Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 105,580

            1. …in reply to @dannysullivan
              dannysullivan SCMitchP emilybell datatheism chrismoranuk jodiehop But, it appears to me in this documentation would reattribute credit and therefor Google News placement to the original work. But that may not be in the best interests of the users. Further, "original" is not a useful machine learning signal, allow me to give an example:
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +7 🙂
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            dannysullivan SCMitchP emilybell datatheism chrismoranuk jodiehop A Philly outlet did a detailed story about local drug problems, months later an NYT reporter was sent from NYC to do the same story, b/c they weren't experienced in the community, the NYT story was worse. Both are original but due to other factors NYT's will always be on top.
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -3 🙁
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          dannysullivan SCMitchP emilybell datatheism chrismoranuk jodiehop However, let's say you prioritized people who aggregates stories about Philly to show stories about Philly over 'originality' measures. Local sites with more knowledge would be more effective at gatekeeping the best version of that story.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +5 🙂
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        dannysullivan SCMitchP emilybell datatheism chrismoranuk jodiehop The problem with the current model is that it assumes that Google is the best gatekeeper for all content, but in many cases local or topical journalists are better gatekeepers, or even people who know their audience's tastes like the Mail, and their choices are more relevant.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood +5 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      dannysullivan SCMitchP emilybell datatheism chrismoranuk jodiehop The thing is that gatekeeping is a journalistic function and highly relevant to readers. The assumption that the Daily Mail somehow gamed the system is pretty wrong in my eyes, they were just more effective gatekeepers with better presentation for their large audience.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +3 🙂
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    dannysullivan SCMitchP emilybell datatheism chrismoranuk jodiehop At the end of the day, who is better at determining what readers want in what context? A highly generalized machine or human editors? Further, which of the two have proven more consistently safe for society?
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood +4 🙂

Search tweets' text