Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting

Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting

 

NEW YORK, NY – A recent study showed that 70% of people actually never read more than the headline of a science article before commenting and sharing. Most simply see a headline they like and click share and make a comment. A recent study showed that 70% of people actually never read more than the headline of a science article before commenting and sharing. Most simply see a headline they like and click share and make a comment.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam consectetur ipsum sit amet sem vestibulum eleifend. Donec sed metus nisi. Quisque ultricies nulla a risus facilisis vestibulum. Ut luctus feugiat nisi, eget molestie magna faucibus vitae. Morbi luctus orci eget semper fringilla. Proin vestibulum neque a ultrices aliquet. Fusce imperdiet purus in euismod accumsan. Suspendisse potenti. Nullam efficitur feugiat nibh, at pellentesque mauris. Suspendisse potenti. Maecenas efficitur urna velit, ut gravida enim vestibulum eu. Nullam suscipit finibus tellus convallis lacinia. Aenean ex nunc, posuere sit amet mauris ac, venenatis efficitur nulla. Nam auctor eros eu libero rutrum, ac tristique nunc tincidunt. Mauris eu turpis rutrum mi scelerisque volutpat.

Aliquam feugiat enim eget neque cursus viverra. Maecenas nec quam pretium, feugiat nisi sed, finibus justo. Aliquam erat volutpat. Duis a molestie leo, ut volutpat nisl. Aenean sed tristique magna, maximus convallis elit. Pellentesque vel tellus arcu. Nulla tincidunt aliquet dolor. Cras fringilla arcu enim, a ornare dui accumsan a. Nam iaculis cursus magna, in tincidunt diam convallis id. Duis vitae elementum mauris, id feugiat nulla.

Vestibulum vitae odio nec sapien consectetur eleifend at nec risus. Mauris nisi nunc, convallis non ornare sit amet, dapibus in nisl. Etiam a metus a sem condimentum mattis. Aenean lacinia ultricies nunc, in convallis felis interdum id. Nulla non ultricies augue. Cras pretium arcu magna, eu cursus tellus varius nec. Nam egestas maximus nunc et dictum. Proin et dictum purus. Vivamus pellentesque sem nunc, nec maximus metus congue nec. Vestibulum pharetra enim at euismod auctor. Pellentesque ac vulputate felis.

  • Guest

    If it wasn’t an RCT study design, it doesn’t count.

  • Tim Crowe

    On behalf of all Latin speakers (I don’t speak it, but am speaking on their behalf never-the-less) I reject your assertion.

    • JamesK144

      Trust me — it’s jibberish.

      • MisterLiteral

        Or is it? Question everything.

      • Tim Crowe

        I know, my comment was in jest

    • Ken Bitz

      Obviously doesn’t know what Lorem Ipsum is

      • Starfire

        Every web designer knows 😀

      • Tim Crowe

        It was a comment in jest

  • Swaghetti Yolognaise

    Don’t rub the lamp if you don’t want the genie

  • jasonmurphy

    If you think 30 per cent of commenters bother reading, you probably write for OCD daily.

    • I actually googled “OCD daily”. Dammit. It’s a diagnose.

      • NihilAnonymous

        Lol. Both of two XD.. i googled “OCD” too XD

        • No… I googled “OCD daily” because I thought it was an actual newspaper about OCD. We really need one though.

  • Joseph Katz

    Iway avehay otay aysay ilewhay Iway on’tday alwaysway eadray
    ethay articleway eforebay ommentingcay, I’mway alwaysway
    owledgeableknay aboutway ethay iencescay inway ethay ubjectsay
    eforebay ommentingcay ifway ebay oday. Oweverhay, Iway oday
    inkthay it’sway OKWAY otay ommentcay onway ethay ommentscay
    evenway ithoutway eadingray ethay articleway, ifway ouyay
    understandway ethay iencescay yestshay

    • Alessio Zap Boerio

      Esyay, ouyay ademay ymay ayday

  • Rick Wales

    Quote meon an estimate et non interruptus stadium. Sic tempus fugit esperanto hiccup estrogen. Glorious baklava ex librus hup he ad infinitum. Non sequitur condominium facile et geranium incognito.

