TV Schedule

Let’s talk staff participation, algorithmic soup, and Current:News


  3. mario_a
  4. related topics
Let’s talk staff participation, algorithmic soup, and Current:News
Hey everyone. Concerns regarding staff participation and perceived “selective censorship” in Current:News have been bubbling up, and I’d like to try and clear the air a bit. We’ll need to work together to get things running smoothly, and this boils down to a boatload of time spent discussing the issues in play. So let’s dive in!

// Staff Participation on Current //

Current staffers are a part of the community. We vote, comment, and contribute stories. Some staff submissions become popular. Others fall into obscurity like many others. In the end, Current:News is about participatory news, and we all work together to determine what gets reported.

Current staff includes our large broadcast team and our online team of developers, designers, product and community teams, and most importantly for the purposes of this conversation, an editorial team.

// Why did this story jump up / get featured over another? What gives? //

Whenever major news breaks across the world, we get flooded with similar submissions on Current. Our editors focus on making sure that the same type of story doesn’t get reported several times over, that what we report makes interesting television, and that the items reported are credible and accurate.

They only intentionally place a story on the home page in rare cases of breaking news. When I say breaking, I mean major political decrees, losses of human life, convictions and other jury verdicts, etc. When we do this, you’ll see a bright red “Breaking News” badge next to the story. We promise to use this power responsibly.

Does Current staff ever push content down? Yes. Because popular stories on Current make it to TV, we take an active role in making sure that each newscast comprises of compelling news based on your contributions. Sometimes stories cannot be aired on TV – not because we don’t like the story, but because some have already been reported, don’t make gripping television, or are inappropriate for TV.

We don’t do it often, we’d like to do it even less, and our intent is to reduce this practice as our algorithm improves. Still, we should do a better job communicating this—and we will.

// What is this “algorithmic soup” you speak of? //

We hear this all the time: “Why does this item have X number of views, Y number of comments, and a higher % of green votes over red votes, yet it still hasn’t made it into Current:News?” Well, our algorithm takes many factors into account when determining item popularity. I can’t give you the whole recipe, but the ingredients include everything from comments to votes to community reputation and story freshness.

Sharing activity counts, too. If you find a story you think others should see, send it to connections by using the share feature. Or, post it to Twitter, your blog, Facebook, etc. Get the word out and get people to vote and comment on the story.

Take note: Sometimes less is more. If a Paris Hilton submission doesn’t feel right for Current, don’t post comments expressing how inappropriate you think it is. These spark discussion and could inadvertently give the story a boost! Instead, voice your input by voting it down, and then move along.

// Vote Up/Vote Down buttons //

We’ve weighed the option of ditching the red voting button, but we felt it was more important to clarify voting instead. It’s less about whether or not you like the content of the story and more about whether or not you feel more people should see it. A one-button voting mechanism is OK, but getting both positive and negative feedback helps us more in the long run.

We hold daily reviews, and we spend a lot of time poring over everything that is going on and trying to find ways to improve both our human and algorithmic processes. We’re far from perfect, but we’re working really hard to get better.

I realize that this is a lot to process. Soak it all in, and let’s discuss. Our goal is to improve and your feedback is pivotal, so let me know what you think.

Mario
Online Community Team
mario_a

73 responses // Let’s talk staff participation, algorithmic soup, and Current:News

  • mario_a
  • excellent defense of the current policies, but i'd prefer if you just told us that you actively censor the news to protect your sponsors [because without them none of this could exist] instead of spinning some yarn about algorithmic complexities.
    blackdaylight
    1 response to this
  • and "community reputation" means what precisely?

    also, replies to responses, not all the text entered can be read/seen properly
    lfm
    • lfm
    • 2 months ago
    1 response to this
  • Thanks, mario_a! That was a pretty insightful explanation. :-)

    @ lfm, I was wondering the same thing. "Community reputation?" As in each user's reputation in the community with regard to "green" votes for their submissions or their number of badges etc.?

    Anyway, nice read. And to all at Current (both staff and users), keep up the good work!
    Hawkmang
    1 response to this
  • Thanks for the disclosure. I get that there's a system. I like the way things work @ current. Keep up the good work.
    parisinla
  • This is very informative and helps me to understand the situation better.

    I am amazed at how prolific many of the members are in posting comments. I think it takes me something in the vicinity of about 3 to 4 hours a day to wade through all the comments and "so and so thinks you will like this."

    I try to get to every one of the suggestions but there just isn't enough time in a day and I do have to make a living. I am please that in a small way I can contribute to something bigger and that has a very altruistic intention. I hope it stays that way and we don't get the Big Corporate shaft like so many independent musicians did from MP3.com when it got bought by Universal Vivendi. And I never got my royalty check from them for the one song they took of mine that made it into the top 40 Spanish songs on MP3.com. It got chosen for their music listening service they launched and I don't know how much money they took in.

