4 ms·

Awesome reporting! Seriously, good job. I honestly believe that a collection of sources like this is the future of news; allow people to draw their own conclus

Awesome reporting! Seriously, good job. I honestly believe that a collection of sources like this is the future of news; allow people to draw their own conclusions based on the first-hand content you can collect. Shameless plug: OK, that's actually what I've been building for a few months. We had to break it to finish building it (sorry, or i'd just show you), but our launchrock page is at http://grasswire.com http://grasswire.com if you want to have access when we launch

untog 13y ago
I'm not sure I agree. From those first pictures I saw (charred plane) I drew my own conclusion that a large number of people must have died. From the latest reports, it appears I was wrong. Sometimes we don't know enough to make meaningful conclusions without experts weighing in. Not to mention bias- first hand accounts are rarely impartial. In this instance there aren't any "sides" to take, but I'd bet that most of the photos flowing out of Egypt right now have an opinion behind them.
- andrewlowell 13y ago
  It's true that our first hastily-drawn conclusions from not enough facts are mostly wrong, but I will say this: it's fascinating and for me, thrilling, to watch the truth about big events coalesce in real time as primary, grassroots-sources get compiled (and fact-checked!).
- austenallred 13y ago
  That's fair, but I think I still disagree. If you are only looking at one source, sure, it can be confusing, but if you have a good collection of all of the first-hand sources really you are able to draw the same conclusion that any reporter might be able to. Right now we have basically outsourced the job of drawing conclusions from opinionated people to reporters. Given the right information I believe every person could do that. But I recognize that's not a belief held by many people. I've just been able to watch all of the reports come in for a while and feel like that's enough, if not better.
  - untog 13y ago
    If you are only looking at one source, sure, it can be confusing, but if you have a good collection of all of the first-hand sources really you are able to draw the same conclusion that any reporter might be able to. Not if you were a reporter on the ground. If you have multiple biased sources you can't get an unbiased view without squinting and inferring things you don't know. I don't disagree that with the "right" information, people can make good conclusions. I just think that it's very rare for the "right" information to be available. This is an example of where it's more likely, as there is no "pro-crash" story to tell. That isn't the case with almost any politically sensitive story, though.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    we have basically outsourced the job of drawing conclusions from opinionated people to reporters Yes, and this is economically efficient. Of course they get all sorts of things wrong at the outset - the fact that this is annoying is a reflection of how much we rely on them. But the fact is that in most cases we don't especially need to know these things immediately; I'm curious about this crash, of course, but it doesn't affect me directly and there's nothing I can do about it. It's actually better that I didn't check the news until a bit later in the day when some time had gone by and the details had firmed up - I'm a little behind the curve, but I've saved 2 hours of pointless and probably poorly-founded speculation. If it wasn't for the fact that my wife watches more TV than I do I'd probably go days at a time without checking, and just catch up Saturdays when the Economist arrives. I understand being a news junkie - because I am one. But it's an unhealthy habit that rarely yields enough advantage to justify the time involved. I'll check out your startup but really, I suspect it would just be an endless time sink for me. I already find this a big problem with text-based news. EDIT: I meant to say internet-based news. To answer the reply below, I guess my question is 'what benefit is there to me in following multiple reports as they break? To be good at it requires doing it on a regular basis, but the economic benefit is questionable. I think it's a great idea, and if it can build up a sufficient community then it has the potential to function as a better news bureau than existing sources. The hurdle to climb is that the number of people who will be both skilled at analyzing breaking news events and have the time to put in regularly will be fairly small, and every time there's a major event the interested local population that joins in will consist largely of -first timers, whose contributions will amount to (Shannon) noise. I mention a local event, because I see that while we're worried about this because many HNers are in the Bay Area, over on the East Coast near Maine a train carrying oil derailed and exploded in the middle of a small town, flattening the town center and with 60-100 people missing. So a plane crash with only two fatalities doesn't seem very important from a different perspective.
shock-value 13y ago
I don't think it's appropriate to be hawking your product in the midst of a (potential) tragedy. This is nothing to be excited over.
- austenallred 13y ago
  Saying that I'm "excited" about a tragedy (I'll remove the word "potential" as so far at least two people have died) is unfair. You make it seem like I'm getting stoked that a plane crashed. I'm not trying to "hawk" anything, but am trying to help create a system that will help people understand the world around them in a better, more efficient way. If linking to it in this thread feels cheap then I apologize, but that wasn't the intent at all.
  - shock-value 13y ago
    Edit: scratch the original response here, I mixed your username up with another user's reply. Sorry about that. I still feel you shouldn't be promoting your website/news service in this thread, however.
    - austenallred 13y ago
      Edit: Former comment retracted. I still disagree, but it's not worth discussing here. Carry on.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      What proportion of people browsing this thread would you say are here for professional reasons (say, commercial pilots), or personal reasons (say, might know some of the passengers and / or crew)? My guess: the vast majority of people reading this thread on HN are here for entertainment. Given that, why bitch about someone hawking his wares? It's not like he crashed a funeral or something.
elliottcarlson 13y ago
The problem is when you have reports stating that the plane flipped over when that clearly did not happen. Crowd sourced news will not always be accurate, and can also lead to crowd based vigilantism such as happened during the Boston attack and the aftermath on Reddit. While traditional media often relies on sensationalism and also use these same sources of information during broadcast, this is not an ideal method either.
- austenallred 13y ago
  That's why you have to build fact-checking in. Reports did say the plane flipped over, but there were pictures on Twitter showing it clearly didn't. If you were shown both of those reports at the same time it would be obvious what the right answer is. Also, it's worth noting that mainstream media was reporting the plane had flipped over as well, so misinformation isn't solved by the current solutions.

