The George Bell article is the only one that still haunts me-and probably George as well--the man who tried to get away without a blip--and almost made it--save for that article that spent something like three days on the front page of the New York Times--and will forever be reprised in the future "best of" lists.

Or maybe the phone rang and I walked away from the computer, or switched to another screen, window or task, with the story still open.

I always considered myself as one of the voracious readers of The New York Times and now I find myself to have read hardly 12 % of this list. How come I missed 88 % if these articles are that popular, perhaps my taste of issues might not be matching with that of majority of the readers.

A lot of people are talking about the methodology of compiling this list and such, which is a perfectly valid discussion. But I'm just glad I got to catch some fantastic stories that I somehow missed, namely:

#19: A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise that Roared (Wow, how did I miss this?)

#14: ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape (Depressing but a must-read)

#22: Poor Little Rich Women (what I, a non-New Yorker, think of as a quintessential NYT piece)

#27: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts (Lots to think about here)

For these, and the others that I had already read: thank you, NYT staff. Very impressive, interesting, and thought-provoking work.

I am only guessing that many of us readers left the "Big Wedding or Small?" article open and unread for days.

I may be skewing the results on some of these, thanks to NYT's Comments app. Since subscribing to the NYT on Jan 1 of this year, I have become a frequent contributor. At first I would comment, and move on to the next article that caught my interest. A while later I would receive an email notification that my comment had been accepted and posted. But sometime in the summer I began to note that, if I revisited the article, my comment had been posted but I had not been notified. This has become the norm rather than the exception. Now, I rarely receive notifications. I've had two NYT Picks that I was not told had been published. I began to leave every article I commented on open, until I either found my comment or, finally, gave up looking for it. I email the links to my comments to my siblings (we range in age from 60-69) and we banter back and forth about them. For the past 6+ months, for the majority of my comments, I have had to send the address to the article (no direct link to my comment) and give them directions as best I can to where it is located in the Comments column, how many "Recommends" it has so that when 2 or more readers "Recommend" it can, as a last resort be found there.

All this is a long way to say that nearly every night, I go to bed with as many as 3 or 4 articles open on my computer for as long as 12-18 hours before I either find my comment or just give up.

By the way, the vast majority of my comments are posted. It's frustrating.

"total combined time readers have spent looking at them"

So... stories from January have had more time available to be looked at? It's standardized to the number of readers?

I shouldn't be surprised that the NYT is tracking my reading habits BUT this makes me long for the old days with the NYT on the doorstep and no prying eyes.

The story about George Bell still haunts me.

For the #1 article on this list, the New York Times developed a mobile app, and advised readers that in order to get through the questionnaire, they would "want a partner (friend, lover or stranger) and about 50 minutes."

That's right, 36 questions in 50 minutes, assuming that the couple doesn't linger over the questions. Given the built-in time requirement of the article, it's not so surprising that it's #1, but it also shows that time spent on an article is a rather questionable metric.

I definitely stay on articles longer when these articles have readers' comments. In point of fact, I'm still on this article right now because I wanted to see what other readers had to say; when I saw that several readers raised really interesting questions about what it actually means to have the tab open, I lingered (interest in article? too lazy to clean up tabs? a note to self that you want to read it later when you have more time? or interest in readers comments?).

That got me thinking how much I value the readers comments. This isn't necessarily a derogatory comment on the article itself; sometimes well observed articles will generate many comments because of the rich topic. And I think the Times tops all other outlets in moderating the comments to keep them civil (usually). Very often I learn something new from the comments. I myself am not verified nor do I particularly care if I'm a "Pick." Indeed, I will often comment well after there is a chance of even being read much. What I like is the conversation itself. The opportunity for dialogue and different points of view.

I would definitely ask the Times to consider the role of Readers Comments in overall statistical time spent with the tab open on the article.

Does that include the "back to article " time ?

I was about to write a few comments on how this is misleading given tabbed browsers but beaten to the punch several times.

Possibly another metric is to determine the amount of times a story is viewed based on its published date.

If a story is published tomorrow, how often to people view it on the day it's published, the day after, the day after that, and so on.

Possibly that's another metric to consider?

