avatarSmillew Rahcuef

Summary

The website content humorously suggests using a specific Medium article as a pseudo-scientific source to support any argument due to the low likelihood of readers actually clicking on links within articles.

Abstract

The article titled "The Ultimate Online Scientific Source That Proves You’re Right" on Medium proposes a satirical solution for individuals who struggle to find scientific backing for their opinions. It cites studies indicating that less than 1% of readers click on links in articles, implying that one can link to almost any webpage without scrutiny. The author emphasizes that the appearance of links is crucial, as a significant minority of readers hover over links to gauge credibility. The article recommends using its Medium link as a catch-all source for arguments, touting the reputation of Medium and the author's unique name, Smillew Rahcuef, as factors that lend authenticity and persuasive power to any claim.

Opinions

  • The author suggests that the credibility of an argument can be bolstered by linking to any article, regardless of its relevance, due to the rarity of readers actually following the links.
  • There is a perception among readers and writers that non-mainstream sources are more authentic and indicate thorough research, rather than relying on easily accessible information from sites like Wikipedia.
  • The article playfully promotes the idea that the title "the-ulitmate-online-scientific-source-that-proves-youre-right" and the author's distinct name contribute to the link's perceived reliability.
  • The author acknowledges the importance of a link's appearance in maintaining the illusion of credibility, with less conventional names and reputable domains like Medium serving as effective tools for deception.
  • It is implied that the effort to find genuine scientific evidence is unnecessary when the goal is to persuade the majority who do not verify sources.

The Ultimate Online Scientific Source That Proves You’re Right

(Works for all types of articles)

Photo by Cytonn Photography on Unsplash

You know that feeling when you have a strong opinion about a topic, and, deep down, you KNOW that you’re right, but you don’t have a scientific source to corroborate your gut feeling?

This article is for you.

Based on several scientific studies conducted between 2018 and 2021, with over 25,200 participants, we know less than 1% of readers click on the links in any article.

It means you can safely use any page you like to support any of your crazy thesis. You can talk about social justice and link to a page full of boob pictures to prove your point, or you can write about Europe and link to a page analyzing all the Top Gun movies; it does NOT matter. The vast majority of people won’t read any of them.

Why would you care about the 1% when you can safely convince the 99% to believe you?

Maybe I shouldn’t tell you this dirty trick, but the only limit is your creativity. In an article about former President Trump, I once used a page about manholes and sexual fantasies to support my commentary on his foreign policy!!

However, be careful with the appearance of your links.

Follow-up studies showed that while people do not click, they often (between 27% to 42% depending on the studies) hover over the links to check if they look legit.

While a link starting with “en.wikipedia.org” might look like gold, it’s not the standard anymore. Readers and (even more so) writers got tired of Wikipedia. They think it’s too easy and prefers sources that aren’t mainstream. Readers and (even more so) writers believe using alternative sources proves you took the time to dig into the topic. It shows you did the work and put in the effort to find authentic source materials instead of clicking on the first results you got from your favorite search engine.

But we both know you don’t want to put in the time and effort.

Right?

Anyway, you know you’re telling the truth. You don’t need scientific articles to argue your case.

That’s where this article comes in handy

Feel free to use it as a link for any of your ideas, batshit or not.

It displays several advantages:

  1. The link will begin with “medium.com/” which is a reputable and reliable website, as the abundant self-help literature you can find proves.
  2. If someone is more curious than the average, they will check the entirety of the link and will see the title “the-ulitmate-online-scientific-source-that-proves-youre-right.” That should convince them all right. It’s “ultimate,” “scientific,” and it “proves you’re right.” How could it be any more persuasive? If your readers don’t trust this, they won’t trust anything.
  3. The author of the article is Smillew Rahcuef. Even if he wasn’t famous for being trustworthy and honest, his name is reliable. Your source doesn’t come from a James Smith or a David Jones. That would sound super fake. Instead, your source is a wild scientist (see the hat) named Smillew. One cannot make that up. Therefore, it’s above suspicion.

Takeaway

The article is the takeaway.

Would you like to know more about the author?

Humor
Satire
Social Media
Inspiration
The Bad Influence
Recommended from ReadMedium