On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:58:58 +0000, hax0rsteve <hax0rc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

To pointlessly prolong the discussion - it being Friday :-) ...


I guess what I'm getting at here is that any automated filtering
system ultimately
amounts to making value judgements on behalf of your users. That this fails quite often in - for example - corporate email systems gives me no confidence
that any similar approach is going to work for twitter, where the
diversity of
message content, users, and use cases is vastly more pronounced.

But I could - of course - be wrong :-)

Well, Twitter is on the one hand a smaller data set than Google, but on the other hand has different usage patterns in the real-time signal-processing sense. So yes, if Google has to mix human judgment and algorithmic judgment to "optimize shareholder value", then so does Twitter. I claim, though, that the mere fact that one can buy the number one position in a Twitter Search that otherwise returns total garbage is very much different from buying clicks on Google, where organic search results at least return something that a mix of human and mechanical judgment has determined is relevant to the searchers' intent.

Twitter Trending Topics is broken and infested with spam. One shouldn't need Sulia to consume Twitter, and Twitter's own Promoted Trends and Tweets should not have to compete for eyeballs and clicks with spambots.

http://twitter.com/znmeb http://borasky-research.net

"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." -- Paul Erdős

Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc
API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi
Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
Change your membership to this group: 

Reply via email to