Selection, Not Salience: The Shape and Limits of Personalization in Social Highlighting

Does personalizing what a reader sees pay off, and where does it stop? Using a social web highlighter and a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users, which holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does), we map the shape and limits of personalization across reading altitudes. At the document altitude we give the clean, leakage-free, identity-controlled measurement that prior next-document evaluations could only upper-bound: a person's history identifies which documents in a co-reading neighborhood are theirs, with an own-versus-other gap of +0.169 against community negatives and +0.119 against topic-matched hard negatives (both highly significant); a content-based arm suggests the signal is not purely title-driven but is largely thematic. This is comparable to the span-level selection signal (+0.14) from our prior work: the selection signal is of comparable magnitude across altitudes (+0.12 to +0.17), most of it stable topic preference. At the sentence altitude, a two-stage personalized auto-highlight (an impersonal model proposes candidates, a personal model re-ranks them) does not improve on its impersonal baseline: two off-the-shelf zero-shot LLMs, including a frontier model, predict highlight locations worse than a lead baseline, and personal re-ranking is beaten by the salience order even on the highest-recall candidate pool, so the null is not merely a Stage-1 ceiling artifact. Measurable personalization appears primarily at the selection layer: modest (~+0.13), topic-dominated, with no reliable gain at the salience layer. We also surface a control-in-negatives bias that inflated our document gap to a spurious +0.227 until audited. Going beyond the shared salience layer may be better approached by aggregating individuals than by personalizing them harder.

Personal Salience: Highlighting Is Social, but Individuality Lives in Selection

Social highlighters let people mark passages that matter to them. We ask how much of an individual is recoverable from these naturalistic traces, using a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users) that holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does. We separate generic salience (structure), crowd salience (what others marked), and personal salience (the individual residual). First, highlighting is social: which sentences you mark is predicted far better by the crowd than by structure or by a personal model, and even a well-estimated crowd, an information-privileged baseline that sees others' marks on the same document, beats a frontier LLM twin built from your other-document history; the within-document personal signal is at most a whisper (own-vs-other gap +0.017 by an embedding scorer, small but significant). Second, in sharp contrast, individuality lives in selection: asked which of the already-salient passages are yours, your own history is a strong, leakage-free predictor (gap +0.14). A topic decomposition shows this is largely stable thematic preference: it shrinks ~6-8x against a topically-matched peer, and a thin residual cannot be separated from finer topic. The non-obvious part is an asymmetry: under the same scorer the individual signal is ~6-8x weaker in salience than in selection. Methodologically, naive history-conditioning evaluations leak (the target's own marks enter the profile in ~42% of pairs, inflating personal scores by up to +0.15 AP) and small crowds overstate personalization; our results are leakage-free, use a dense crowd, and a model-matched control. Highlights carry a genuine individual signature, but a thin layer over a strong shared one, surfacing far more in which salient things a person selects than in what is salient.

Disentangling Answer Engine Optimization from Platform Growth: A Log-Based Natural Experiment on ChatGPT Referral Traffic

Large language model (LLM) "answer engines" such as ChatGPT now send measurable referral traffic to the open web, and a practice analogous to search engine optimization, here called Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), has emerged. Public AEO success stories typically quote large raw growth multiples, but raw referral growth is confounded by the rapid platform-level growth of the answer engines themselves. We report a longitudinal field study on a single high-traffic domain (glasp.co) whose corpus of hundreds of thousands of YouTube question-and-answer pages received a defined bundle of AEO interventions in January 2026 (detailed in Section 4). Because the interventions were concentrated on one subset of the site, the untreated remainder of the same domain acts as a contemporaneous control that absorbs the platform tailwind. Using first-party analytics and server logs rather than probabilistic third-party estimators, we find: (1) raw growth is dominated by the platform tailwind: on monthly aggregates total ChatGPT referrals grew 5.7x while untreated pages on the same domain grew 3.5x over the same window; (2) an interrupted time-series model on the weekly treated/control ratio estimates a discrete, intervention-aligned level increase of 1.82x (95% CI 1.31-2.54, HAC p=0.001), robust across engagement-filtered traffic (2.27x) and alternative specifications; (3) however, a conservative placebo-in-time permutation test yields p=0.16, so the effect is suggestive, not conclusive, given a short and noisy pre-period; and (4) Google organic clicks to treated pages did not fall beyond the ambient site-wide trend and indexation was preserved, consistent with the SEO-protection rule. The methodological message, separating treatment from platform tailwind with an on-domain control, matters more than any single multiple, and implies that headline AEO multiples substantially overstate causal effect.