6 ms·

I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. I want to see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exp

by 3steve 8y ago

I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. I want to see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise.

dmix 8y ago
The same interface could easily do both...
ucaetano 8y ago
> see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise Isn't that exactly personalized news? But you can just load it on incognito or signed out and not have any personalization other than location/country.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  What a horrible UX, loading it in “Incognito mode”, no.
  - saudioger 8y ago
    You get what you pay for.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    It's quite useful! These days I browse pretty much all news sites in Incognito mode, due to paywalls.
- 3steve 8y ago
  Personalization does not arise from passive use. Consider the converse, articles from a list of user selected sources. That sounds more like personalized news. Besides Google News used to function that way so I think I should be entitled to my opinion of how it should function.
  - gowld 8y ago
    https://news.google.com/news/settings/sources https://news.google.com/news/settings/sources ?
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    Oh, just found out that Google News has what you're looking for: go to headlines section. I opened the app and found it weird that there were news about Taylor Swift, the British royal wedding and a lot of other topics that I'm not interested in. Then I noticed I was in the "headlines" section, and not the "for you" section. I'm glad they split both up.
thankthunk 8y ago
> I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. That's what I used to use google news for too. Then a few years ago, google "personalized" and "localize"d news to your area and it became pointless. Google news was especially great for international events in the early 2010s because you'd get international sources listed back then. So you could see the difference in coverage between our media and china's media and europe's media and middle east's media of the same event. Now, google news is just mostly NYTimes and Washingtonpost stories. And considering they espouse the same message on pretty much everything, I stopped using google news. I understand that google was heavily pressured by the news industry to push traffic to major US news sites, but I wish they would have given us the option to opt out of personalization and localization. What's even more disappointing is that google search was updated to heavily favor local news. So if I search for "North korea news" or "syria news", the search result is ridiculously skewed to US news' perspective. They used to list forums, messageboards, etc on search for international events, but they scrubbed those from the search results. Social media used to have alternate/external/foreign sources but after US media pressure, they've also "personalized" and localized. It's amazing how easily the news industry has pressured tech companies into limiting what the public sees and hears. I wish there was a news aggregate site which had a page per news event where it listed international coverage of the event.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Just look at Wikipedia Current Events [1] or WikiTribune [2] if you want news that's relatively unbiased and current. Google has long since been biased/personalized. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events [2] https://www.wikitribune.com https://www.wikitribune.com
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Google news was especially great for international events in the early 2010s because you'd get international sources listed back then I still get international sources (sometimes as the first source on a story , as on the Iran deal right now) on both the Google News & Weather app and the Google News desktop page. Strangely, the new Google News mobile page doesn't as much (and doesn't seem to expand to provide multiple sources for the same story the way it used and the other interfaces still do), and there's little consistency in sources, or even stories selected, between the three interfaces.
Varcht 8y ago
I like(d) the raw news feeds from AP etc. I say liked because they all seem to be disappearing. Just give me a long list of the incoming headlines, I'll filter by scanning, thanks.
- 3steve 8y ago
  I am hesitant about raw news, I think context is at a minimum important. I would much rather read an article published 12-36 hours after the fact that is rich with context and detail. I have blocked CNN from my feeds for this reason, they place a high value on immediacy and I think this heavily degrades their content.
metasaval 8y ago
1. I haven't used Google news until today, but I believe that's what the "Headlines" tab at the bottom bar is for. It seems to just show you the major headlines from everywhere, no personalization or AI involved. 2. Every news story has a "Full Coverage" button on the bottom-right that pulls up that same story from a variety of stories, so you can get different perspectives. I agree that injecting AI and personalization into news is an easy way to put yourself in a bubble, but it seems that Google has at least tried to give users the tools to minimize that.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Personalisation isn't inherently bad. For example, I have zero interests in sports, and I don't think I'm putting myself in a "bubble" for not wanting any sport related articles in my feed. I also may have niche interests, such as puzzle games, which a generic feed would never surface. Where AI gets dangerous is focusing on either a single source, or providing one side of the story, but that's exactly what "Full coverage" attempts to solve as you mention.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
Same like Google news does not take sides. But assume it will continue with these changes?
Jyaif 8y ago
They address this: some stuff are personalized, but not everything. "content in Full Coverage is the same for everyone—it’s an unpersonalized view of events from a range of trusted news sources."
Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
I agree completely, though I'd be happy for both styles to exist. For semi-random news from a wide variety of sources, I like https://www.memeorandum.com/ https://www.memeorandum.com/

by 3steve 8y ago

dmix 8y ago

The same interface could easily do both...