    There was a massive diaspora of artist who left MP3.com and today it is a shell of its former self, dominated by major labels.

    I started my own personal boycott of everything Universal after that. It was truly a betrayal and so many artists were doing so well.

    In the end it did do a positive thing in that it spawned the creation of so many other copycat sites where people can distribute their work. Even Rupert Murdoch got into the fray when he launched MySpace.

    I have my music store there, its something at least.

    What I liked about where MP3.com was going was that they were making it possible to sell actual CDs made to order.

    I digress.

    My point is that I hope that Current does not get bought by some other conglomerate that then wrecks the community.

    Is Current publicly traded on the stock exchange?

    Is Current privately held?

    Why not allow community members to have more of an investment in the future of Current and offer them a chance to own a piece of the action?
    jubal
  • Quoted:

    "Does Current staff ever push content down? Yes. Because popular stories on Current make it to TV, we take an active role in making sure that each newscast comprises of compelling news based on your contributions. Sometimes stories cannot be aired on TV – not because we don’t like the story, but because some have already been reported, don’t make gripping television, or are inappropriate for TV.

    We don’t do it often, we’d like to do it even less, and our intent is to reduce this practice as our algorithm improves. Still, we should do a better job communicating this—and we will."

    ---------------------

    My favorite part of this "–and we will".

    Accountability. Accountability. Accountability. I can only speak for myself, but I would like to know who was responsible for pulling content from the "climb" and why? Reasons could include: Inaccurate, duplicate, too controversial, copyrighted material, etc? Perhaps even a small blurb of why the editor or staff member felt it was necessary to pull it. This could easily be placed in a side block under the "add topic tag" for stories that are no longer available for the news. This would allow the members to track a certain staff members bias towards specific content if it exists. Just a thought.

    Thank-you Mario for openly discussing this. I am sure it's helping many understand the methods used for the web application here at current.com.

    And thanks for the advice too. Rest assured, if I see a posting about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and alike, I'll be keeping my comments to myself, so that it doesn't help it go up the climb. Rather I will vote down this type of "news" since I see more than enough on TV when searching for real news.

    I do have one question. Is there a reason why the "I like it" and "Nope" buttons are still in the articles, rather than "Vote Up & Vote Down"? Are they the same thing?

    Thanks again.
    recommended by  jade_azul16
    YourMothersMilk
    5 responses to this
  • Thanks Mario for this discussion. My concern lately has been the devolution of comments on some topics from a lively debate to filthy hate-filled speech. These comments tend to come from the same "trolls" who seem to be here only to upset and provoke other posters. It's depressing to see my beloved Current.com turn into a YouTube-like graffiti wall. Any thoughts?
    recommended by  jubal
    Julie_Soller
    1 response to this
  • @Julie,

    The issue of "trolls" is one we've seen mentioned quite a bit lately. The best thing you can do is not engage--if someone really is trolling a site, they thrive on the response they get. If no one bothers to respond, they'll get bored and find another site to troll. If they're violating our community standards, go ahead and flag them and we'll review the comment.

    However, it's important to keep in mind that just because someone is expressing different or minority opinions does not necessarily make them a troll. While many in the Current community may hold similar ideological views, we welcome all viewpoints and opinions. We encourage debate and discussion, but ask that everyone keep our community standards in mind, particularly when you find yourself getting into a heated discussion.

    Steph
    Online Community Team
    recommended by  jubal
    sgwhites
    4 responses to this
  • Perhaps just a tab more transparency is in order. This was an excellent attempt to clear a few things up but it still leaves a few questions and a slight uneasy feeling about the system as a whole.

    Have you considered referencing similar stories from the one that actually bubbles to the top. Case in point; there were several stories yesterday about high school students making a pact to get pregnant and 17 of them accomplishing the task. Oddly the one submission of all that made it to the top was from a staff member - go figure.

    What you could do is reference the similar stories from that one so others can find all the comments and differing points of view on the topic. It wouldn't have to change the ultimate outcome but it would allow for more interaction and info exchange.
    eldamon
    2 responses to this
  • I have many thoughts on this, Julie, I think all of us need to take responsibility to speak up when we hear misinformation. Not to scold people, or tell them what they think is wrong, but to raise awareness.

    Anytime you see hatred in people's comments it is surely stemming from some place of ignorance.

    The easiest way to deal with this is to add nice words, add information, and do our personal part to help steer things in better direction.
    recommended by  jubal
    celestialceiling
    2 responses to this
  • Active discussion and transparency on issues like this just shows Current is a very "healthy" website. The staff isn't defensive and the majority of the members are compliant with rules, this site truly shows how a website should carry itself.