  • Tara Schwenker

    ANDJ[ BHDB DB NJIAHND OIJF JOIE’IJF /KZCNJ ‘IDJ WFJ HIOS’

  • josh cannabis sativa

    Seriously? Google Translate doesn’t even have the slightest idea what the fuck this article says…

  • josh cannabis sativa

    Via Google Translate ~ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Tomato ipsum sit amet vestibulum eleifend sem. Until But fear not. Quisque ultricies facilisis no a risus vestibulum. Ut luctus feugiat nisi, the jaws of the great need of the employee life. Cell Phones clinical eget semper fringilla. Proin vestibulum, nor a driver’s bananas. Fusce dui in euismod layer. Smartphones. Nullam becomes feugiat nibh, at pellentesque mauris. Smartphones. Maecenas is made urna velit, to get pregnant for the porch of the eu. Receives the ends of the earth Nullam Lacinia. Aenean from now, posuere sit amet, ac, venenatis is made at all. In fact, the author of the eros eu libero makeup, and tristique now tincidunt. Mauris eu turpis rutrum mi thermal tests.

    For cursus eget neque eu Aliquam adipiscing. Maecenas nec than the price, but unless the eu, and the territories justo. Gluten. Duis a molestie a lion, as a career players. But Aeneas tristique magna, the greatest convallis elit. Gaming or ceramic arc. No Tincidunt bananas pain. Cras fringilla bow, for example, a ornare dui accumsan a. For serious about running a targeted, on the keyboard diam convallis id. Duis vitae element of the Moors, of that aliquyam.

    Vestibulum vitae odio consectetur nec sapien eleifend but also do not smile. Mauris, but now, convallis non ornare sit amet, protein in the players. Also from the fear of a sem condimentum real estate. Ajax Tab ultricies now, in the times that of Products. They’re not ultricies propaganda. Cras pretium bow, the great, the course of the earth eu varius nec. For now the great poverty and it was said. Microwave and it was pure. Pellentesque sem now, nor greater nor the fear of congue nec. The author of the quiver Vestibulum enim at Performance. Gaming and Vulputate football.

    • Nick Xylas

      Makes about as much sense as any other Google translation.

    • Michael Brooks

      Have you really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

      • Carl Sagan

        all your base

        • aldousd

          the cake is a lie!

          • Cara

            Portal reference?

        • squall_loire

          Move every zig!

      • josh cannabis sativa

        Have you really been smoking crack cocaine? That seems to be the case in consideration of your comment.

  • Jonathan Bjq

    Wut

  • Ryan

    Just because I can’t read it doesn’t mean I didn’t try to.

  • squall_loire

    The most hilarious thing about this is the clueless people trying to translate Lorem Ipsum text in the comments…

    • MisterLiteral

      My contention is lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras eu orci porttitor, vestibulum mi at, dignissim massa. Proin scelerisque luctus tempor. Nunc in vestibulum erat. Nunc quis tellus pellentesque, ornare risus vitae, bibendum leo. Nullam tincidunt tellus sapien, et varius velit fringilla a. Donec at massa sed augue fermentum placerat. Aenean nec porttitor diam. Nullam eu convallis est. Morbi feugiat consequat auctor. Curabitur maximus bibendum augue non vulputate. Duis luctus tortor quis massa auctor, sit amet congue tortor interdum. Nunc quis molestie nisl, non dignissim diam. Integer blandit, augue nec consequat ultrices, libero sapien fringilla justo, id lobortis neque nisl sed lorem. Maecenas quis ante dignissim, gravida enim quis, maximus felis.

      Would you agree?

      • squall_loire

        Wholeheartedly, but I would also insist that vestibulum vitae odio nec sapien consectetur eleifend at nec risus. Mauris nisi nunc, convallis non ornare sit amet, dapibus in nisl. Etiam a metus a sem condimentum mattis. Aenean lacinia ultricies nunc, in convallis felis interdum id. Nulla non ultricies augue. Cras pretium arcu magna, eu cursus tellus varius nec. Nam egestas maximus nunc et dictum. Proin et dictum purus. Vivamus pellentesque sem nunc, nec maximus metus congue nec. Vestibulum pharetra enim at euismod auctor. Pellentesque ac vulputate felis.

