Survey: Do people even read the actual Article or just the Current posts?

I'll usually just read the post. I'll check out the original article if the post doesn't make sense to me.

I always read both. I read the description to get a glimpse of what is to come but I also look at the source regardless of whether or not the text is entirely posted under the description.

I just read the article titles.

Sometimes both, sometimes just one.

Sometimes I read both and sometimes I read just the post and sometimes I read just the headline and make a short comment, it depends on the subject and how relevant it is as news and how relevant it is to y personal intrests.

There are articles on this site? Cool!

I read both -- anal retentive for one thing, and I worry that the one time I don't read the underlying article, I will post a response containing an opinion that is soundly undermined in the article.

Also, there are a handful of regulars here (sometimes including me) who don't understand their own articles...so the headlines they create to go with those articles are completely misleading (sadly, those of you who do this don't know who you are).

On the other hand, there are also several regulars here (definitely NOT including me) who are so perceptive and who have such consistently good judgment that I could safely read their responses and trust that they would not lead me astray as to the substance of the articles to which they are responding.

I think it depends on what it is exactly. If it is something I think is important I will take the time to at least look over, but usually really read, the full article.

I tend to read both. It depends on the poster. If it's copy-pasted from the original source with no commentary i'll read the current post if it's a full copy, or the original if it's a partial.

Again, completely depends on who the poster is and my personal attachment to the topic.

I just like the pictures because they influence me when I finger paint.

both if i don't know about it.

I read both. :)

If the article has a good excerpt or summary, and it seems plausible I usually don't bother with the link. However is I doubt the volatility of the article or it has little content, I will follow the link.

If the article is from a questionable source, I tend to check the other posts from that organization.

i usually only read the comments if the article interest me.

I read the original post, sometimes the article, and often I'll check the posters profile, and then I'll respond....but sometimes a poster sends me an article they posted and I'm under pressure at the time, but because I've opened the email I try and get the gist of it and respond......

In an ideal world I think we should have to open an article to vote it down...or up for that matter.

What do you think about that?

You can usually tell who read the article from their response.

I vote down all stories with question marks in the headline, stories that are just a single person giving their opinion, obviously biased headlines, and most stories that seem over-represented to me, such as stories about Marijuana, tasers/police brutality, and Ron Paul. The rest of the time I usually read the articles and decide from there.

i read both if I'm intrigued.

depends, if it's well written/interesting i go to the article, if not i don't

that usually decides my vote as well but not always.

I do both, sometimes. Sometimes I read the post and the comments, then go to the original story for follow-up. Sometimes I only read the post and comments. Some stories aren't important enough to me, to bother going to the link.

When I post, I try to include my interpretation at the top, or the bottom. I generally like to post as much of the original article as possible. If I post it, I'm more interested in sharing the article with others, than how many hits it has. Some people don't have time to go to every link. Some days I can, some days I can't. I enjoy browsing topics of interest and seeing what others think. The comment feature is great. Sometimes I just need to vent.

Depends...

i read both... however i, like most people have already come across the story somewhere else, then i just read/respond to the posts.. the people on here seem a step ahead of the curve, so sometimes what they have to say is more insightful than the original story..

(i just came across current tv and current.com, so much that i will continue to pay the evergrowing cable bill just so i can continue watching the station)

OK, if the post is interesting, and doesn't have all of the info, I move on to the article. If the post seems silly, or the source a bit cliche, I may not ever open it all the way. It is nice sometimes when people re-print the whole article so you don't have to click. I try to read as many sustainability and science articles as I can to keep up on the saving o the world thing.

yeah NP i was very curious

this is a really good thread, thanks for posting it @Crenshaw_Brothers

good idea

I mostly read the Current post, but if the story is really interesting or unbelievable, I'll read the original article.

i usually look to the original articles, unless of course the whole article was cut and paste into the post!

way to go

I read the Current article and the Original article and then the comments!

More people should be encouraged to read the original article because sometimes we can make the mistake of interpreting an article incorrectly.

I read!

Audit the Fed....

exactly why i asked

I read both, and would usually find irrelevant links....

....About the celebrity posts though, those posts would be spam, because the of the links that leads to...

well sorta but i try to get both stories because people when they post them they can edit them and twist them to have different info

I read both. Is there something behind your question?