Physicists Find Users Uninterested After 36 Hours 141
SuperGrads writes "Statistical physicists working in the US and Hungary have found that the number of people reading a particular news story on the web decreases with time by a power law rather than exponentially as was previously thought. The finding has implications for the study of information flow in social networks, marketing and web design."
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously, I wonder if this will change ad placement for revenue models? If an ad gets a click on a story older than 36 hours, is it worth more? Hmm, I smell a patent in the works, too.
Re:In related news (Score:2)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Funny)
ISR... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In related news (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:In related news (Score:2)
In which case, the bashing of the poster of said dupe seems to follow the same basic pattern of interest...
Re:In related news (Score:2)
Re:In related news (Score:1)
Re:In related news (Score:2)
And in even more related news (Score:2)
read it carefully, it's what i thought the title was, not was it is.
Re:And in even more related news (Score:2)
Old news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old news (Score:1)
Re:Old news (Score:1)
It's appropriate this time (Score:2, Funny)
However ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:However ... (Score:1)
We Just Killed Their Theory (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We Just Killed Their Theory (Score:2)
What they are talking about is something most of us already know, and understand
Their accomplishment then is not realizing the trend, but finding a way to illustrate it, which led with being able to articulate and substantiate it.
I understand lots of things that I couldn't possibly hope to articula
maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a bit of a flawed evaluation to me.
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:2)
It might also be that they used Hungarian notation.
Maybe if they tried reverse Polish notation they would get different results.
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, the study was not done by taking people and finding out how quickly they became disinterested in one story or another. A quick glance at the summary informs us that the subject of the study was the number of people reading a news story (more likely downloading the story) at a given time. That this number decreases with time is obvious. However, it was expected that the decrease would follow an exponential curve, whereas the experiment showed a power law curve instead.
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:3, Informative)
——
Science & Technology / Psychology [economist.com]
Bayes rules
Jan 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition
A once-neglected statistical technique may help to explain how the mind works
IM [economist.com]
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:1)
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Expected" by who? Anybody reasonably familiar with statistics wouldn't assume that this decay is exponential because there is absolutely no reason to make that assumption; none of the models that commonly lead to exponential decay apply in this case.
Even though this guy happens to use the web, these kinds of problems aren't anything new
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:1)
The article used the word uninterested which has a completely different meaning. Disinterested means impartial or neutral while uninterested means bored or not interested. For a more detailed explanation [uhv.edu]
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:maybe because it's not "news" anymore? (Score:2, Interesting)
Impulse function (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Impulse function (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, EVERYONE knows what an impulse function is, right?
Right?
It's so very lonely here.
P.S. It's not really a function. It's a distribution, measure, functional, possibly some other things, but not a function.
Yes, very lonely.
Re:Impulse function (Score:1)
Another massive triumph for statistical physicists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another massive triumph for statistical physici (Score:1)
Re:Another massive triumph for statistical physici (Score:2)
Re:Another massive triumph for statistical physici (Score:2)
Linked (Score:1)
Re:Linked (Score:2)
I'd totally try to find that book, but you didn't provide a clickable link. I'm giving up now.
Re:Linked (Score:3, Funny)
not so much not interesting (Score:2)
Re:not so much not interesting (Score:1)
More to the point, how many people go back and reread a new article? This utter crap. I would have found it more interesting if they had something to say about people's attention WHILE reading an article not after it has already been read!
Pointles drivel. Did they get a grant for this?
Is this The Onion? (Score:2)
Local man becomes bored easily reading stories about nothing.
old hat? (Score:1, Redundant)
Which is where sites like slashdot come into play. Thanks to the dutiful work of the editors, stories that are weeks, months, and sometimes even years old, are often given a new lease on life.
Possible other causes? (Score:5, Insightful)
One has to wonder how the site's story policy affects the drop-off. That is, is the drop-off because users are uninterested or not reading, or is it because after that time the story drops off the main pages and becomes hard to find to read?
Re:Possible other causes? (Score:2)
Indeed. For example, the Ask E. T. discussion board [edwardtufte.com] contains all topics on a single page. The topics are all related to information design, and the board no longer accepts new topics which certainly skews things a bit. But I routinley see new responses to topics that are years old, and I myself occasionally read a new topic that was first posted years ago. It isn't "news" per se, but it's an interesting take on a discussion board. I wonder what a slashdot-like site would be like that limited the number
Uninterested already... (Score:1, Redundant)
Yup... way to stay on top of things.
Re:Uninterested already... (Score:2)
Physicists determine... (Score:1)
15 second sound bite at eleven!
Who Knew?!! (Score:2)
Re:Who Knew?!! (Score:3, Funny)
And is recycled back to the the top.
BREAKING NEWS (Score:3, Insightful)
ALSO NOTE THAT SITES HAVE FINITE NUMBERS OF USERS
And nothing about 'uninterested users'. This implies that, well, a reader is not likely to read an article more than once. Shocking, much unlike the answer to the question who is funding these people?
Re:BREAKING NEWS (Score:1)
Posted 7 July 2006 (Score:2)
An amazing bit of research; only out by 36 hours.
Half-Life (Score:1)
In related news (Score:2)
Politics (Score:2, Interesting)
Should have used this as a test (Score:1)
Methodological issues? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Methodological issues? (Score:1)
That is pretty typi
Re:Methodological issues? (Score:2)
Re:Methodological issues? (Score:2)
Plus, judging from the summary, they didn't separate the articles. Of course, a large group of articles is going to be read only a few times, and a small group is going to be read very often. Zipf already told us so. I can't understand the site, but if they keep some stories longer on the page than others, the effect is entirely explained.