    I would also like to thank Current for it's ingenuity, and it's user created news.
    current89
    1 response to this
  • today it seems like there are too many stories on the from page that aren't news at all just viral videos & things that are supposed to make us giggle.
    blackdaylight
  • Thank you so much for this post. I've been worried for a long time that poor-quality posts with bad sources could become too popular on current.com/tv and this post allays many of my fears. I appreciate your professionalism and feedback on my comment in a different post. Thanks, and keep up the great work!
    Colonial_Zombie
  • This is unrelated, but the one thing I dislike about the new format is that the side of people's responses to other's posts are cut off, leaving one wondering what they actually are saying. I don't know if that is just me, but is there any way I could do something so all the words appear?
    Egnatius212
    1 response to this
  • I think Current should make having an icon and filling out a bit of info about yourself mandatory before proceeding to comment. A lot of the crap is coming from anonymous iconless users.
    recommended by  lfm, Marilynn_Murray
    stephenthomson
  • http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080618-reddit-so...
    Reddit Is said to be putting there algorithm out for everyone to see. I have a feeling it would help quell fears if people know the math behind what they think they see going on. It also can hurt as people try to game the system.
    gylu
  • Julie is right about the debate thing. While current does provide the setting for a discussion about a particular comment its decency rules are incapable of upholding a respectable debate. Curse words are bad but so are dismissive comments that neglect a superior display of reasoning to the issue at hand. So Julie is exactly right.

    When compared to an actual forum which hosts a true debate current.com does resemble a You Tube graffiti wall. This sucks because Current always has a wealth of stories/ideas to discuss but does not have the means to offer a respectable debate. Current would be infinitely cooler if they provide such a service.
    Ricky84
  • i think i am going to leave early. "But why J_current" I hear you say. "we love your wit and your morality." yes, well. there are a few reasons. if you send me a message I'll tell you. I dont understand the 2 responses thing??? I have to click to see if there is a direct response. or something. cannot be bothered. and i never liked the vote up/down. "two babies raped" (baby rape sure to make it on current) do i vote up coz i like it (baby rape) or because i want to see it on tv?? What am i voting for? I hate baby rape.

    there was no need for me to write any of this.

    J
    J_current
  • Nice handling of a hot potato Mario. Do you have any clear and specific guidelines on what inappropriate for TV actually accounts for within broadcast guidelines?

    I've been pleased to see recently, specifically within the past two or three days, that stories that I believe probably fall within this 'inappropriate' category still held their place on the front page. I figured there had been a change in process and policy due to user input and what you seem to be saying backs that assumption up.

    Well done current team and users for your ongoing efforts and integrity.
    dearmat23
    1 response to this
  • @J_current -- the "2 responses" thing is being worked on. We want to be able to have threaded responses, but having them closed at default is obviously not working well for many (including us).

    As for the voting: You don't vote up because you like what the story is about (baby rape), you vote up because you think the story contains an important issue that others should be aware of (baby rape).

    No one likes baby rape.

    Hope this helps,

    Mario

    Online Community Team
    mario_a
  • So now instead of the old system of "Covert Staff Participation" we now have a system of "Overt Staff Participation."

    This sounds exactly like the same old media model that freelancers like myself have been dealing with for decades. Gatekeepers control the content of the network so the network can control stories, and therefore maximize profits.

    Somehow I and others expected better from Current TV. Especially given the lofty rhetoric surrounding the start of this experiment 5 years ago.

    Making it all sound nicey-nice doesn't change this fact: If Current doesn't want a story on the air, no matter what the online community wants or says, it won't air.

    How revolutionary.

    Whatever happened to the original mission of revolutionizing the media? No profit in that?

    Funny it's a over one year later and people STILL don't like the RED LIGHT, DON'T LIKE, VOTE DOWN buttons... hmm, sounds so damn familiar... and now staff can vote down a story? My, my, my... the more things change at Current the more they stay the same...

    For example: What's to stop the on-air programming dept. from sending out a company wide email for the staff to vote down a story that's "wrong for the network" and keep it off the air?

    This is a serious credibility gap we're talking about here.
    zenbeer
    3 responses to this
  • I joined Current because they told us to tell them what WE thought should be on TV.

    Now, here they are defending how they keep things we submit from getting on TV because it's "Not compelling" or "inappropriate."

    Says who? TV People? My point exactly. TV people don't change the face of TV. Period. If TV people are in total control then all we have here is a documentary sweat shop, not a "collaboration" A collaboration means both sides have reasonably equal input into the product. This is why I stopped submitting to Current.

    As for the red voting button, glad to see people are still making them defend it. I once tested the "democracy" here at Current by making a video asking people to vote on the red button. I didn't even ask them to air it or insist they pay me when it won the leaderboard contest fair and square. Everyone voted against the button but they ignored our "collaborative" input and kept it anyway. I have never gotten over that. It was a really rude awakening.

    I'm still checking in periodically but I lost most of my hope quite a while ago.. . . like around the time they started putting "beta" on top of the website.

    Here's to what's left of hoping. . .
    Plisko
    2 responses to this
  • yeah i feel like i'm being targeted on current.tv...with the constant harssment from the staff trying to censor the things i say and the videos i put up...though it could be worse...i guess i'm trying to say is we at sufferahsmusic intend to be edgy and creative in a realistic fashion i hope current.tv can meet us half way......sufferahsmusic
    sufferahsmusic
    1 response to this
  • It would be good if any abnormal modification to a story (for instance staff moderation) would be noted somewhere in the article statistics. That way, when such a thing happens at least the users will know what happened.

    You already have a 'breaking news' icon, now you'll also need a 'modded down' icon :)

    Furthermore, i really dislike the idea that stories do not get on top because it is 'unfit for tv'. As you stated: "Our editors focus on making sure [..] that what we report makes interesting television". I thought that was up to us?
    yonie
  • Why is being logged on a certain number of days necessary to move up in the badge system? You only count five activities per day so in order to reach the "magic number" to move up, you have to log in day after day after day when some of us can't do that....and furhtermore, if there's a day when I'm on all day commenting, voting, submitting that should carry some weight over logging in, doing 5 quick votes just to make the day count and then going about my day.
    barkway
  • it's my right to refuse democracy.
    J_current
  • Let me just reqoute the current.com disclaimer here:

    "Current is about what's going on in your world: all the things you and your friends are actually interested in -- that you won't find on any other news site or cable TV channel."
    yonie
  • Whoa, guys. There are some pretty big assumptions being made here.

    @zenbeer you said, "What's to stop the on-air programming dept. from sending out a company wide email for the staff to vote down a story that's "wrong for the network" and keep it off the air?"

    We consciously chose to make staff interaction on the site much more visible with our staff badges. Quick question, if what you are suggesting was really our intent, why would we choose to be so transparent regarding who is staff on the site?

    As for the voting issue, our system is actually a lot more open this time around. When something you've submitted for Current:News is in the running, you have a greater opportunity to make it onto TV in a relatively quick fashion. We're airing comments and submissions from our community hourly in Current:News, and the votes on your submission could easily outnumber any effort by our staff with a little clever distribution by the original contributor via sharing or posting -- we hear Twitter, Digg, and Yahoo! Buzz are pretty popular. Try 'em out!

    @Plisko you said, "Now, here they are defending how they keep things we submit from getting on TV because it's "Not compelling" or "inappropriate.""

    The vast majority of our "not compelling" decisions are derived in response to the wealth of initial feedback we received from the broader Current community back when we launched Current:News -- cries for "more photos, more video, less text" resounded because featuring simply text read by Vicky the Robot was deemed uninteresting, even if the text was submitted by community members. Images, webcam comments, and video clips are all preferred providing we have the rights to air them. Bottom line, we don't answer to our sponsors unless we are talking VCAMs, in which case they get to choose who takes top prize.

    As for "inappropriate," well if we let the stuff that falls into that category make it to TV, you would be in an uproar over a whole other set of concerns.

    We can't please everyone, but we are sticking to our mission and making progress in the meantime. I think it's worth noting that some of the detracting statements mentioned on this thread actually pertain to some of our past issues regarding VC2 submissions and the VC2 leaderboard.

    We may not do everything perfect the first time around, but we do recognize when something isn't working and we strive to make changes based on what we've learned.

    I hope this helps to further flesh things out.

    Mario
    Online Community Team
    mario_a
    6 responses to this
  • mario_a;

    Just wondering if Current members will be given any information about the IPO. I would like to know how to go about owning a piece of the station, small as it may be. ;-)
    JanforGore
    1 response to this
  • All right now the voting buttons make more sense to me.

    I'm a new member so I had the idea that the buttons were for the content quality itself...

    Thanks for clearing that up Mario.
    MrEClass
  • I was just thinking about just how much Current has changed...and it's changed alot. Some for the good, some more annoying, but for all its faults, it works. Rest assured no matter what you do, people will always find fault or something to complain about it. We can't help it. We're human.
    Neghie
  • i have seen a few stories on here that are doing well and all of a sudden with a click of the mouse are put on the last page.. these are stories the gov. doesn't want people to see and apparently c