4 ms·
It assumes "a relevant (i.e. non-clickbait) link would have its text appear frequently on the actual page". Is there empirical evidence for this claim? The exa
by tlb 10y ago
It assumes "a relevant (i.e. non-clickbait) link would have its text appear frequently on the actual page".
Is there empirical evidence for this claim? The examples featured in the article seem mixed (some right, some wrong).
It's easy enough to test: collect human judgement scores for a few hundred article links from several news sites (an afternoon's work) and compare to the algorithm.
- emodendroket 10y agoIt seems like it'd at least catch some. How else would you measure?
- softdev12 10y agoThanks for the comment. There have been a lot of studies done using the general TF-IDF approach. You can read about it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf%E2%80%93idf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf%E2%80%93idf There is also a new version planned using a different approach.
- rcthompson 10y agoThis is more or less part of the definition of clickbait: an article with a title that misrepresents the content of the article in order to garner more views.