What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices

Tim Groot Kormelink, Irene Costera Meijer

Journalism · 2017 · 160 citations · 30 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

The article challenges the assumption that click data reflect audience interests, noting that click patterns are often interpreted as evidence of a preference for junk news and raising concerns about journalism and societal implications. The study aims to investigate how 56 users browse news and what their clicking and non‑clicking behaviors signify. The authors analyzed browsing data from 56 users, identifying 30 distinct considerations for clicking and non‑clicking and categorizing them into cognitive, affective, and pragmatic factors. The study finds that interest is an inadequate descriptor of clicking behavior, that clicks are a flawed proxy for news interest, that understanding browsing patterns can bridge the gap between citizen needs and consumption, and that metrics should be critically evaluated from a user perspective.

Abstract

This article problematizes the relationship between clicks and audience interests. Clicking patterns are often seen as evidence that news users are mostly interested in junk news, leading to concerns about the state of journalism and the implications for society. Asking and observing how 56 users actually browse news and what clicking and not clicking mean to them, we identified 30 distinct considerations for (not) clicking and classified them into three categories: cognitive, affective and pragmatic. The results suggest, first, that interest is too crude a term to account for the variety of people’s considerations for (not) clicking. Second, even if one aims for roughly estimating people’s news interests, clicks are a flawed instrument because a lack of clicking does not measure people’s lack of interest in news. Third, taking users’ browsing patterns seriously could help bridge the gap between what people need as citizens and what they actually consume. Finally, we argue that all metrics should be critically assessed from a user perspective rather than taken at face value.

References

30