Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1177/1464884916688290 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1177/1464884916688290 C5944087!5944087!29782573     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Journalism+(Lond) 2018 ; 19 (5): 668-83 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29782573|t=2018. What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices |pdf=|usr=}}{{29782573}} gab.com Text What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices JO: Journalism (Lond) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29782573 #FOAvip 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. Twit Text FOAVip What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices ????Journalism (Lond) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29782573 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29782573 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29782573}}</ref> What clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices #MMPMID29782573 Kormelink TG; Meijer IC Journalism (Lond) 2018[May]; 19 (5): 668-83 PMID29782573show ga 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. äWhat clicks actually mean: Exploring digital news user practices (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing