Newspapers and Their Web Sites
September 10, 2018
I have no recollection of who told me this bit of folklore, but I thought of it when I read “Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?”
Take a beaver from its habitat. Maybe a stream in the woods in northern Wisconsin. Put the beaver in the Chrysler Building’s old observation room with some wooden furniture. Come back in about four hours. What will the beaver do? Answer: Try to build a dam. Moral: Beavers do what beavers to regardless of the location.
Take a print newspaper with the baggage that entails. Put it in a digital environment which has been around since the New York Times put content on the LexisNexis news service AFTER it failed with its own online service in the 1970s. Think the NYT is a success? Yeah, but what if the NYT management had supported Jeff Pemberton and his team? Yeah, success might look different. Ah, what if?
The write up focuses on the implementation of the “beavers do what beavers do” behavior.
That’s lighting the garden when I need light underneath my car when I am changing its oil.
Newspapers do ads. An enlightened and wealthy owner like Barry Bingham could generate a newspaper and some electronic products of quality. But once the Bingham properties when to new owners, understand the beaver thing kicks in.
The problem is how traditional journalism, reporting the news, financing the operation, and creating the gatekeeper role with some influence.
The crazy Web sites of newspapers illustrates that result of the management of these interesting business properties. User experience? Sure.
Beavers do what beavers do.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2018
Gray Literature May Face a Backlash from Professional Publishing Companies
September 3, 2018
I read “Read Research Papers Trapped Behind a Paywall With This Chrome Extension.” The write up describes a Google Chrome extension which helps a user locate a pre-publication version of a journal article. This makes veering around a paywall a little easier for some people. Here in Harrod’s Creek, we just ignore articles for which someone has assigned a price tag. We believe that ignorance is bliss, and we wouldn’t want to have our halcyon life disrupted.
The write up explains:
the extension searches for the article to see if the author has posted a free version anywhere as well.
Bingo.
The write up explains in a somewhat labored manner:
Important to note: This isn’t getting you around the paywall or stealing the content. Instead, what it’s doing is seeing if there’s another legal version online that you can read instead. Emphasis on the “legal” in that sentence. If there is another copy online, you’ll see a green tab on your screen letting you know.
The visual clue is a green tag. Click it and, in theory, you will see the so called pre-publication, gray version of the write up.
Beyond Search believes that some of the professional publishers will note this innovation. We hypothesize that some of these savvy executives will come up with some ideas to nuke these unauthorized versions of the publishers’ for fee articles.
Some professional publishers charge authors for the work required to take their drafts and convert them into professional publishing recurring revenues.
Authors, some of whom are academics, often have zero choice about publishing in journals owned by professional publishing outfits. Do gooder researchers often have different ideas.
Professional publishers can make life difficult because most have outstanding legal teams, a keen desire to keep the recurring revenue flowing, and a need to make sure another Google-type existential threat does not blindside them. To be fair, some professional publishers were not able to perceive how disruptive, Google-type outfits could affect their businesses until they were in the hospital after being hit by the digital trains.
If you want the Chrome extension, navigate to the source article. We don’t use Chrome, and, as I said, we don’t use content in peer reviewed journals. Why?
Sorry, like some of the work I did in my 50 year working career, I won’t talk. Move forward I say. But here’s a question for you, “How much are those must have medical and engineering journals either in dead tree or digital form?” That’s a fact worth knowing.
Stephen E Arnold, September 3, 2018
AI Poised to Take Over Writing in Surprising Ways
August 23, 2018
Long ago, it was writers who told us technology would steal our jobs. In a fit of irony no novelist could resist, the time has come and it might just be snatching up the writer’s jobs. We discovered this in a recent BGR story, “Scientists Trained an AI to Write Poetry, Now It’s Going Toe-To-Toe With Shakespeare.”