        I hope we can agree on this.

        • MisterLiteral

          Aliquam eget laoreet nulla. Nam scelerisque dictum?

    • epixpivotmaster

      You do know Lorem Ipsum isn’t nonsense, huh?
      Lorem ipsum text is derived from sections 1.10.32–3 of Cicero’s De finibus bonorum et malorum (On the Ends of Goods and Evils, or alternatively [About] The Purposes of Good and Evil)

      • squall_loire

        It IS nonsense, since the passages are intentionally scrambled so as be completely incoherent.

        Just because something is written in genuine Latin, that doesn’t mean that it makes sense or is in any way translatable.

  • Pauline LaBelle

    Let me spare some pain. Lorem ipsum is generated text used as a placeholder. For example, we use it to design the font, size, and spacing of paragraphs, bulleted lists, quotes, etc. when designing websites or printed media.

    • MisterLiteral

      Shhhhh… You know nothing P. LaBelle Snow.

      • P. LaBelle

        LOL doh! Sudden amnesia just set in.

    • Cliffy Buglione

      Thank you P. I love learning new things even when they have nothing to do with me! -CB.

  • Frank Ybarra

    Ahahaha… Latin? Its Ipsum Lorem. I guess hes trying to prove a point.

    • aldousd

      Nope. He’s not TRYING to prove a point. He’s proven it.

  • John Massey

    Facepalm. SMDH.

  • Jill McCarthy

    This whole piece should have been titled, “MADE YOU LOOK!”

  • kelly
  • Michael Brooks

    EGO IBO FOVERE CONSOLATORIUM.

    I wonder if that is true about comments.. I imagine that most people read the whole comment, due to it’s non-TL;DR structure.

  • Erwin Blonk

    You consectetur adipiscing elit with your metus congue nec. Why don’t you just nunc tincidunt, bunch of Nullamtards.
    Vestibulum neque a ultrices yo momma.

  • Agape Scorpio

    It’s Fake Latin.

  • Corbin Bride

    Smartphones.

  • DizzleMcShizzle

    There is a rough translation here. http://www.lipsum.com/

  • Simone Stafford

    Feck tats a wod rite?

  • Christopher Hickie

    semper ubi sub ubi….

  • THX 1138

    And yet 100% of Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey.
    A kiddley divey too, Wooden shoe?

  • Pericles Parthenon

    I dated a girl named Lorem Ipsum. Everything she ever said was a non sequitor. But, then again, I had a best friend named Incontinentia Buttox. She married Biggus Dickus. He played for the Bears in ’69.

  • Jimmy B Vs Bryson

    What the fuck! Lol

  • Patrick

    There was a commencement address this year that talked about this – it started with articles, and then worked into going beyond the reviews and thinking for yourself. The whole thrust was about being a life-long reader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

  • Amy Sargent

    Felicitas est parvus canis calidus. — Charles Schulz

    • Amy Sargent

      By the way, I have been fooled by fake Latin. This time, I went in assuming it was fake Latin. Semper ubi sub ubi!

  • Nikola Malešević

    And according to this comment section, 90% of readers do not understand sarcasm.

  • Wolf

    Cthulu scoffs at your latin. Y’knath gthu’n’ullha k’th’ryggki y’leth k’yi mrrh’ungha shabu’ll’yeh, p’knoi ng’rea pgrn’thywla wrr’ingen q’rhi g’rrneth phta’lyagn dbnat SUV, plg’n hfrn’ngaah!

    • Joseph

      Cthulhu approves your comment.

  • AB

    Is this Inception…

  • Pingback: I fucking can’t even()

  • Pingback: No, ketchup does not cause cancer | the chronicle flask()

  • Pingback: I've done my research: Dunning-Kruger in full effect()

  • Like and share if you want to defeat childhood leukemia!

    • BigSofty

      Yeah, because we all know that Likes are what cure diseases.

      • Queensowntalia

        It’s the share that does it, clearly

        • Jeff Altemus

          Bollocks! You have to Like and Share! Duh!

