Factions Within, Uncertain Across: Within-Document Reader Sub-Groups in Social Highlighting

Prior work on a social web highlighter located individuality in selection -- which documents a person chooses to highlight -- but measured it cross-sectionally. We ask the temporal question: is a reader's selection signature a trait or a state? We freeze each reader's first six months of highlighting as a profile and track its own-vs-other advantage on their later selections at growing gaps (to 24+ months), with negatives drawn from the same calendar era -- so supply drift cannot masquerade as personal drift -- at a coarse global level and at a fine level whose negatives and controls come from the reader's own interest neighborhood; the anchor cell reproduces the prior cross-sectional level (+0.188 vs +0.169), validating the harness. Four results. Within the same users, the fine-layer advantage shows no statistically detectable paired decline at any horizon (6-12 month retention R = 1.00 [0.85, 1.18], n = 212; the farthest bin is compatible with a modest decline; the only contrast whose interval excludes zero is the coarse layer at 12-24 months, about 13%). The signal is not reducible to repeated domains (~90% survives excluding all profile sources). Within-person drift is slow (a recent-half profile beats the old half by +0.042). Prospectively, personal profiles -- even one built from a reader's earliest documents, median 20 months before evaluation -- rank their next reads at roughly 3x the AP of every simple non-personal prior tested. We use "trait" operationally (a stable signature under continued engagement); the scope is heavy, long-tenured readers of one platform, and exposure is not separable from choice.

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.