“Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches • Hacker News Board

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#11

Post by Mithaldu » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

ihuman wrote: post #6

robotmlg wrote: post #2

Thank you for de-clickbaiting the title

Is there any documentation on what a clickbait title? HN has guidelines on what to do when the title starts with a number, but the only line about clickbaiting is kind of generic.[1] Personally, I'm not sure if "I'll know it when I see it" is the best policy for this, as different people have different opinions on what clickbait is. And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the titl…

> different people have different opinions on what clickbait is.

Not really, there are just people who haven't seen a specific type of trick not used ad nauseam, while others have seen it a thousand times already.

"I'll know it when I see it" is sufficient here, since there's a wide variety of them and with enough experience they can be easily recognized.

In case you would like to have an easier way to learn it though:

Typically clickbait is when the article communicates something (anything, really) that could easily fit in the title itself, but refuses to do so. Advanced users compose titles that specifically pique curiosity in the average person.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#12

Post by d0vs » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

sjbase wrote: post #5

I have an interesting dilemma. On one hand, I want to commend you for not using the author's clickbait title. On the other hand, I don't want to give the author more exposure (because of the clickbait title) by increasing this post's comment score. In the end, the first hand won. Thanks! :)

HN should just ban medium.com links.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#13

Post by jldugger » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

fenollp wrote: post #8

This is a really naive search method for a person whose job is to be good at this. It's like watching the Spotlight team going through volumes of data themselves… Isn't Data Journalist a thing already?

What's your argument exactly? That they should have used narrower terms until they found an article that was already written?

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#14

Post by gravypod » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith.

It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#15

Post by protomyth » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

ihuman wrote: post #6

robotmlg wrote: post #2

Thank you for de-clickbaiting the title

Is there any documentation on what a clickbait title? HN has guidelines on what to do when the title starts with a number, but the only line about clickbaiting is kind of generic.[1] Personally, I'm not sure if "I'll know it when I see it" is the best policy for this, as different people have different opinions on what clickbait is. And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the titl…

If the title asks a question that can be answered in the title, then it is probably a clickbait title. It is generally accompanied by a title with the pronoun "you" (e.g. "you wouldn't guess") or exclamation of surprise at the contents of the article.

Here we see a fine example: "The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches that you probably haven’t considered". We have a one word answer "Me" and 'you' in the phrase 'you probably have considered'. The poster did a nice change to get the question answered before you need to read the article.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#16

Post by mr_luc » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

Possibly because it inconvenienced them: by delaying their flight, or by making them feel social anxiety if they were asked to move or moved away from.

Or they may have felt sympathy with others inconvenienced, like the flight crew and passengers.

It seems like a pretty natural, human thing to dislike being inconvenienced. I dislike it myself, in fact -- don't you?

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#17

Post by fenollp » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #13

fenollp wrote: post #8

This is a really naive search method for a person whose job is to be good at this. It's like watching the Spotlight team going through volumes of data themselves… Isn't Data Journalist a thing already?

What's your argument exactly? That they should have used narrower terms until they found an article that was already written?

They use a syntax-aware search (thus refining for ME, MY, …). I thought (hoped) that journalists among all people would be the best at semantic search.

Here the guy is just saying "whoa great dude and next I'll use regexps oh my god woaw". We have word2vec, doc2vec, many cores, … why aren't journalists using the tools they should be using?

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#18

Post by Cyph0n » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

mr_luc wrote: post #16

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

Possibly because it inconvenienced them: by delaying their flight, or by making them feel social anxiety if they were asked to move or moved away from. Or they may have felt sympathy with others inconvenienced, like the flight crew and passengers. It seems like a pretty natural, human thing to dislike being inconvenienced. I dislike it myself, in fact -- don't you?

But that's something you have to live with, especially when on an airplane. I don't see why someone would make a big deal out of that.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#19

Post by tronje » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

I haven't personally experienced something like this, but I can come up with a few reasons.

1) maybe I just don't want to switch seats. Maybe I'm already settled in, maybe I like the fact that it's a window/middle/isle seat, etc.

2) imagine someone refuses to sit next to you, stating the reason as "that person is ugly" or "that person's choice of wardrobe disturbs me". If that happened to me, I'd certainly be offended and might refuse to move out of principle (though personally, I'd rather the flight was on time than make a statement). Those reasons are different from "I can't sit next to a woman", but they also refer to superficial, and frankly, childish, things.

Re: “Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches

#20

Post by gravypod » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

mr_luc wrote: post #16

gravypod wrote: post #14

Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith. It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?

Possibly because it inconvenienced them: by delaying their flight, or by making them feel social anxiety if they were asked to move or moved away from. Or they may have felt sympathy with others inconvenienced, like the flight crew and passengers. It seems like a pretty natural, human thing to dislike being inconvenienced. I dislike it myself, in fact -- don't you?

I've been on a few planes in my life and I can tell you that none of them departed on time. Delays are a thing that go hand and hand with operations as complex as aircraft control and maintenance.