It also might be interesting that same metric based on the type of article (news as opposed to a book review as opposed to an editorial and so on).

This is a great feature, and looking back at this stories I am reminded of some of the excellent investigative journalism we read this year. The Lonely Death of George Bell, the nail salon story, the women of ISIS: all outstanding.

Finally--NYT is starting to pay attention to time, our one irreplaceable and highly undervalued resource. Now to find a way to add in the scrolols to deal with the open browser issues but if anyone can do it I'm betting NYT will lead the parade! Happy to see Star Trek in the mix, of course.

As others have said, with tabbed browsers, I often leave a story open while I use the tabs to go to other sites. It could remain open for hours without me actually reading it. Sometimes, I'll put my computer on sleep mode, which keeps the browser open to whatever pages I left it on, and come back to it a day later.
How much does this behavior skew the metrics?

I would say time spent on an article does not necessarily equal "favorite" article! And I would also say - who cares, really? Do we really need yet another "best of" category in our lives at the end of the year - I sometimes feel like all is lost to these endless lists of what was best and worst about every single possible thing in the year that just passed. . . .

I thought I practically lived on this site, and I'm surprised by how many of these I didn't read. Also, as numerous others have said, I also frequently have multiple tabs open, it doesn't mean I spent 5 hours savoring one article.

It seems to me that the most revealing point concerns the fact that - considering the highly-involved, concerned, introspective and progressive readership of the New York Times - especially those who read and interact with the digital version - the number-one, most-read article between January 1 - November 30, 2015 was...

A fluff piece from the Fashion & Styles section about whether to have a big or small wedding --

And to think -- I had no idea what I'd been missing...

A word on methodology is needed here. Some of these essays are very long (George Bell), some much shorter. How was "time spent" actually measured? How was that number related to the number of readers? That is, if 100,000 readers read the Bell article in 10 minutes what was the length of time assigned to that piece? If 200,000 people spent one minute reading the obit for Nimroy how would that be measured? And do you have a way of calculating reading-time versus "open tab" time? For example, I often begin reading an essay and then am called to the phone. I leave the tab open but I am not reading.
Please fill in how the measurements and calculations were made. Fascinating list. Thank you.

You track duration? Wow.

Wish there were a better explanation of how you determined how much time readers spent on the article. I sometimes leave an article open on my laptop for two or three days until I get to it. Pretty sure that wasn't counted … or was it?

Or, I open several articles at once—the morning's reading—and close them as I read them. But I might actually just glance at an article before deciding I'm not really going to spend time reading it.

I'm sure most people don't read that way, so I'm curious how this was measured.

Somehow it's creepier to have the amount of time I'm on a page measured.

Ought-oh. I'm afraid I skewed the results every time I fell asleep while trying to finish an article.

#20 remains the greatest story of the year for me. Heck, the year? Greatest story of my life, in which I truly never thought I'd get to marry. Thank you all over again, SCOTUS!

The George Bell story was beautifully told. One of my all-time favorite NYT pieces.

For me it was "ISIS Women and Enforcers in Syria Recount Collaboration, Anguish and Escape". Who's the villain who's the heroine? Who's the victim who's the perpetrator? Or were the featured individuals all of those things. From their perspective it's not as black and white as we on the outside see it.

I actually remember reading 23 out of the 50, and commenting on those that took comments. I think of all of the stories, the one on George Bell haunted me the most--I will never forget that photo of his apartment, minus George. Others that impacted me were Angelina Jolie's story, How much exercise do you need to live a long life, and the interactive best places to grow up.

Once I begin reading something, I usually finish but there are always more interesting headlines than I have time for. Clearly, as with most of life, things that impact me personally get my first priority, which makes "human interest", particularly Modern Love, stories the ones I gravitate to first.

I guess one could turn reading the NYT into a full time job! My excuse these days is retirement forced by recovery from injuries, which means I'm home a lot But, I also think there are just some excellent multitaskers (and fast readers) who are able to digest a lot, even while working.

More power to them--an informed citizen tends to be a productive one.

Isn't the length of each article an important variable that would affect how long a reader is on a specific article? I saw no mention of this.

