Monday News: Reader engagement at the NYT, collective intelligence, crowdfunding hate, and Hermione v. the patriarchy
How do you measure engagement? It does nothing for me without understanding “how” and audience engages. It is more like measuring “love.”
It is the difference between what we want our audience to do and what they want to do.
We have a ton of habits but rarely consider what these habits are. We refresh our homepage every two hours because we assume people always want fresh content. Do we know this? –Publishing Perspectives
Furthermore, the predictable troupe of buzzwords you would expect to correlate with successful groups—”cohesion,” “motivation,” and “satisfaction”—didn’t have much to do with effective teams, either. Instead, the single most important element of smart groups, according to the researchers, was their “average social sensitivity.” That is, the best groups were also the best at reading the non-verbal cues of their teammates. And, since women score higher on this metric of emotional intelligence, teams with more women tended to be better teams. . . .
I found these studies eye-opening for two further reasons. First, there is a growing sense that the Internet can destroy interpersonal skills, kill our emotional intelligence, and turn us into warm-blooded versions of the very robots that we fear will one day take our jobs. But these studies suggest that the rules of empathy hold both on- and offline. Emotionally sensitive people are gifted at reading between the lines, whether the literal lines are brow wrinkles or text messages. –The Atlantic
But these mobs aren’t just about revenge, narcissism, or bigotry. With the addition of open-ended crowdfunding tools such as Patreon, Gratipay, and GoFundMe, it’s possible to turn the attention these organizers seek into funding, turning the hobby of harassment into a job. Some of the most successful have been the anti-feminist, misogynist instigators of GamerGate. –Boing Boing