        • Jennifer Bailey

          Likes treat symptoms, shares cure. They are more powerful with the word “amen” or “praying,” and skipping past them increases your cancer risk by 1% each time. The average FB user assumes they can’t bypass 100

          • Hamblerger

            What about thoughts? Prayers lose their efficacy if not accompanied by thoughts.

          • Doogamus

            How about “awareness”? That’s a sure cure, right? Just be aware?

          • PltypsPltyps

            Only if you’re RAISING awareness. Simply being aware of it yourself doesn’t help so much as as raising awareness.

          • ADoS

            I think the idea is, if you can’t actually do anything about it yourself or are too busy or lazy, etc., spreading it around everywhere with Likes and Shares and telling people to be aware will eventually bring the issue to the attention of someone who actually does have the means and inclination. If nobody is aware of an issue, naturally nobody will do anything about it. I do tend to eventually see lots of positive effects any time people do this with a worthy-enough cause, in an interesting-enough manner.

            A million people doing nothing and one person doing something is still more than a million-and-one people doing nothing.

          • Alex Fogerty

            Ever heard of the Bystander Effect? ~60% of people will do nothing because they assume that because it is common knowledge that someone is hurt that someone else will do it so all they have to do is stand there and wait.

          • ADoS

            I am aware of that effect, but the fact remains that not everyone will succumb to the Bystander Effect. As you said it’s only ~60%.

          • Kirsten Holm

            Very cool — don’t know that stat per se, but this would seem to an important finding to further explore for the betterment of all & just basic science (understanding what’s going on).

          • Kirsten Holm

            I wrote up the article reporting that research in the case of Kitty Genovese in NYC — she was being attacked and what was shocking was how many people did not intervene and try to help. As I recall (many years ago), the researchers talked about WHY this happened using the concepts of “diffusion of responsibility” (many thought someone else would help) and “pluralistic ignorance” (everyone thought since no one else was responding, that must mean there wasn’t a problem — we can make the wrong assumptions about what’s going on if we don’t get independent info & just assume stuff). Don’t take what I say here as truth — I’d need to go back & look at the research write-up. We clearly though have major problems with how individuals in groups can do the wrong thing for understandable reasons, even if they’re totally irrational. As several social historians/theorists I admire have noted, what’s pretty cool is that WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, or understanding, we can create ways of NOT having these irrational outcomes.

          • Kate Flood

            Spoilsport.

          • Praying has been scientifically proven to be totally ineffective. You’re better off spitting into the wind…..They spent $2 million on that double blind study too… :/

          • Cherokee Schill

            I raised awareness once. It was awful.

          • Hamblerger

            Well, sure, but you have to go through all of the effort of raising it first.

          • Peter_FairMarket

            And Jesus. We need Jesus in there somewhere.

          • LOL

          • Chuck Johnston

            Yes, thoughts AND prayers combined are much more effective.

        • PltypsPltyps

          I’m pretty sure it’s the combination of the two.

      • Brent Doolittle

        Hey, at least he is trying!

    • pazke

      Thank you all, I loved this entire exchange.

      • Kirsten Holm

        Yes. Thank you.

    • Matthew Barnes

      Go fuck yourself.

  • Roy Tindle

    Great explanation.

  • DCJensen

    I love this.

  • Chris Gunhold Forsyth
  • @Lovethatscience

    Lorem ipsum : Classic gibberish.

    • Dan

      I don’t think it’s all gibberish. I think it’s some kind of Latin filler used for ‘blank’ blog posts.

      • It’s both gibberish and placeholder text. The first “Loren ipsum dolor sit amet” lines are taken from a real book but the sentences don’t make sense because they skipped a lot of words and changed a few. Modern “Lorem ipsum” generators randomly pull from a bank of Latin or Latin-sounding words after the first few traditional sentences.

      • @Lovethatscience

        No, its gibberish. Look up Lorem ipsum

  • Jimmy Tom

    I read articles before throwing in my opinion but I don’t know latin so this is on someone else.

    • Skona Brittain

      I don’t know Latin either, but I trust Google Translate. Most of it isn’t really Latin. And of the phrases that are, most are gibberish. But 70% of them are true.

    • Kirsten Holm

      I also read articles…

  • Bradford Hatcher

    Fifty percent of Facebook science article headlines have logical, grammatical, or lexical errors.

