9 thoughts on “You Can’t Judge Social Media by the Standards of Old School Media”
Not at all. I grew up being lied to constantly : that was government’s “right” to ensure “security”. You can’t expect the paid controllers of public privilege to go quietly into the night : look at Fox for instance. How’s that for a ‘reliable’ source of information ? About as good as the Sun chain of newspapers.
It is absolutely idiotic to think that social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a complete lack of understanding and sounds much like the roars of a dinosaur.
It is idiotic to think the genuine social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a major lack of understanding and sounds much like the roar of a dinosaur.
Maybe there’s just room in the world for both? Some people are happier with “experts” and some stuff that comes out of social media is rubbish. I like CNET’s reviews – the people generally know what they’re talking about. I also like the user comments below – they may see something more practical that the ubergeeks miss. I wouldn’t rely on either on their own.
The problem is the existing search engines don’t provide very good tools for filtering and ranking content Their methods are simply too weak to really provide relevancy, much less rate the accuracy of the content. If search engines improve their algorithms, some of these topics will fade away.
It is idiotic to think the genuine social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a major lack of understanding and sounds much like the roar of a dinosaur. Thank You
It is absolutely idiotic to think that social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a complete lack of understanding and sounds much like the roars of a dinosaur. Thank You
I think there IS a need to filter out the crap from the Internet. While it is a warm, fuzzy thought that user-generated comment could be allowed to just dominate the search results, the cases wherein students had answered wrong info from Wikipedia in their exams (a case in Japan, etc.), the cases wherein spam blogs dominate search engine results, these are concerns for the end-user. If Search Engine results would all be similar to these: erroneous, or worse, worthless “information,” then there IS a need for venues of content by experts to be made available online.
This would bridge the gap between two extremes: erroneous to worthless content readily available online, and the exorbitantly-priced premium content as in Encarta’s articles. I think it would work well for a good number of end-users.
Not at all. I grew up being lied to constantly : that was government’s “right” to ensure “security”. You can’t expect the paid controllers of public privilege to go quietly into the night : look at Fox for instance. How’s that for a ‘reliable’ source of information ? About as good as the Sun chain of newspapers.
It is absolutely idiotic to think that social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a complete lack of understanding and sounds much like the roars of a dinosaur.
It is idiotic to think the genuine social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a major lack of understanding and sounds much like the roar of a dinosaur.
Maybe there’s just room in the world for both? Some people are happier with “experts” and some stuff that comes out of social media is rubbish. I like CNET’s reviews – the people generally know what they’re talking about. I also like the user comments below – they may see something more practical that the ubergeeks miss. I wouldn’t rely on either on their own.
The problem is the existing search engines don’t provide very good tools for filtering and ranking content Their methods are simply too weak to really provide relevancy, much less rate the accuracy of the content. If search engines improve their algorithms, some of these topics will fade away.
It is idiotic to think the genuine social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a major lack of understanding and sounds much like the roar of a dinosaur. Thank You
Yeah, you are completely right I mean some social media site where users post are fabrication.
It is absolutely idiotic to think that social discourse will be supplanted by “edited” professional content. Shows a complete lack of understanding and sounds much like the roars of a dinosaur. Thank You
I think there IS a need to filter out the crap from the Internet. While it is a warm, fuzzy thought that user-generated comment could be allowed to just dominate the search results, the cases wherein students had answered wrong info from Wikipedia in their exams (a case in Japan, etc.), the cases wherein spam blogs dominate search engine results, these are concerns for the end-user. If Search Engine results would all be similar to these: erroneous, or worse, worthless “information,” then there IS a need for venues of content by experts to be made available online.
This would bridge the gap between two extremes: erroneous to worthless content readily available online, and the exorbitantly-priced premium content as in Encarta’s articles. I think it would work well for a good number of end-users.