4 ms·

The technology choices seem okay. I suspect it could have been done fairly quickly and slightly less expensively just by putting the metadata into the postgres

by takno 11y ago

The technology choices seem okay. I suspect it could have been done fairly quickly and slightly less expensively just by putting the metadata into the postgres image and running plain SQL queries there. On the other hand gaining some experience of Spark is a reasonable thing to want to do as part of the analysis. I'd be concerned for the analysis itself that using the blocking of a comment as a proxy for the comment being abusive contains significant risk of confirmation bias - moderators may be more inclined to moderate articles by authors with traditionally female names, or those authors may be more inclined to report comments, or indeed they may be more inclined to write articles on more controversial topics. I can't think of a better automated approach to the analysis, and I find the outputs pretty believable, but I'd be wary of regarding the study as evidence.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
There's definitely a problem with confirmation bias. The G regularly moderates fact-based non-abusive comments that challenge the party line - especially on its own rather peculiar brand of feminism. At the same time it doesn't moderate comments that are simple insults if they agree with its angle on other topics, such as its aggressively institutionalised dislike of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. This seems to be part of an attempt to link commenters who don't agree with the official line with the worst excesses of online trolling. It's a rather nasty move, and trying to pretend it's a scientific analysis doesn't make the G look good.
Uhhrrr 11y ago
They respond to that and other criticism here: >It is also important to say that it is true that the research is only valid if you accept a) that the Guardian's community standards are fit for purpose, and b) that the moderators are reasonably skilled at applying them. Some readers may not accept either of these things, and our research is not designed to justify these assumptions. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-analysed-70m-comments-guardian-website#comment-72218686 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-an...
- takno 11y ago
  I made no comment on the fitness for purpose of the community standards or the skill of application. I'm mostly commenting that the standards are largely reactively enforced, and this can lead to bias.
  - Uhhrrr 11y ago
    Oh, I agree - I was just quoting they acknowledge that point of view and don't dispute it.

by takno 11y ago

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

There's definitely a problem with confirmation bias. The G regularly moderates fact-based non-abusive comments that challenge the party line - especially on its own rather peculiar brand of feminism. At the same time it doesn't moderate comments that are simple insults if they agree with its angle on other topics, such as its aggressively institutionalised dislike of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. This seems to be part of an attempt to link commenters who don't agree with the official line with the worst excesses of online trolling. It's a rather nasty move, and trying to pretend it's a scientific analysis doesn't make the G look good.

Uhhrrr 11y ago

They respond to that and other criticism here: >It is also important to say that it is true that the research is only valid if you accept a) that the Guardian's community standards are fit for purpose, and b) that the moderators are reasonably skilled at applying them. Some readers may not accept either of these things, and our research is not designed to justify these assumptions. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-analysed-70m-comments-guardian-website#comment-72218686 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-an...

takno 11y ago
I made no comment on the fitness for purpose of the community standards or the skill of application. I'm mostly commenting that the standards are largely reactively enforced, and this can lead to bias.
- Uhhrrr 11y ago
  Oh, I agree - I was just quoting they acknowledge that point of view and don't dispute it.