    • LOL. You may be on to something there….

  • Fredrixen

    I vide quid ibi fecerit.

  • Elshaneo Grande

    TLDR

  • 89% of all statistics are just made up – and 69.352423417% are spuriously exact

    • Isn’t it 3.1416666666666666666666 Infinity? That’s what I was told………. 😀

  • JN

    The only question remaining: what’s the Latin for “mic drop”?

    • Travis Gargarello

      Its not latin its gibberish… *drops mic*

  • And 70% of science articles are just edited versions of the press release (written by a PR person with no science qualifications), of which 65% misrepresent the actual findings of the study.

    • Bisanzio

      that’s interesting. do you have the source?

      • jonathan

        Everybody knows 82% of percentages are made up on the spot. But honestly this is a pretty common thing. At least in my experience.

        • Bisanzio

          I don’t doubt it, but a reliable source would make the topic stronger. And would like to use it in my own.

          • Kirsten Holm

            For sure! Thank you for speaking.

        • pazke

          I thought it was 92%? You’d better check your source.

          • Kirsten Holm

            hooray — sources are important & sharing them so we can evaluate what is being presented as the case.

        • Stir_ the_ pot

          Actually, it’s 94% using government accounting methods.

          Unless it’s unemployment calculations, which would adjust it to 4.9%.

          • Kirsten Holm

            You are fabulous in bringing a humorous presentation to the sorry state of affairs. Thank you, I can get glum about these things, and just knowing there are others who get it & can help us laugh about it gives me hope in changing things. And starting to talk about it — for me just recognizing I’m not crazy (!!!) helps. I’m hoping we can all start making changes I guess.

        • GUILTY!!! LOL

        • Melinda Johnson

          Thank you, N of 1. 😉

      • Kirsten Holm

        Yeh!

    • Chris Lachapelle

      Citation Needed.

      • Kirsten Holm

        yeh!

    • Kirsten Holm

      Oh crap, that’s awful if true. The latter stat of just a condensation/abstraction of study findings from a report misrepresenting the study is really concerning. I appreciate your comments and others, because I’ve sensed all this from my own work reviewing, understanding and summarizing for myself science and scholarship in general. Similarly, I also hate that literature review is NOT seen as valuable by most NON-scholars (my perception). And that we have gone to bullet points as a way to communicate in our modern world. Humans are so rich in culture and words — bullet points don’t usually cover the nuances and important things about how a study was designed, what whole range of things the study authors’ see about their particular findings, the strengths and weaknesses of their work, all of which allow us to better understand how the study contributes to knowledge. Of course bullet points are just a symptom/something to bemoan about — It is the larger significance of not helping better create people who can critically assess information, having an over-emphasis on just creating “buyers” of goods and services to create profit, all based on having a society dominated by capital. Time for change. My synopsis of it. Of course there’s much more and discussion would allow us all to think more deeply about the issues.

  • Darren Evans

    I for one, love Latin numbers.

    • Garion Porter

      SMH lol Thats great! 🙂

    • Melinda Johnson

      Oy. Vey.
      You win.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Ha ha. Dipso fatso.

  • Tervuren

    Funny

  • Monte Davis

    Almost like religion, politics, or any culture-war hill one chooses to die on, eh?

    I *think* the “Lorem ipsum” boilerplate is intended as a joke to the effect of “…and most of you won’t read past the first graf,” but don’t know this site well enough to be certain.

  • Bob Harvey

    tee hee

  • Pingback: Articles + words | Pearltrees()

  • Eurico Junqueira

    you had me at “only 70%”;

  • rllawren

    lol…and who noticed that “Most simply see a headline they like and click share and make a comment.
    A recent study showed that only 70% of people actually read a science
    article.” is a logical contradiction? Most see the headline but 70% actually read.??? lolol

  • rllawren

    And who even noticed that “Most simply see a headline they like and click share and make a comment.
    A recent study showed that only 70% of people actually read a science
    article.” is a logical contradiction. How can MOST simply see the headline and click like, while ONLY 70% read to article??? If that was on purpose, even funnier!