According to the story:
“The AI was trained extensively on the rules it needed to follow to craft an acceptable poem. It was fed nearly 3,000 sonnets as training, and the algorithm tore them apart to teach itself how the words worked with each other. Once the bot was brought up to speed it was tasked with crafting some poems of its own.”
The write gives an example of the computer’s work and it’s surprisingly solid. However, many experts are saying this isn’t the end of creativity. As pointed out by Scientific American, just because a computer creates something that looks like art does not mean it is actually art. That’s because people overlook the need for human expression as an outlet—something AI doesn’t have.
Let a software system create facts. Sounds like a plan.
Patrick Roland, August 23, 2018
Fake Reviews, Not Just Fake News
August 22, 2018
When shopping online, one cannot closely examine a product for oneself, so it is tempting to rely on reviews attached to its description. NPR reports, “Some Amazon Reviews Are Too Good to Be Believed. They’re Paid For.” It is a problem that we’ve been aware of for some time, and reporter Ryan Kailath observes that networks have arisen around paid reviews, doing business through social media. There are even what one might call best practices. We learn:
As Amazon and its algorithms get better at hunting them down, paid reviewers employ their own evasive maneuvers. Travis, the teenage paid reviewer, explained his process. He’s a member of several online channels where Amazon sellers congregate, hawking Ethernet cables, flashlights, protein powder, fanny packs — any number of small items for which they want favorable reviews. If something catches Travis’ attention, he approaches the seller and they negotiate terms. Once he buys the product and leaves a five-star review, the seller will refund his purchase, often adding a few dollars ‘commission’ for his trouble. He says he earns around $200 a month this way. The sellers provide detailed instructions, to avoid being detected by Amazon’s algorithms, Travis says. For example, he says, ‘Order here at the Amazon link. Don’t clip any coupons or promo codes. [Wait 4 to 5 days] after receiving [the item].’ This last instruction is especially important, Travis adds. ‘If you review too soon after receiving it’ll look pretty suspicious.’”
Outside auditors estimate more than half the reviews for certain products are not to be trusted, though Amazon disputes that conclusion. Citing Mozilla Fellow on media, misinformation, and trust Renée DiResta, Kailath notes that investing in these reviews has been paying off for many companies. Many of these firms are Chinese, we’re told, operating through the Chinese site Alibaba. They seek to penetrate US markets by leveraging Amazon’s powerful reach. Ultimately, DiResta warns, the problem could hurt Amazon’s reputation, but the company can only do so much. Meanwhile, she suggests customers turn to third-party review sites, like CNET or Wirecutter, for example. Are these sites objective? Perhaps.
Cynthia Murrell, August 22, 2018
Google and GPS Tracking
August 13, 2018
You will want to chase down the full text of “Google Tracks Your Movements, Like It or Not.” I read the AP story in Chron. Note that I try not to quote from AP stories because I have zero desire to get involved in a fair use hassle with a large entity like the AP.
The main point of the story, which I assume is accurate, is that Google tracks where its customers go. The location data functions of a mobile phone provide the stream of data. The story asserts that Google collects these data even if the user has made changes to the default settings in the mobile device to disable tracking.
My understanding of the news report is that Google says a user can disable tracking. The AP story asserts that Google is not telling the truth. Thus, the AP asserts, Google possess location data on more than one billion users.
The AP story reports that Google says it is following the white lines set forth in its configuration tools exposed to the user.
Beyond Search finds the assertions interesting. The sources cited in the article include a university researcher from Yale and a graduate student at University of California-Berkeley.
Geolocation functions are “baked in” to most mobile devices. Numerous companies make use of these data. Some companies assert that they can derive location data by cross correlating a range of user generated data inputs. Microsoft invested in Hyas, a firm which allegedly has such capabilities. Our research suggests that Amazon has a similar capability for certain customer applications as part of its streaming data marketplace platform.
