  Used by a variety of researchers, web archive collections have become
invaluable sources of evidence. If a researcher is presented with a web archive
collection that they did not create, how do they know what is inside so that
they can use it for their own research? Search engine results and social media
links are represented as surrogates, small easily digestible summaries of the
underlying page. Search engines and social media have a different focus, and
hence produce different surrogates than web archives. Search engine surrogates
help a user answer the question "Will this link meet my information need?"
Social media surrogates help a user decide "Should I click on this?" Our use
case is subtly different. We hypothesize that groups of surrogates together are
useful for summarizing a collection. We want to help users answer the question
of "What does the underlying collection contain?" But which surrogate should we
use? With Mechanical Turk participants, we evaluate six different surrogate
types against each other. We find that the type of surrogate does not influence
the time to complete the task we presented the participants. Of particular
interest are social cards, surrogates typically found on social media, and
browser thumbnails, screen captures of web pages rendered in a browser. At
$p=0.0569$, and $p=0.0770$, respectively, we find that social cards and social
cards paired side-by-side with browser thumbnails probably provide better
collection understanding than the surrogates currently used by the popular
Archive-It web archiving platform. We measure user interactions with each
surrogate and find that users interact with social cards less than other types.
The results of this study have implications for our web archive summarization
work, live web curation platforms, social media, and more.