    • ADoS

      70% isn’t most? “Most” is a vague enough word that I could believe it, although they don’t seem to have cited a source…

  • David MacDonell

    Alright… translate that shit now! NOW!

  • Mary Kaye

    Truer words were never spoken.

  • Garion Porter

    LOL Did anyone catch the first two lines just repeat? 😀

  • Rory

    I like the way they say , it’s important to know the content, then the writer confuses ,’only 70% read the article , to mean 70% DON’T read the article in the headline…..

  • c875

    Brilliant! You made the point on at least two levels. I wonder how many people noticed that the first paragraph not only contradicts the headline but itself makes no sense. First time thru, I “read” what I expected to see, not what was written.

    Paris
    in the
    the spring

    🙂

  • Loren Dobson

    Ummmm,…. The title says that 70% ONLY read the headline,…. But the body of the article claims that only 70% read the full article. I read far enough to see that tbey repeated the contradictory claim a second time, and that was enough for me.

  • The headline and the first paragraph are totally contradictory……? Do 70% READ the article or do 70% only read the headline???? Damn. Is it 4/1?

  • Daniëlle Zana

    What language is the rest of the text written in ? Google says its Latin, a dead language on your planet. Put in the the translator , it may not be latin but perhaps a dead version of latin or simply garbage.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam consectetur ipsum sit amet sem vestibulum eleifend. Unfortunately, but fear not. Quisque ultricies nulla a risus facilisis vestibulum. Ut luctus feugiat nisi, ut tincidunt great jaws of life. Morbi luctus orci eget semper fringilla. A driver’s Proin vestibulum neque aliquet. Fusce imperdiet purus in euismod accumsan. Smartphones. It becomes Nullam feugiat nibh, at pellentesque mauris. Smartphones. It becomes urna velit Maecenas, to get pregnant for the porch of the eu. The borders of tellus convallis lacinia Nullam suscipit. Aenean from now, posuere sit amet mauris ac, venenatis becomes no. In fact, the author of eu libero rutrum eros, tincidunt ac tristique now. Mauris eu turpis rutrum mi rutrum.

    Aliquam cursus viverra feugiat enim eget neque. Maecenas nec than the price of, feugiat nisi sed, the borders of the just. Gluten. Duis a molestie leo, ut volutpat nisl. Aenean sed tristique magna, a great man convallis elit. Kids or ceramic arc. No developers bananas pain. Cras fringilla arcu for example, a ornare dui accumsan a. Nam iaculis cursus magna, In tincidunt diam convallis id. Duis vitae elementum mauris, id feugiat nulla.

    Vestibulum vitae odio nec sapien consectetur eleifend at nec risus. Mauris, but now, ornare sit amet convallis non, dapibus in nisl. Also from the fear of a sem condimentum mattis. Aenean lacinia ultricies now, in convallis felis interdum id. They’re not ultricies propaganda. Cras pretium arcu magna, eu cursus tellus varius nec. For now and it was said the greatest poverty. Microwave and it was okay. Vivamus pellentesque sem now, nor greater metus congue nec. Vestibulum euismod pharetra enim auctor. Sed ac felis vulputate

    • c875

      It’s pseudo-Latin, designed not to mean anything at all. It’s a technique used by typographers and web designers to evaluate the appearance of a page without being distracted by the meaning of the text.
      http://www.lipsum.com/feed/html

  • Because vaccines cause autism! LOL

  • Bradford Hatcher

    You often need to read no further than “scientists believe …” to know that someone doesn’t have a clue what science is.

  • sammybaby

    That is legit hilarious.

  • Chuck Johnston

    Let’s hear it for life on Mars!

  • And only 50% ready more than the first paragraph.

  • I understood the text, but but the comment before ..
    Can you explain please ?

  • razorsbk

    1 like = 1 prayer

  • Austerus

    Ah, lorem ipsum, the bane of my childhood.

  • FrankN.Stein

    TL; DR

  • Ramone

    It’s not only science articles, and not only on Facebook. It’s hilarious how many comments on an article make it obvious the commentator hasn’t bothered reading it.

  • “Just 100 more likes and I can cure this baby of cancer.” – Jesus

  • Beth

    Begins translating the Latin. Then realizes she has missed the joke.