Many mobile devices make it possible to obtain location data even when the device is turned off and software settings are configured to disable location information. Specialist firms can disable the GPS circuitry to create “dark phones.” One rumored device with these capabilities is produced in the Middle East. If one has a mobile with a removable battery, the device goes “dead” when power is cut off. Also, Faraday bags make it difficult for monitoring and receiving devices to capture a mobile device’s location. (One option is the Blackout Faraday Shield, and there are bags which cost as little as US$10.)
Net net: The AP story seems to be more about Google doing something in an underhanded way than about GPS data widely used by law enforcement and intelligence professionals.
Beyond Search thinks the story would be more interesting if workarounds like the Faraday bag option were explained. Informed consumers can easily protect their location if and when desired. The singular focus on Google is less useful than a broader, more informed look at GPS usage.
When you read the original AP full text story, you can decide if the write up has an anti Google bias. In Harrod’s Creek, use of GPS data is routine. Google is continuing its personalization methods which have been part of the firm’s systems and methods for many years.
Finding fault with successful online companies may be the new blood sport for traditional news and publishing enterprises anchor4ed in the world of print.
Stephen E Arnold, August 12, 2018
Elsevier and German Academics At Odds
August 13, 2018
A post shared by the German Rectors’ Conference (HRK) reports, “DEAL and Elsevier Negotiations: Elsevier Demands Unacceptable for the Academic Community.” The DEAL project has been an effort to enact licensing agreements between Elsevier and institutions throughout Germany for all e-journals put out by major academic publishers in 2017. The HRK is an association of German universities, so its members are vested in the outcome here. However, once again it looks as though Elsevier is not playing nice, demanding concessions that would defeat the original purpose. DEAL’s spokesperson Horst Hippler stated:
“As far as we’re concerned, the aim of the ongoing negotiations with the three biggest academic publishers is to develop a future-oriented model for the publishing and reading of scientific literature. What we want is to bring an end to the pricing trend for academic journals that has the potential to prove disastrous for libraries as it stands. We are also working to promote open access, with a view to essentially making the results of publicly funded research freely accessible. The publishers should play a crucial role in achieving this. We have our sights set on a sustainable publish and read model, which means fair payment for publication and unrestricted availability for readers afterwards. Elsevier, however, is still not willing to offer a deal in the form of a nationwide agreement in Germany that responds to the needs of the academic community in line with the principles of open access and that is financially sustainable.”
This disappointing result follows months of negotiations. Academics have been making their displeasure with Elsevier known, with about 200 scientific institutions purposely letting their licensing agreements expire and several prominent researchers resigning their Elsevier-related editorships. Now DEAL is playing defense, taking “necessary precautions” should Elsevier cut access to those organizations that let their licenses lapse. What those precautions entail is not specified.
Cynthia Murrell, August 13, 2018
Facebook: A New York City-Sized PR Problem
July 20, 2018
I read “Once nimble Facebook Trips Over Calls to Control Content.” If you are looking for this write up online, the story’s headline was changed to “What Stays on Facebook and What Goes? The Social Network Cannot Answer.” You may be able to locate the online version at this link. (No promises.) The dead tree version is on Page A1 of the July 20, 2018, edition which comes out on Thursday night. Got the timeline square?
I wanted to highlight a handful of comments in the “real” news story. Here we go with direct statements from the NYT article in red:
- The print version headline uses the phrase “once nimble.” Here in Harrod’s Creek that means stumbling bobolyne. In Manhattan, the phrase may mean something like “advertise more in the New York Times.” I am, of course, speculating.
- I marked in weird greenish yellow this statement: “Facebook still seems paralyzed over how to respond.” So much for nimble.
- Another: “Comically tripped up”. Yep, a clown’s smile on the front page of the NYT.
- My favorite: The context for being a bit out of his depth. Whatever does “yet lucidity remai9ned elusive.” Does this mean stupid, duplicitous, or something else?
- I thought Silicon Valley wunderkind were sharp as tacks. In the NYT, I read “Facebook executives’ tortured musings.” Not Saturday Night Live deep thoughts, just musings and tortured ones at that.