untog 13y ago

I'm not sure I agree. From those first pictures I saw (charred plane) I drew my own conclusion that a large number of people must have died. From the latest reports, it appears I was wrong. Sometimes we don't know enough to make meaningful conclusions without experts weighing in. Not to mention bias- first hand accounts are rarely impartial. In this instance there aren't any "sides" to take, but I'd bet that most of the photos flowing out of Egypt right now have an opinion behind them.

andrewlowell 13y ago
It's true that our first hastily-drawn conclusions from not enough facts are mostly wrong, but I will say this: it's fascinating and for me, thrilling, to watch the truth about big events coalesce in real time as primary, grassroots-sources get compiled (and fact-checked!).
austenallred 13y ago
That's fair, but I think I still disagree. If you are only looking at one source, sure, it can be confusing, but if you have a good collection of all of the first-hand sources really you are able to draw the same conclusion that any reporter might be able to. Right now we have basically outsourced the job of drawing conclusions from opinionated people to reporters. Given the right information I believe every person could do that. But I recognize that's not a belief held by many people. I've just been able to watch all of the reports come in for a while and feel like that's enough, if not better.
- untog 13y ago
  If you are only looking at one source, sure, it can be confusing, but if you have a good collection of all of the first-hand sources really you are able to draw the same conclusion that any reporter might be able to. Not if you were a reporter on the ground. If you have multiple biased sources you can't get an unbiased view without squinting and inferring things you don't know. I don't disagree that with the "right" information, people can make good conclusions. I just think that it's very rare for the "right" information to be available. This is an example of where it's more likely, as there is no "pro-crash" story to tell. That isn't the case with almost any politically sensitive story, though.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  we have basically outsourced the job of drawing conclusions from opinionated people to reporters Yes, and this is economically efficient. Of course they get all sorts of things wrong at the outset - the fact that this is annoying is a reflection of how much we rely on them. But the fact is that in most cases we don't especially need to know these things immediately; I'm curious about this crash, of course, but it doesn't affect me directly and there's nothing I can do about it. It's actually better that I didn't check the news until a bit later in the day when some time had gone by and the details had firmed up - I'm a little behind the curve, but I've saved 2 hours of pointless and probably poorly-founded speculation. If it wasn't for the fact that my wife watches more TV than I do I'd probably go days at a time without checking, and just catch up Saturdays when the Economist arrives. I understand being a news junkie - because I am one. But it's an unhealthy habit that rarely yields enough advantage to justify the time involved. I'll check out your startup but really, I suspect it would just be an endless time sink for me. I already find this a big problem with text-based news. EDIT: I meant to say internet-based news. To answer the reply below, I guess my question is 'what benefit is there to me in following multiple reports as they break? To be good at it requires doing it on a regular basis, but the economic benefit is questionable. I think it's a great idea, and if it can build up a sufficient community then it has the potential to function as a better news bureau than existing sources. The hurdle to climb is that the number of people who will be both skilled at analyzing breaking news events and have the time to put in regularly will be fairly small, and every time there's a major event the interested local population that joins in will consist largely of -first timers, whose contributions will amount to (Shannon) noise. I mention a local event, because I see that while we're worried about this because many HNers are in the Bay Area, over on the East Coast near Maine a train carrying oil derailed and exploded in the middle of a small town, flattening the town center and with 60-100 people missing. So a plane crash with only two fatalities doesn't seem very important from a different perspective.

shock-value 13y ago

I don't think it's appropriate to be hawking your product in the midst of a (potential) tragedy. This is nothing to be excited over.

austenallred 13y ago
Saying that I'm "excited" about a tragedy (I'll remove the word "potential" as so far at least two people have died) is unfair. You make it seem like I'm getting stoked that a plane crashed. I'm not trying to "hawk" anything, but am trying to help create a system that will help people understand the world around them in a better, more efficient way. If linking to it in this thread feels cheap then I apologize, but that wasn't the intent at all.
- shock-value 13y ago
  Edit: scratch the original response here, I mixed your username up with another user's reply. Sorry about that. I still feel you shouldn't be promoting your website/news service in this thread, however.
  - austenallred 13y ago
    Edit: Former comment retracted. I still disagree, but it's not worth discussing here. Carry on.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    What proportion of people browsing this thread would you say are here for professional reasons (say, commercial pilots), or personal reasons (say, might know some of the passengers and / or crew)? My guess: the vast majority of people reading this thread on HN are here for entertainment. Given that, why bitch about someone hawking his wares? It's not like he crashed a funeral or something.

elliottcarlson 13y ago

The problem is when you have reports stating that the plane flipped over when that clearly did not happen. Crowd sourced news will not always be accurate, and can also lead to crowd based vigilantism such as happened during the Boston attack and the aftermath on Reddit. While traditional media often relies on sensationalism and also use these same sources of information during broadcast, this is not an ideal method either.

austenallred 13y ago
That's why you have to build fact-checking in. Reports did say the plane flipped over, but there were pictures on Twitter showing it clearly didn't. If you were shown both of those reports at the same time it would be obvious what the right answer is. Also, it's worth noting that mainstream media was reporting the plane had flipped over as well, so misinformation isn't solved by the current solutions.