I Herd It On The Internet

Okay, I've been mulling over the study that DeRo talks about here for over a week now, and I still don't know entirely what to make of it. I may have to go get a copy of Science magazine to get the actual details, because I've got a whole bunch of questions:

• Jim calls it an online store, but says only that participants downloaded tracks. He didn't say that any money changed hands. That's actually kind of important.
• Is the only measure of popularity the number of downloads? Or were participants asked to rate the songs? I think the latter may be the case, based on another article I had skimmed. This one seems to have the most detail, saying participants listened to a song, then rated it, then were offered the opportunity to download it. At the same time, the professor overseeing the study is quoted as saying "If a lot of people independently vote for a song, we are going to call that quality." I don't know what that means.
• If the participants had to pay for the song, and then were asked to rate it, I don't know if we're talking about sheeplike behavior as much as we are an unwillingness to admit you wasted your money. We've all made that kind of choice, haven't we?
• If both groups selected and then rated their music, and the experimental group rated the music they chose more highly, then we're on to something. Even better would be if subjects rated songs they didn't select, but they still knew how many times it was downloaded, because then you lose that vested interest problem.

There's definitely food for thought in there, but I don't think this completely discounts the notion of individual tastemakers. If you added, say, a critic's rating or a celebrity playlist, I think you'd get a more interesting picture of what is more important.