- How does Facebook perceive “real” journalism? Well, not the way the NYT does. I circled this phrase about Alex Jones, a luminary with some avid believers one mine drainage ditch down the road a piece which is Kentucky talk for “some”: “Just being false doesn’t violate community standards” and “Infowars was a publisher with a ‘different point of view.’”
- This is a nifty sequence crafted to recycle another “real” journalist’s scoop interview with Mark Zuckerberg: “what Facebook would or would not allow on its site became even more confusing.” So, a possible paralyzed clown who lacks lucidity is confusing.
- The “bizarre idea” word pair makes sure I understand what the NYT believes in a lack of clear thinking.
But these brief rhetorical flourishes set up this statement:
A Facebook spokeswoman [who is not identified] explained that it would be possible, theoretically, to deny the Holocaust without triggering Facebook’s hate-speech clause.
Those pesky algorithms are at work. But the failure to identify the person at Facebook who offered this information is not identified. Why not?
Here’s another longer statement from the NYT write up:
And what exactly constitutes imminent violence is a shifting line, the company said— it is still ‘iterating on’ its policy, and the rules may change.
I don’t want to be too dumb, but I would like to know who at the company offered the statement. A company, to my knowledge, cannot talk unless one considers firing a question at Amazon’s Alexa.
I put an exclamation point on this statement in the NYT article:
All of this fails a basic test: It’s not even coherent. It is a hodge podge of declarations and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.
Net net: Facebook has a public relations problem with the New York Times. Because of the influence of the “real” newspaper and its “real” journalists, Facebook has a PR problem of magnitude. Perhaps the point of the story is to create an opportunity for a NYT ad sales professional to explain the benefits of a full page ad across the print and online versions of the New York Times?
Stephen E Arnold, July 20, 2018
Another White Knight for Journalism, Real Journalism
July 19, 2018
The scourge of fake news is becoming an insurmountable problem for journalists. The algorithms and cleverness of fake news mongers seems to always be a step or two ahead of the good guys. With that in mind, some are turning to Blockchain to ferret out the frauds. We learned more from a recent CoinDesk story, “With Journalists on Ethereum, Will Fake News Meet Its Match?”
According to the story:
“The blockchain might also allow Civil to conduct an experiment in decentralized governance using an Ethereum-based ERC-20 token. Through what Coolidge called the “Civil economic game,” newsrooms and readers might soon be able to enforce journalistic standards on a media industry that seems determined to forget them.”
This entire idea is getting looked at in closer detail on a new podcast called “ZigZag” where two journalists explore the world of blockchain, civil, and they way in which it can potentially influence the future of news. The unique thing about this project is the real-time feel of watching this technology emerge and to see if an impact can be made. Essentially, listeners are given a front row seat to see if Civil succeeds. Blockchain holds many promises. Now delivering salvation is among them.
Patrick Roland, July 19, 2018
Elsevier: An Open Source Flag Carrier?
July 17, 2018
According to this article at the Guardian, the European Union is to be applauded for its goal of open access to all scientific publications by 2020. However, writer and Open Science advocate Jon Tennant condemns one key decision in, “Elsevier Are Corrupting Open Science in Europe.” He tells us:
“However, a cursory glance at the methodological note reveals something rather odd. The subcontractor for the monitor is Elsevier, the publisher and data analytics provider. Within scholarly communications, Elsevier has perhaps the single worst reputation. With profit margins around 37%, larger than Apple and big oil companies, Elsevier dominate the publishing landscape by selling research back to the same institutes that carried out the work. It gets worse too. Throughout the methods, you can see that there is an overwhelming bias towards Elsevier products and services, such as Scopus, Mendeley, and Plum Analytics. These services provide metrics for researchers such as citation counts and social media shares, as well as data-sharing and networking platforms. There are now dozens of comments in the note pointing out the clear bias towards Elsevier and the overlooking of alternatives. It is worth highlighting some of the key issues here that the Commission seems to have ignored in subcontracting to Elsevier.”