A
This has something to do with Physics (Score:1)
Heh. (Score:5, Funny)
Suckers!
Re:Heh. (Score:2)
And then there will be another spike two days after that!
Web-physicists call it "The Slashdupe Effect".
Three things to consider (Score:2, Interesting)
Physicists are not the best people.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, duh! (Score:2)
Coincidence (Score:1)
I just thought this was funny.
NEWs? (Score:2)
Exponent? Power? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or are they talking about natural exp -vs- a higher order power, like 4 or 5?
Half Life = Exponential! (Score:2, Informative)
A power law relationship is something of the form y = A*t^k, which cannot be used to model a rate with a half life, since the time to reduce the rate by half depends on where you start, and increases as time increases.
Also any exponential function (with negative k) e
Re:Exponent? Power? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Exponent? Power? (Score:1)
Power law: 5, 5^2, 5^3, 5^4, 5^5...
Sorry, that's backwards (Score:1)
Exponential: 5, 5^2, 5^3, 5^4, 5^5...
Big difference in the growth after a short period.
Does nobody else... (Score:1)
Hungarian sites are popular (Score:1)
I didn't know that popular Hungarian sites existed.
That's the first flaw in this study. They need a better cross-section of sites, preferably not popular Hungarian sites...
They're Right! (Score:1)
What about missing blond females? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is the beef - Where are the equations? (Score:2)
The article says the equation to describe how interest in a news story drops off over time is not as is expected. But there are no equations in the story. They do not have an equation for the old model or for the new model for how interest in a story drops off!
This is just lame reporting of science news.
Personal research (Score:2)
How is this physics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:1)
One slight problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
This trend depends on user browsing patterns rather than content, but also depends on users allowing cookies to live for not only longer than one browsing session, but for a full month.
Thus, much like that classic problem of proving the external validity of any research done by a college psych department on their own undergrads (which usually results in 80-90% female and at least half freshman participants), this study has a pretty glaring flaw - It only really says anything about MSIE users (and even then, only MSIE users dumb enough not to use some form of cookie management) rather than users in general. While that almost certainly includes the majority of visitors to many sites, it doesn't safely extend to the larger population of all web surfers.
Additionally, I would point out one more glaring source of error... It fails to normalize each unit of time against the remaining base of users - So, for example, if 90% of the regular visitors to a site see an article within an hour of posting, that leaves only 10% (plus the negligibly-small number that re-read the same article over and over, except on Slashdot where you can use FP refreshes as a solid measure of workday boredom). That, IMO, says far more about how long the typical (MSIE-qualified as above) user can go without a news fix, rather than how long an article remains interesting.
Re:One slight problem... (Score:1)
Summary misstates article (Score:4, Insightful)
Half lives are a measurement of exponential decay. Individual stories still decrease in hits exponentially over time. If you look at lots of stories, the decays are distributed according to a power law.
The article directly contradicts the Slasdot summary.
Hits on stories do decrease exponentially.
I am stunned that I am the only one so far who seems to have picked up on this. Did anyone actually read the article, or did they just read into it what they were told they would see?
Re:Summary misstates article (Score:2)
Actually, the PhysicsWeb article is confusing in itself. The first (bold) paragraph says that "the number of people who read news stories on the web decays with time in a power law". The sixth paragraph says that "the overall half-life distribution follows a power law". Perhaps both statements are true, perhaps one of them is inaccurate.
The professor's website [nd.edu] doesn't seem to mention this research, so we can't tell what the actual findings were.
explanation for superstition? (Score:1)
"How the priors are themselves constructed in the mind has yet to be investigated in detail. Obviously they are learned by experience, but the exact process is not properly understood. Indeed, some people suspect that the parsimony of Bayesian reasoning leads occasionally to it going spectacularly awry, with whatever process it is that forms the priors getting further and further off-track rather than converging on the correct distribution.
That might explain the emergence of superstitiou
was exponential really "expected" ..? (Score:1)
rediscovering the wheel (Score:3, Interesting)
It is true that many people use exponential decay models, but that's not because they don't know any better, it's because exponential decay is computationally simple and works well enough. It's like using a linear approximation to a non-linear problem.
I think it's pretty telling that Barabási is publishing this in physics journals, not in statistics or web-related publications. This may be news to physicists, but it isn't news to anybody who actually works in the field and knows their stuff. The reviewers at Phys. rev. simply aren't qualified to determine whether this kind of work is novel and correct.
I, for one, (Score:1)
Physicist find... (Score:2)
(Speaking as a physicist)
Isn't a "power law" same as "exponential"? (Score:2)
Pardon me but... (Score:2)
Duh. (Score:4, Funny)
Put another way: Slashdot -- Now with 20% real nerds!
More like 'If it bleeds, it leads'....(plz read) (Score:2)
A tired old newsmedia saying imortalized by Kelsey Grammer's Robert Hawkins in 15 MINUTES [imdb.com] proves that nothing drives ratings up like death and misfortune.
Just look at just 3 historical events to generate 'wall to wall' coverage...
The President Kennedy Assasinaton (1963-11-22)
The Challenger disaster (1986-01-28)
and of course
9/11 (2001-09-11)
I've only seen snippets of the Kennedy Assasination coverage on TV mostly from archival footage so I can't comment.
For the Challenger disaster I h
Re:First post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Order of operations (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot's worthless tagging experiment (Score:2)
Assuming that you have tagging rights... strike back with "!duh" and "!stupid". Don't forget to include y
Re:makes sense (Score:2)