The Observation Deck

Paul Schrimpf wrote:It may be wrong, but if you write a nuanced headline in the internet world, you're going to suffer some level of consequences.

I agree with you, Paul.

However, the headline of this thread is clearly, "recallmikesummers.com And Lakewood Observations" and folks at City Hall and others are still mad ... because they never read the thread.

Right, Jim?

Matt

I actually heard about the site in a casual conversation with someone from city hall and no mention was made about the observer at all, positive or negative. Only simply that there was a site for that purpose and it quickly disappeared.

Matthew John Markling wrote:

Paul Schrimpf wrote:It may be wrong, but if you write a nuanced headline in the internet world, you're going to suffer some level of consequences.

I agree with you, Paul.

However, the headline of this thread is clearly, "recallmikesummers.com And Lakewood Observations" and folks at City Hall and others are still mad ... because they never read the thread.

Right, Jim?

Matt

Matt/Paul

Recent study by Case Western Reserve, most internet news readers, rarely read more than
headlines and captions. Most rarely finish the first paragraph. On videos, the average time
of watching if not "entertainment" is 12 seconds. You have to grab a viewer if you want to
get a message across.

For a period of time "news sites" thought video would save them as no one was reading
their articles. A huge push to video. Then they found out even fewer people were watching
the videos, and production costs were higher. This is now why you see super short videos
with a paragraph of copy at most "news sites" people don't read more than 50 words on
the net. (About 200-300 in print)

One train of thought is people hate "controversy" even when it is for their benefit. So
readers tend to read a headline and pipe in their idea of what it says instead of digesting
the actual article that might be contrary to their thoughts. What gets even stranger is that
the person then takes their concept of what the writer meant, and re-pipes the message to
five to tens of friends on Facebook, or through short text messages. This reenforces the
tribal aspects to life today, and continues the dumbing down of the community. 74% of
likes on Facebook are because of the person who posted, not the content.

Imagine the old game of telephone, where one person says to another a comment, and the
next person repeats it slightly different. I think it took 20 times being repeated before it
became very abstract to the original comment. Now imagine the same game, then the
second person says to the first after two words, "Don't worry, I got it." And tells the
third person what he thinks the first person would have said, as a fact, who is
interrupted immediately, by the next as they tell the fourth, what they "know" the other
would have said, and on and on.

Welcome to 2014.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote: 74% of likes on Facebook are because of the person who posted, not the content.
.

OK. I'll bite. I might be missing it, but I cannot find this statistic anywhere. I tried Googling it, Bing, etc. Any help in finding it? Thanks!

Matthew Lee wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote: 74% of likes on Facebook are because of the person who posted, not the content.
.

OK. I'll bite. I might be missing it, but I cannot find this statistic anywhere. I tried Googling it, Bing, etc. Any help in finding it? Thanks!

Matthew

It was presented during a review board at the Campus District. They had hired a group of
business and tech students from Case Western to assess Media, outreach, social media.
This was about two years ago.

I can try to get you the power point.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:74% of likes on Facebook are because of the person who posted, not the content.

I "liked" the post due to the content.

The person who posted is "likeable," too.

The unanswered question remains why some folks want to recall Mike Summers in the first place?