Recently, I was reading an article on Psychology which had a reference to a paper on the journal of Computers In Human Behavior. Going to their website, I found that the most read article was The links that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook. I looked it up as I was expecting a novel technique of extracting information about the motivation of people when they post links on Facebook or in general in social networks. Obviously, affected by my computer science background, I would not be surprised if there was employed an analysis based on the profile of the total posts of a user, the link between other recently posts, location, comments on the link and other factors that I can’t think of at the moment. Maybe a categorization of the link according to its title, the contents of the target. Something even more complex (as recognizing a concept by an image — did you know that you can search with an image on Google?) could be possible.
Instead, what I found was the responses of some people about what they think are their motivations summarized in a very good way by the authors. Very often, the most direct way of finding something is to ask ourselves and hope that we reply sincerely, though that is not guaranteed. Furthermore, my expectations were arbitrary, I guess. The journal is “[…] dedicated to examining the use of computers from a psychological perspective. […] Therefore, professionals with an interest in the psychological aspects of computer use, but with limited knowledge of computers, will find this journal of interest.”
Nevertheless, I would prefer an article based on data extracted more objectively.