ucaetano 8y ago

> see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise Isn't that exactly personalized news? But you can just load it on incognito or signed out and not have any personalization other than location/country.

bamboozled 8y ago
What a horrible UX, loading it in “Incognito mode”, no.
- saudioger 8y ago
  You get what you pay for.
- skybrian 8y ago
  It's quite useful! These days I browse pretty much all news sites in Incognito mode, due to paywalls.
3steve 8y ago
Personalization does not arise from passive use. Consider the converse, articles from a list of user selected sources. That sounds more like personalized news. Besides Google News used to function that way so I think I should be entitled to my opinion of how it should function.
- gowld 8y ago
  https://news.google.com/news/settings/sources https://news.google.com/news/settings/sources ?
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Oh, just found out that Google News has what you're looking for: go to headlines section. I opened the app and found it weird that there were news about Taylor Swift, the British royal wedding and a lot of other topics that I'm not interested in. Then I noticed I was in the "headlines" section, and not the "for you" section. I'm glad they split both up.

thankthunk 8y ago

> I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. That's what I used to use google news for too. Then a few years ago, google "personalized" and "localize"d news to your area and it became pointless. Google news was especially great for international events in the early 2010s because you'd get international sources listed back then. So you could see the difference in coverage between our media and china's media and europe's media and middle east's media of the same event. Now, google news is just mostly NYTimes and Washingtonpost stories. And considering they espouse the same message on pretty much everything, I stopped using google news. I understand that google was heavily pressured by the news industry to push traffic to major US news sites, but I wish they would have given us the option to opt out of personalization and localization. What's even more disappointing is that google search was updated to heavily favor local news. So if I search for "North korea news" or "syria news", the search result is ridiculously skewed to US news' perspective. They used to list forums, messageboards, etc on search for international events, but they scrubbed those from the search results. Social media used to have alternate/external/foreign sources but after US media pressure, they've also "personalized" and localized. It's amazing how easily the news industry has pressured tech companies into limiting what the public sees and hears. I wish there was a news aggregate site which had a page per news event where it listed international coverage of the event.

r00fus 8y ago
Just look at Wikipedia Current Events [1] or WikiTribune [2] if you want news that's relatively unbiased and current. Google has long since been biased/personalized. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events [2] https://www.wikitribune.com https://www.wikitribune.com
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Google news was especially great for international events in the early 2010s because you'd get international sources listed back then I still get international sources (sometimes as the first source on a story , as on the Iran deal right now) on both the Google News & Weather app and the Google News desktop page. Strangely, the new Google News mobile page doesn't as much (and doesn't seem to expand to provide multiple sources for the same story the way it used and the other interfaces still do), and there's little consistency in sources, or even stories selected, between the three interfaces.

Varcht 8y ago

I like(d) the raw news feeds from AP etc. I say liked because they all seem to be disappearing. Just give me a long list of the incoming headlines, I'll filter by scanning, thanks.

3steve 8y ago
I am hesitant about raw news, I think context is at a minimum important. I would much rather read an article published 12-36 hours after the fact that is rich with context and detail. I have blocked CNN from my feeds for this reason, they place a high value on immediacy and I think this heavily degrades their content.

metasaval 8y ago

1. I haven't used Google news until today, but I believe that's what the "Headlines" tab at the bottom bar is for. It seems to just show you the major headlines from everywhere, no personalization or AI involved. 2. Every news story has a "Full Coverage" button on the bottom-right that pulls up that same story from a variety of stories, so you can get different perspectives. I agree that injecting AI and personalization into news is an easy way to put yourself in a bubble, but it seems that Google has at least tried to give users the tools to minimize that.

ehsankia 8y ago
Personalisation isn't inherently bad. For example, I have zero interests in sports, and I don't think I'm putting myself in a "bubble" for not wanting any sport related articles in my feed. I also may have niche interests, such as puzzle games, which a generic feed would never surface. Where AI gets dangerous is focusing on either a single source, or providing one side of the story, but that's exactly what "Full coverage" attempts to solve as you mention.

jacksmith21006 8y ago

Same like Google news does not take sides. But assume it will continue with these changes?

Jyaif 8y ago

They address this: some stuff are personalized, but not everything. "content in Full Coverage is the same for everyone—it’s an unpersonalized view of events from a range of trusted news sources."

Steel_Phoenix 8y ago

I agree completely, though I'd be happy for both styles to exist. For semi-random news from a wide variety of sources, I like https://www.memeorandum.com/ https://www.memeorandum.com/