3 ms·
There seems to be an assumption that personalisation could only ever be as good as it is now. Can't we imagine an implementation of personalisation as good or b
by lovemenot 13y ago
There seems to be an assumption that personalisation could only ever be as good as it is now. Can't we imagine an implementation of personalisation as good or better than a site's editor could reasonably deliver to their readers in nearly all cases. Better, by the same criteria as the article advocates: diversity; richness; editorial voice etc.
Now, stepping backward from that ideal to the present, what steps could we take to reach that goal?
- eappleby 13y agoThat is definitely the holy grail. Personalization + editorial voice. You would think that an implementation like what you've described would require a site editor to make multiple suggestions and then there would be some algorithm that applied the correct suggestion depending on the preference of the user. From my experience, site editors don't want to compromise on their opinions, nor spend the time it would take to make multiple suggestions. It's a tough nut. Would love to know if any companies out there are addressing that problem and what the response has been from publishers.
- lovemenot 13y agoI don't know of any existing implementation, but I'd like to propose an alternative architecture. Assume that users (readers) have access to much larger streams of content, from heterogeneous sources, than they have attention for. And that each user's stream is unique in content and may overlap with those of other users differently for every other user. So the editor of a personalised web site provides not multiple alternative content but a single filter which can be applied to each user's stream to surface related content from that user's own stream(s).