3 ms·

This thread makes it seem like the general opinion is that an automatically generated news feed would be better. It wouldn't. Not for end users anyways. It w

by Gratsby 10y ago

This thread makes it seem like the general opinion is that an automatically generated news feed would be better. It wouldn't. Not for end users anyways. It would be a marketer's dream. If you feel like that's the way things should be, write one. Make it popular. Sell it to Facebook. (And use the money to buy stock in your roommate's new online marketing firm)

auntyJemima 10y ago
That's not the point, most people have the impression that the trending news is automated and generated by some sort of algorithm. It's highly misleading. The trends should really be called "Facebook's Top Picks" instead.
- spinlock 10y ago
  Do intelligent people believe this? That's as nieve as thinking hacker news' front page is determined solely by the up arrow. Or that product hunt isn't controlled by insiders. Children believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Is it shocking that they're wrong?
  - joslin01 10y ago
    Are intelligent people the only people worth looking out for? Trending implies humanity cares about it, which to the lowly average-joe means humanity cares about it, so s/he should too. This is the part that feels disingenuous on Facebook's part. Of course even average-joe knows (though probably can't express) that everything around him just wants to consume his attention, so I'm also not overly concerned about it.
  - c_c_c 10y ago
    naive or naïve
gozur88 10y ago
>It wouldn't. Not for end users anyways. That's true. The issue here isn't that Facebook tried and failed to implement an automatically generated news feed. The issue is they were called out for bias in the news feed, and then tried to deflect by blaming it on a computer.
AznHisoka 10y ago
Google understood this long ago. You need human editors/curators who can manually flag spam. Otherwise your index will be filled with spammers who gamed the algorithm correctly. Those that argue differently never was responsible for such a large-scale search/media operation.
- mtberatwork 10y ago
  Google News claims to be entirely machine run without human intervention. "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program." [1] [1] https://news.google.com/ https://news.google.com/
  - MasterScrat 10y ago
    I would guess Google News uses fewer and more trusted sources, such as the homepage of well-known news websites. I doubt Facebook marketers have the same kind of standards.
    - awqrre 10y ago
      Google News source selection is pretty broad and I don't think that the sources are selected by humans...
  - MaysonL 10y ago
    The thing is that that computer program gets tweaked, and tweaked, and tweaked again. See for example Google Panda update.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Sources and deselection may be otherwise, and the statement doesn't exclude the possibility.

by Gratsby 10y ago

auntyJemima 10y ago

That's not the point, most people have the impression that the trending news is automated and generated by some sort of algorithm. It's highly misleading. The trends should really be called "Facebook's Top Picks" instead.

spinlock 10y ago
Do intelligent people believe this? That's as nieve as thinking hacker news' front page is determined solely by the up arrow. Or that product hunt isn't controlled by insiders. Children believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Is it shocking that they're wrong?
- joslin01 10y ago
  Are intelligent people the only people worth looking out for? Trending implies humanity cares about it, which to the lowly average-joe means humanity cares about it, so s/he should too. This is the part that feels disingenuous on Facebook's part. Of course even average-joe knows (though probably can't express) that everything around him just wants to consume his attention, so I'm also not overly concerned about it.
- c_c_c 10y ago
  naive or naïve

gozur88 10y ago

>It wouldn't. Not for end users anyways. That's true. The issue here isn't that Facebook tried and failed to implement an automatically generated news feed. The issue is they were called out for bias in the news feed, and then tried to deflect by blaming it on a computer.

AznHisoka 10y ago

Google understood this long ago. You need human editors/curators who can manually flag spam. Otherwise your index will be filled with spammers who gamed the algorithm correctly. Those that argue differently never was responsible for such a large-scale search/media operation.

mtberatwork 10y ago
Google News claims to be entirely machine run without human intervention. "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program." [1] [1] https://news.google.com/ https://news.google.com/
- MasterScrat 10y ago
  I would guess Google News uses fewer and more trusted sources, such as the homepage of well-known news websites. I doubt Facebook marketers have the same kind of standards.
  - awqrre 10y ago
    Google News source selection is pretty broad and I don't think that the sources are selected by humans...
- MaysonL 10y ago
  The thing is that that computer program gets tweaked, and tweaked, and tweaked again. See for example Google Panda update.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Sources and deselection may be otherwise, and the statement doesn't exclude the possibility.