Any competent developer who tries to automate the selection of news headlines will inevitably
discover that this approach always comes up a bit short. Automation does indeed bring a lot to
the table -- humans can't possibly discover and organize news as fast as computers can. But too
often the lack of real intelligence leads to really unintelligent results. Only an algorithm
would feature news about Anna Nicole Smith's hospitalization after she's already been declared
dead, as our automated celeb news site WeSmirch did last year:
Instantly obsolete news isn't the
only hazard. A fundamental component to any news organization program is the determination of
whether two stories are related. Deciding is often rather easy: if two stories hyperlink each
other or both use the words Apple, Psystar, and DMCA repeatedly,
they're probably related. Unfortunately, the clues are sometimes far too subtle for the most
advanced algorithms to notice. This leads to bad "related" grouping, and even the failure to
surface breaking news in the first place. Even giant, technically-accomplished corporations have
had trouble breaking
news using algorithms.
It's time for a more "edited" Techmeme
In 2005 it was clear to me that an ideal news aggregation site would need to combine automation
with direct, hands on editing. In a rare departure from my usual reticence, I even stated in
comments to a blog post "I'm planning extensions to my system to enable a hybrid
man+memeorandum." This "planning" turned out to be rather long term, since we made no major
headway on this idea until 2008.
Early on, when our system was less technically refined, the clearest path toward improvement
involved simply iterating algorithmic development. Later, as the automation reached a certain
degree of maturity, we recognized that direct editing could now improve news results by leaps and
bounds. Though our roadmap contains a number of novel future algorithmic enhancements,
introducing editing now appears to be a no-brainer.
So what exactly will change?
Humans have always edited Techmeme of course, just implicitly. For instance, when a
blogger links to a story, the headline might move higher on Techmeme. What's different now is
that an additional human editor will carry out changes explicitly to directly improve
the mix of headlines on Techmeme. Though the implicit edits conveyed via algorithm outnumber the
explicit edits perhaps by 1000 to 1 or more, the impact of the human editor is nonetheless
pronounced. What will that effect be?
The news will just get faster and more interesting. Obsolete stories will be eliminated sooner
while breaking stories will be expedited. Related grouping will improve. Most of this will happen
only on Techmeme, though other sites (like memeorandum and WeSmirch) will increasingly benefit
from the direct human touch as well.
Meet Techmeme's new scapegoat
Last month we hired Megan McCarthy to help with a variety
of editorial tasks. Chief among them was taking up this new editing role. We haven't settled on a
job title yet, but perhaps "news maestro" is a fitting moniker, given her new role in conducting
the symphony of voices that flow through Techmeme each day. Her name may sound familiar to you:
Megan has worked at institutions ranging from Wired.com to
The
Rose and Crown. She mentioned some other place too which I can't recall at the moment.
Appropriately, Megan is quite familiar with the workings of tech news on the web.
Writers and publicists unhappy with the headlines on Techmeme are encouraged to transfer the bulk
of their resentment to Megan. I'm pleased to report she's looking forward to this. Though
Omer Horvitz and I will share some of these editorial tasks, Megan will focus
on this much more than us.
Doesn't this make Techmeme even more unfair and biased?
If that question makes any sense to you, you're probably a frustrated blogger. Otherwise, feel
free to skip to the next section! I'd like to note here that Techmeme isn't fair because life
isn't fair, and Techmeme will always be biased because humans have built Techmeme. And because
news judgement, by definition, is bias. For background, please see this post from last year in which I
state "Techmeme is biased".
Ultimately, Techmeme will succeed based on whether it interests a significant readership. While
fairness and balance probably affect this interest, I need to stress that bloggers will never
agree on what's fair. Why not? To generalize and perhaps exaggerate somewhat, many bloggers feel
that in the fairest scenario, Techmeme prominently features all of their posts. So it's hard to
be fair.
Image by
tartx There's something happening here
I should note that the experience of introducing direct editing has been a revelation even for
us, despite the fact that we planned it. Interacting directly with an automated news engine makes
it clear that the human+algorithm combo can curate news far more effectively that the individual
human or algorithmic parts. It really feels like the age of the news cyborg has arrived. Our goal
is apply this new capability to producing the clearest and most useful tech news overview
available.
New contact info
We always want to know how we can do a better job, and are now better staffed for listening.
Please send complaints or news suggestions to this new email address: editorial at site domain
Though we'll realistically reply to almost nothing sent there, we'll read it all, and appreciate
your thoughts!
800INDUSTRIE
Recommandations
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