One such issue is Elsevier’s alleged track record of working against openness in order to protect its own financial interests. Also, many throughout the EU, including prominent research institutes, have turned against the publisher in distrust. Last but not least, naming an entity that stands to benefit as the Open Science Monitor is an obvious conflict of interest, Tennant declares with understandable incredulity. See the article for details on each of these points. The author is clearly aghast the appointment was allowed in the first place, and recommends the European Commission remove Elsevier from the position posthaste.
Worth watching via open source information, of course.
Cynthia Murrell, July 17, 2018
Journalists: Smart Software Is Learning How to Be a Real Journalist
July 15, 2018
I read “Why Bots Taking Over (Some) Journalism Could Be a Good Thing.” I love optimists who lack a good understanding of how numerical recipes work. The notion of “artificial intelligence” is just cool like something out of science fiction like “Ralph 124C 41+” except for the wrong headed predictions. In my 50 year work career, technologies are not revolutions. Technologies appear, die, reform, and then interact, often in surprising ways. Then one day, a clever person identifies a “paradigm shift” or “a big thing.”
The problem with smart software which seems obvious to me boils down to:
- The selection of numerical recipes to use
- The threshold settings or the Bayesian best guesses that inform the system
- The order in which the processes are implemented within the system.
There are other issues, but these provide a reasonable checklist. What does on under the kimono is quite important.
The write up states:
If robots can take over the grunt work, which in many cases they can, then that has the potential to lower media organizations’ costs and enable them to spend a greater proportion of their advertising income on more serious material. That’s terrible news for anybody whose current job is to trawl Twitter for slightly smutty tweets by reality TV show contestants, but great news for organizations funding the likes of Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who broke the Facebook / Cambridge Analytica scandal. Isn’t it?
Good question. I also learned:
Technology can help with a lot of basic reporting. For example, the UK Press Association’s Radar project (Reporters And Data And Robots) aims to automate a lot of local news reporting by pulling information from government agencies, local authorities and the police. It’ll still be overseen by “skilled human journalists”, at least for the foreseeable future, but the actual writing will be automated: it uses a technology called Natural Language Generation, or NLG for short. Think Siri, Alexa or the recent Google Duplex demos that mimic human speech, but dedicated to writing rather than speaking.
I recall reading this idea to steal:
In fact, human reporters will continue to play a vital role in the process, and Rogers doesn’t see this changing anytime soon. It’s humans that make the decision on which datasets to analyze. Humans also “define” the story templates – for example, by deciding that if a certain variable in one region is above a particular threshold, then that’s a strong indicator that the data will make a good news story.
Now back to the points in the checklist. In the mad rush to reduce costs, provide more and better news, and create opportunities to cover certain stories more effectively, who is questioning the prioritization of content from an available stream, the selection of items from the stream, and the evaluation of the data pulled from the stream for automatic story generation?
My thought is that it will be the developers who are deciding what to do in one of those whiteboard meetings lubricated with latte and fizzy water.
The business models which once sustained “real” journalism focused on media battles, yellow journalism, interesting advertising deals, and the localized monopolies. (I once worked for such an outfit.)
With technology concentration a natural consequence of online information services, I would not get too excited about the NLG and NLP (natural language generation and natural language processing services). These capabilities for smart software will arrive. But I think the functionality will arrive in dribs and drabs. One day an MBA or electrical engineer turned business school professor will explain what happened.
What’s lost? Typing, hanging out in the newspaper lunch room, gossip, and hitting the bar a block from the office. Judgment? Did I leave out judgment. Probably not important. What’s important that I almost forgot? Getting rid of staff, health coverage, pensions, vacations, and sick leave. Software doesn’t get sick even though it may arrive in a questionable condition.
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
