Daily Papers

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.

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.

When many people highlight the same document, is the crowd a single consensus, or is it internally structured into reader sub-groups that mark different things -- and is that structure a stable property of a reader or of the document? Building on prior work showing an individual's within-document highlighting signal is a whisper while individuality lives in selection, we ask the group-level question on a co-readership platform using a margin-preserving curveball null. Experiment 1: within a document, readers form strong sub-groups -- pairs agree far beyond what shared salience, mark density, and sentence popularity predict (nearest-neighbour agreement z=+6.3, significant in 88% of documents). Under an eight-block region-preserving null, shared engagement with the same coarse regions of the document accounts for about 40% of this excess; the majority survives as finer reader-specific agreement (z=+3.6, 77% significant). So the within-document crowd is, in a descriptive sense, factional. Experiment 2: is that grouping a stable reader trait? Here we are honest about power. The cross-document split-half reproducibility of a pair's agreement is near zero pooled (+0.078 and 0.000 in two separately drawn samples), and a power calibration shows the test is informative only for pairs that co-read many documents. In the only informative high-overlap subset (k>=4), point estimates are positive but small-sample, imprecise across the separately drawn samples, never significant, and attenuate under the region-preserving null. We therefore leave cross-document stability unresolved: the data is consistent with anything from situational grouping to a weak-to-moderate stable reader trait. The crowd is factional within a document; whether its factions follow the reader across documents is, honestly, beyond our reach.