skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186180acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Identifying Modes of User Engagement with Online News and Their Relationship to Information Gain in Text

Published:10 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Prior work established the benefits of server-recorded user engagement measures (e.g. clickthrough rates) for improving the results of search engines and recommendation systems. Client-side measures of post-click behavior received relatively little attention despite the fact that publishers have now the ability to measure how millions of people interact with their content at a fine resolution using client-side logging. In this study, we examine patterns of user engagement in a large, client-side log dataset of over 7.7 million page views (including both mobile and non-mobile devices) of 66,821 news articles from seven popular news publishers. For each page view we use three summary statistics: dwell time, the furthest position the user reached on the page, and the amount of interaction with the page through any form of input (touch, mouse move, etc.). We show that simple transformations on these summary statistics reveal six prototypical modes of reading that range from scanning to extensive reading and persist across sites. Furthermore, we develop a novel measure of information gain in text to capture the development of ideas within the body of articles and investigate how information gain relates to the engagement with articles. Finally, we show that our new measure of information gain is particularly useful for predicting reading of news articles before publication, and that the measure captures unique information not available otherwise.

References

  1. Eugene Agichtein, Eric Brill, and Susan Dumais. 2006. Improving web search ranking by incorporating user behavior information Proc. SIGIR 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ioannis Arapakis, Mounia Lalmas, B. Barla Cambazoglu, Mari-Carmen Marcos, and Joemon M. Jose. 2014. User engagement in online news: Under the scope of sentiment, interest, affect, and gaze. JASIST, Vol. 65, 10 (2014), 1988--2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ralf Biedert, Jörn Hees, Andreas Dengel, and Georg Buscher. 2012. A robust realtime reading-skimming classifier. In Proc. ETRA 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sven Birkerts. 2006. The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. JMLR, Vol. 3, Jan (2003), 993--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Georg Buscher, Edward Cutrell, and Meredith R. Morris. 2009. What do you see when you're surfing?: using eye tracking to predict salient regions of web pages. In Proc. CHI 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Christopher S. Campbell and Paul P. Maglio. 2001. A robust algorithm for reading detection. In Proc. PUI 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mark Claypool, Phong Le, Makoto Wased, and David Brown. 2001. Implicit Interest Indicators. In Proc. of IUI 2001. 33--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Microsoft Canada Consumer insights. 2015. Attention spans. (2015). https://advertising.microsoft.com/en/WWDocs/User/display/cl/researchreport/31966/en/microsoft-attention-spans-research-report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Geoffrey B. Duggan and Stephen J. Payne. 2009. Text skimming: the process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 15, 3 (2009), 228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Geoffrey B. Duggan and Stephen J. Payne. 2011. Skim reading by satisficing: evidence from eye tracking Proc. of CHI'2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Steve Fox, Kuldeep Karnawat, Mark Mydland, Susan Dumais, and Thomas White. 2005. Evaluating implicit measures to improve web search. Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) Vol. 23, 2 (2005), 147--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ruth Garner. 1987. Metacognition and reading comprehension.Ablex Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel G. Goldstein, Siddharth Suri, R. Preston McAfee, Matthew Ekstrand-Abueg, and Fernando Diaz. 2014. The economic and cognitive costs of annoying display advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research Vol. 51, 6 (2014), 742--752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Qi Guo and Eugene Agichtein. 2012. Beyond dwell time: estimating document relevance from cursor movements and other post-click searcher behavior. In Proc. WWW 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Rafiq H. Hijazi and Robert W. Jernigan. 2009. Modelling compositional data using Dirichlet regression models. Applied Probability & Statistics Vol. 4, 1 (2009), 77--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. William Horton, Lee Taylor, Arthur Ignacio, and Nancy L. Hoft. 1996. The Web page design cookbook: all the ingredients you need to create 5-star Web pages. New York: Wiley, 1996 (1996). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jeff Huang, Ryen W. White, Georg Buscher, and Kuansan Wang. 2012. Improving searcher models using mouse cursor activity Proc. SIGIR 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Clayton J. Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text Proc. ICWSM 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Peter H. Johnston. 1983. Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis.ERIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Youngho Kim, Ahmed Hassan, Ryen W. White, and Imed Zitouni. 2014. Modeling dwell time to predict click-level satisfaction Proc. WSDM 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. Peter Kincaid, Robert P. Fishburne Jr., Richard L. Rogers, and Brad S. Chissom. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Technical Report. DTIC Document.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Dmitry Lagun and Eugene Agichtein. 2015. Inferring searcher attention by jointly modeling user interactions and content salience Proc. SIGIR 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Dmitry Lagun and Mounia Lalmas. 2016. Understanding User Attention and Engagement in Online News Reading Proc. of WSDM 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed representations of sentences and documents Proc. ICML 2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Janette Lehmann, Mounia Lalmas, Elad Yom-Tov, and Georges Dupret. 2012. Models of user engagement. In Proc. UMAP 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Guoqiang Liao. 2011. On the Development of Reading Ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies Vol. 1, 3 (2011), 302--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Chao Liu, Ryen W. White, and Susan Dumais. 2010. Understanding web browsing behaviors through weibull analysis of dwell time Proc. SIGIR 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Ziming Liu. 2005. Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation Vol. 61, 6 (2005), 700--712.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Michael E. Masson. 1982. Cognitive processes in skimming stories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 8, 5 (1982).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel, and Elisa Shearer. 2016. The Modern News Consumer, News Attitudes and Practices in the Digital Era. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Masahiro Morita and Yoichi Shinoda. 1994. Information filtering based on user behavior analysis and best match text retrieval Proc. SIGIR 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Vidhya Navalpakkam, LaDawn Jentzsch, Rory Sayres, Sujith Ravi, Amr Ahmed, and Alex Smola. 2013. Measurement and modeling of eye-mouse behavior in the presence of nonlinear page layouts Proc. WWW 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Jakob Nielsen. 2008. How Little Do Users Read. (2008). http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-little-do-users-read/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Christine Nuttall. 1996. Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. ERIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 1999. Information foraging. Psychological review Vol. 106, 4 (1999), 643.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Kenneth R. Pugh, Bennett A. Shaywitz, Sally E. Shaywitz, R. Todd Constable, Pawel Skudlarski, Robert K. Fulbright, Richard A. Bronen, Donald P. Shankweiler, Leonard Katz, Jack M. Fletcher, and John C. Gore. 1996. Cerebral organization of component processes in reading. Brain, Vol. 119, 4 (1996), 1221--1238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Keith Rayner. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin Vol. 124, 3 (1998), 372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Carole Rich. 2015. Writing and reporting news: A coaching method. Cengage Learning. 259 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Alexandre N. Tuch, Javier A. Bargas-Avila, Klaus Opwis, and Frank H. Wilhelm. 2009. Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users' experience, physiology, performance, and memory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 67, 9 (2009), 703 -- 715. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ou Wu, Yunfei Chen, Bing Li, and Weiming Hu. 2011. Evaluating the visual quality of web pages using a computational aesthetic approach Proc. WSDM 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Xing Yi, Liangjie Hong, Erheng Zhong, Nanthan N. Liu, and Suju Rajan. 2014. Beyond clicks: dwell time for personalization. In Proc. RecSys 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Identifying Modes of User Engagement with Online News and Their Relationship to Information Gain in Text

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
              April 2018
              2000 pages
              ISBN:9781450356398

              Copyright © 2018 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

              Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

              Publication History

              • Published: 10 April 2018

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate170of1,155submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format