A comment on VISIBILITY viz a viz Content-Oblivious Quality Measures

In the 2015 draft of my essay On Content-Oblivious Quality Measures, 
I defined the *visibility* of a scientific work or a researcher
as the way they are perceived by the relevant research community.
Reconsidering this definition, 
I found it a bit artificial (and somewhat too idealistic). 
It seems more natural to define visibility as 
what is visible from the outside (by non-experts). 

Needless to say, these two definition are not compatible. 
The first definition is related to the actual contents of the work,
whereas the second refers to external views of that contents;
actually, these external views are focused at the observable behavior 
of the relevant research community, and are contents-oblivious.
It is indeed believed that the observable behavior of the community
reflects its evaluation of the contents of the work, but the
observable behavior itself (e.g., invitations to various venues,
appointments to various positions etc) is contents-oblivious.

The confusion between these two definitions of visibility
mirrors the confusion between the two definitions of impact,
which is the pivot of the entire essay.
Like in 2015, I think it is better to carry out the discussion
by referring to the notion of quality, because the latter term
still maintains a reference to the actual contents, a reference
that is still maintained in spite of  the common practice of using 
content-oblivious measures that claim to evaluate quality.
Yet, currently, I find it better to define visibility as referring
to the externaly observed behavior and to analyze the gap between
these observations and the actual evlaution of the research community.