  • Aschersleben

    Guaredisch nedunfeg sukschab, netigülend reiken sumsas Fox sumrisutuf muz mittagenbereid eised. Kundwete tabchoder guaredisch Osatgrund rebusch Fox bontera dellerstrift. Nestefirm guaredisch finestma prebied nedol drewitzertra neschtillearus sedkomaben guaredisch.

  • danielmahon

    i know it’s satire, but shouldn’t the inside copy say 30%?

  • Joel Burubado

    haha love it

  • roadwarrior

    lol

  • Deaf258

    Hahaha!! Welcome to the age of 140 characters!

  • Peter Giordano

    Why is this article written in latin? 😛

  • Cheney Benson

    This is a testimony that i will tell to every one to hear. i have been married four 4years and on the fifth year of my marriage, another woman had to take my lover away from me and my husband left me and the kids and we have suffered for 2years until i met a post where this man Dr.ATIAFO have helped someone and i decided to give him a try to help me bring my lover back home and believe me i just send my picture to him and that of my husband and after 48hours as he have told me, i saw a car drove into the house and behold it was my husband and he have come to me and the kids and that is why i am happy to make every one of you in similar to met with this man and have your lover back to your self.His email: atitafospelltemple@yahoo.com .OR YOU CAN ALSO ADD HIM UP ON WHATSAPP USING THIS MOBILE NUMBER+2347067607073..

  • arnte

    Ha ha ha

  • Facebook, where is my latin-translator?

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | Bankingre()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | Web Drove()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | ListAuthor()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | Column Diary()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | EducationMC()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds - Forctr()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | DailyLivings()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | Chromobile()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | Fitness Athlet()

  • Fredrik Holmberg

    VERY good 🙂

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | Culture Across()

  • Pingback: 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked, study finds | ABC Featured()

  • Pingback: Six in 10 people will post a news story on social media WITHOUT reading it | AAB()

  • Pingback: Six in 10 people will post a news story on social media WITHOUT reading it | Boom News()

  • Pingback: 6 in 10 of you will share this link without reading it, a new, depressing study says | Move Along People()

  • Pingback: 无脑转发的日子什么时候才是个头 – ITMAX-()

  • Pingback: 大都會計程車事件啟示,人們盲目轉發文章的日子會有結束的一天嗎? – 大數聚()

  • 🙂

  • Pingback: Texto casi Diario » Blog Archive » Compartir sin leer etc()

  • Pingback: 70% Pengguna Facebook Akan Membagikan Link Ini Tanpa Membaca Isinya | lizylife()

  • Pingback: На 6 из 10 ссылок в Twitter никто не кликал (вместо этого их ретвитят) — SciGeek()

  • Pingback: 59% de ceux qui partagent cet article n'ont même pas cliqué sur le lien - Blog du Modérateur()

  • Pingback: Réseaux sociaux : Est-ce que vous aussi vous partagez sans lire ? | ajd-mr()

  • Pingback: 6 av 10 delar utan att ha läst artikeln | Dagensanalys.se()

  • Pingback: Non leggiamo più di metà degli articoli che condividiamo online()

  • Pingback: Tento článek budete sdílet, ale nebudete ho číst • RESPEKT()

  • Pingback: 6 Persone su 10 NON Leggono Quel che Condividono - DataMediaHub()

  • Jose da Silva

    I had a suspicious about that, but what I really think is taht ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam consectetur
    ipsum sit amet sem vestibulum eleifend. Donec sed metus nisi. Quisque
    ultricies nulla a risus facilisis vestibulum.
    Ut luctus feugiat nisi,
    eget molestie magna faucibus vitae. Morbi luctus orci eget semper
    fringilla. Proin vestibulum neque a ultrices aliquet. Fusce imperdiet
    purus in euismod accumsan. Suspendisse potenti. Nullam efficitur feugiat
    nibh, at pellentesque mauris. Suspendisse potenti. Maecenas efficitur
    urna velit, ut gravida enim vestibulum eu. Nullam suscipit finibus
    tellus convallis lacinia

  • Pingback: Pesquisas indicam: 70% dos usuários do Twitter são antas()

