cross references social activity by the read time devoted to a primary information source. The data are expressed as a graph with hits organized in a 2 x 2 format. So you have articles with high and low read times by articles with high and low social activity. If one assumes that greater read time indicates greater personal interest, it is surprising that low interest articles generate the most social activity. Hence, you cannot assume that those suggestions you receive as tweets resulted from a thorough review by the tweeter. Perhaps the title alone was enough to encourage sharing.
Why? Not sure, but these data seem similar to a paper we just discussed in my grad class. The paper concerned a number of effective study techniques and then noted that college students seem not likely to use these techniques even though the strategies require no more time. One commonality of the methods is that they generated more errors and were likely perceived as more difficult. Perhaps, individuals are satisfied with a passive approach that offers the impression of doing something productive.
I wonder if a similar explanation fits here. Are many tweets that reference resources a way of feeling or offering the impression to others that something meaningful has been accomplished? I propose that tweets associated with blog entries are a better approach. Blog posts typically offer more personal commentary and I would think require a little more information from a primary source. If you cannot summarize what about a source was interesting or valuable, you likely did not get much from the resource yourself. Why offer the source to others?
