My Photo

« Vampires, Google and Blogs | Main | A Tale of Two Bings »

May 25, 2009

Comments

Antony Mayfield

Brilliant concise post, sir - cheers. It's got my mind racing...

Nick DiGiacomo

Your point 1) reinforces something that most people in the social media world don't seem to appreciate/understand - statistical approaches that presume independence of events (frequentist and naive Bayes) can't be used reliably to analyze data sourced from social media/news. These data aren't crowdsourced in the WOC sense - they are "mobsourced". And the paper you cite reinforces the point that there is much valuable information contained in the correlations between mobsourced events. Capturing and interpreting these correlations - as opposed to throwing them out - is key to getting something new and valuable from social media/news.

Daniel Tunkelang

Matt Salganik's "artificial cultural market" work is brilliant. And I wonder how well consumers understand the ease of manipulating the information they receive. I'm not talking something as conspiracy theory-esque as Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent or Thomas Frank and Matt Weiland's Commodify Your Dissent, but rather more mundane hi-jinks like people writing shill reviews on Amazon.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    May 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
              1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31            

    Categories

    Blog powered by Typepad