  • Pingback: Une farce qui révèle la consommation digitale de l’information – The Brain's Watch()

  • Pingback: Headlines only: 59 Prozent der Nutzer teilen Artikel ungelesen | t3n()

  • Pingback: Headlines only: 59 Prozent der Nutzer teilen Artikel ungelesen | admin()

  • Pingback: Do que compartilhamos online, lemos menos da metade – Lucilia Diniz()

  • Pingback: Sören Emmrich // Headlines only: 59 Prozent der Nutzer teilen Artikel ungelesen //Sören Emmrich()

  • Pingback: So, So, So Many Wednesday Links! | Gerry Canavan()

  • Pingback: Social News: 60% no lee lo que comparte()

  • Pingback: Shallow Reading (and Reporting) « Another Word For It()

  • Powerglide

    Sorry, my Latin is too rusty to read the article.

  • Pingback: 6 із 10 користувачів соцмереж діляться посиланнями на матеріали, які навіть не читали | Watcher()

  • Pingback: 7 articoli su 10 vengono condivisi senza essere letti -()

  • LOL.

  • Pingback: Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting – Jon Dron's home page()

  • Pingback: Six in 10 people will post a news story on social media WITHOUT reading it | News Feed()

  • Pingback: Facebook Kullanıcılarının 'i, Bilim Haberlerinin Sadece Başlıklarını Okuyup, İçeriği Okumadan Yorum Yapıyor! - Trigonamedia()

  • Pingback: Facebook Kullanıcılarının 'i, Bilim Haberlerinin Sadece Başlıklarını Okuyup, İçeriği Okumadan Yorum Yapıyor! - Trigonamedia()

  • Pingback: 你也被這篇文騙到了嗎?「70% 網友只看標不看內文」 | TechNews 科技新報()

  • Pingback: Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the head...()

  • Pingback: Mind-Mints Weekly Mints #91 heb je het gelezen voor je deelt? | Kim Dik()

  • Neto Neto

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet…

  • Pingback: Too long; didn’t read; retweeted nevertheless – Heureka()

  • Mike Stirton

    Not just science articles…pretty much any article…especially political ones.

  • Kevin Snider

    bump,.. 😛

  • Pingback: “Uber’s car leasing program turns its drivers into modern-day sharecroppers” and other Twinks… | the rasx() context()

  • Richard Labus

    I read it.

  • Clark

    Yeah right! “Ut luctus feugiat nisi, eget molestie magna faucibus vitae.”!? I would rather say that “Aenean ex nunc, posuere sit amet mauris ac, venenatis efficitur nulla” would be the correct statement! Who are with me?

  • Thor Rudebeck

    Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus.

  • 𝓔𝓻𝓪𝓼𝒆𝓻 𝓐𝓷𝓸𝓷𝓤𝓚

    Gak – wha…. 🙂

    https://gfycat.com/ReadyDizzyEyas

  • Pingback: 6 in 10 of you will share this link without reading it, a new, depressing study says | P2P Foundation()

  • Pingback: Você tem 60% de chance de compartilhar esta notícia – sem nem ler | Superinteressante()

  • Pingback: Facebook part à la chasse aux rumeurs ! – Le Buzz du Biz()

  • beurbs

    Probably jaded from clicking through to discover the articles are bullshit. Like this one.

  • Pingback: Pizzagate, Hillary, Child Sex Rings, and the Truth | MadisonsCPC()

  • Jesse Wolfe

    Hahahaha

  • Pingback: Clickbait is Destroying Science: 3 reasons to delete the internet | Communicating Science 2016T2 Section 211()

  • Pingback: Die 11 Powerwörter, die jeder Single kennen sollte | TanjaRegenbach.de()

  • Pingback: Clickbait and Entertainment Driven News is Destroying The Media | The Brain Cell()

  • Pingback: The important link of facts & News | Site Title()

  • Pingback: Clickbait and Entertainment Driven News is Destroying The Media! - The Brain Cells()

  • Pingback: Why you must keep a positive outlook – THE BOSNIA PROJECT()

  • Dr Norman Page

    TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””
    I hope your serious readers will read beyond the headline

    • Chris

      Wow. Ironic spam!