Like so many others I right-click on something I think I may want to read and then click to open it in a new tab. I may get to that tab sooner or much, much later. Sometimes a tab will be open all day and when I finally glance at it I close it within seconds when I decide I'm not really interested.

I'm sure this is a common practice.

Thank you, NY times. It is a great pleasure to go over some of the insightful topics once again, now that the initial knee-jerk reactions ebbed, and to find out more that slipped off my mind in the first place.
Two minor suggestions:
1. To add a category of “Science and technology”, now that those are playing greater roles in everybody’s daily life.
2. The data you have is such a rich treasure mine for social studies. Now I’m curious in other aspects of the spreading of those stories. Say, are the interests heavily skewed towards some regions of your readers, or more evenly dispersed?

George Bell was the best story of the year. The one I'll remember 20 years from now.

I'm surprised that the George Bell story isn't at the very top of the list. It was certainly the most gripping thing I read in the Times this year.

This raises so many questions, and a few concerns. Of course I know that in accessing any online media I am submitting to some level of data collection. But you are counting minutes of eyes-on? Does clicking onto the story to submit or read comments count? How many of these most-read (more literally, most accessed) stories had comment threads, and of those how many had threads that remained open for a couple days? You see where this goes? Oh, well, I guess I just bit the bait.

In addition to those of us who stay on the page to gobble up comments like they were bonbons, there are also the many commenters who also stay simply to see if their comment gets published since your email notification system has been very inconsistent.

Then there are those who submit comments who want to check for replies or see how many recommends they got, which is fun. They either keep the window open for long periods of time or keep going back.

It should be quick and easy to weed out the comment-less articles for analysis. Please give us an update when that's done. Inquiring minds would like to know.

The year is not over.

The NYT should factor for which articles allow comments before drawing any conclusions.

I often leave various articles open for a long time in tabs on my screen so that I can keep going back to read new comments. While comments from the Verifieds appear immediately, being submitted as quickly as possible to win and keep a highly visible spot for their comment by gaining recommends, some of us get tired of their broken record and parroting the party line. We actually linger to read and savor subsequent comments because they are often are more unique and thought provoking.

Don't underestimate the sheer pleasure of the treasure hunt, looking for a savvy, humorous, or incisive comment, especially since the articles themselves often lack perspective and critical analysis that is the food for thought.

Articles that allow comments are more valuable to the NYT reader than those without precisely because they include information, analysis, and interpretation too often missing. No offense intended, but NYT readers don't get all our news from the NYT. When we See Something missing, we Say Something.

So please don't assume that length of time the article remains open means any one thing without exploring other possibilities. It could be the treasure hunt and looking for missing pieces that keeps eyeballs on an article. For instance, looking for substantive policy ideas from Bernie Sanders in an article about his hair.

Thank you for approving this as a NYT Pick!

Would someone please give the New York Times a raise ?

The 'paper of record' does it again... day in and day out... year in and year out... informing the world against great 'disinformative' odds.

Bravo, NYT !

After a quick look at the top 50, it was number 35, Leonard Nimoy’s death, that stood out for me. I find it interesting that his death, among all the well known people who have died this year, made it to the top 50 viewed stories. Is it because so many of us boomers grew up watching Star Trek? I think that is part of it with the other part being that his character, Spock, represented peace over violence. Something that so many of wish our leaders would come to understand.

Does this mean I shouldn't open all the stuff I want to read in tabs and then leave those tabs open all day?

Tracking of practically everything. What articles interest me. How long I take to read them. What I save. What I forward or share. What my IP address is when I read or visit, whether logged-in or not. My geo-location (unless I am using TOR). What devices I use. Some of the reasons why I prefer to read the news "paper," but obviously I succumb to the convenience of the availability on the internet. I realize that data is "aggregated" for purposes of this story, but I believe my individual data is retained for at least some period of time.

Wonderful to revisit these articles!

This is a great presentation, and 50 reasons I value my subscription to the Times and the depth and breadth of its readership.

I'm glad to be reminded of #28 though, that article about US soldiers having to turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse was shocking and important. It illustrated perfectly the fallacious thinking that sends our soldiers to endless wars to beat an ideology that they're told not to fight.