What shan't we talk about?

As many regular readers of this forum will know, I've a keen interest in the flow of information, particularly when it comes to what we see in the media.

I'm working on a project, presently in a very early form, which will eventually measure freedom of discussion. It looks at Internet news outlets and determines which stories readers are allowed to comment on. Right now, it just does a bit of the Guardian.

http://nocomments.uk

I think it's an interesting idea because although there is a degree of editorialisation in our nation's news rooms, the general public doesn't typically see what is left on the cutting room floor. Comments are a little different, as they give an indication of what newspapers don't feel comfy letting people discuss.

In many cases, there are perfectly legitimate reasons. Ongoing court cases, appeals, etc. Filter those out and the results are quite interesting. Would be interested in your thoughts and/or feature requests.

Interesting topic. certainly over my lifetime I have felt that freedom of speech has been eroded annually, and seemingly at a logarithmic rate in recent years. A friend from South Africa who came here to escape apartheid in the 70/80s said that he had been to many countries and felt that only here we had true freedom of speech but he certainly doesn't feel that way now

Not sure if there is a better measure than comments sections, although you do get people who are well informed it does tend to be the hideout of the keyboard warrior/troll/idiot - Dave Gormans 'Found Poems' are a work of not inconsiderable genius.

As many regular readers of this forum will know, I've a keen interest in the flow of information, particularly when it comes to what we see in the media.

 

I'm working on a project, presently in a very early form, which will eventually measure freedom of discussion. It's so new that it doesn't even have a real domain name yet It looks at Internet news outlets and determines which stories readers are allowed to comment on. Right now, it just does a bit of the Guardian.

 

http://nocomments.uk.ukwsp5.com/

 

I think it's an interesting idea because although there is a degree of editorialisation in our nation's news rooms, the general public doesn't typically see what is left on the cutting room floor. Comments are a little different, as they give an indication of what newspapers don't feel comfy letting people discuss.

 

In many cases, there are perfectly legitimate reasons. Ongoing court cases, appeals, etc. Filter those out and the results are quite interesting. Would be interested in your thoughts and/or feature requests.

I like this, it could actually be quite powerful if the data was used in the right way. Can you hook up to social media as a secondary measure to comments and build up that social graph? Especially Twitter.

Also, one thing with the internet is that I bet that 99% of people don't realise just how many relevancy algorithms are running in the background and dictate what you see, what search results you get, what prices you pay and so on. So there may be a small aspect of how many of these articles have been seen by everyone and how many have been filtered by relevancy algorithms?

At the moment there's no analysis of the comments themselves. The only real data I am displaying is whether you can comment or not. Moving forward, one of the key aims has to be identifying individual stories across outlets to be able to do some sort of comparative analysis. For right now, next steps will be hooking other mainstream media outlets in and saving information for trends purposes.

Will you be looking at comparing nation to nation ?

Sorry if I seem to have missed the initial premise

The BBC news website might be worthy of examination at some point. It seems to only allow comments on fairly benign topics

Will you be looking at comparing nation to nation ?

 

Sorry if I seem to have missed the initial premise

Ah, no worries - I probably didn't explain it that well. Will probably hook up extra nations. Each extra source is additional configuration data that has to be included tho'.

I find the percentages on various news sections quite interesting. Waffle away on Russia and Iran, but expect severe restrictions elsewhere

The BBC news website might be worthy of examination at some point. It seems to only allow comments on fairly benign topics

The short answer there is "almost nowt". It's largely restricted to the "Have Your Say" section.

Many moons ago I used to work for The Guardian and got to sit in on a number of editorial conferences. Back then the editors of each sections (finance, politics, sport etc) seemed to have plenty of autonomy over what they ran. Having said that there did seem to be a central theme - whether that was driven by TV media or the "wires" I don't know but only the tabloids seem to have very different front pages. All of the newsrooms get copies of all editions of other papers so that is probably why there is so much repetition in each paper. No one wants to miss a story.

Its a worthwhile idea but I dont think you can read to much into the absence of ability to comment on any given story.

Most media outlets used to encourage comments because they thought it bought loyalty and engagement and they would be able to target news to the reader - which potentially is more disturbing than your belief about about ability to comment. The Daily Mail online stuck with this model -which is why its now largely celebrity inspired clickbait which enables readers to comment on almost any old gack. Most sites discovered though, like Saintsweb, that the comments didnt generally come from their wider readership but from a small section of repeat commenters. Moderating the bickering of the same few hundreds or thousands of people day in day out over "he said mean / libellous things about me / my hero" was too time consuming and ultimately expensive so they shut it down.

Its a worthwhile idea but I dont think you can read to much into the absence of ability to comment on any given story.

 

Most media outlets used to encourage comments because they thought it bought engagement and that they would be able to target news to the reader - which potentially is more disturbing than your belief about about ability to comment. Some sites like trhe Daily Mail still enable readers to comment on almost any old gack, but most discovered, imo, that like Saintsweb, moderating the bickering over "he said mean / libellous things about me / my hero" was too time consuming and ultimately expensive so they shut it down.

Where do you see the worth, then? The idea is sort of predicated on the basis that ability to comment does matter. Take that out, and what's left?

Pap, I’m probably being dumb here, but can you explain the meaning of those percentages under the ‘Freedom Quotient’ heading, please.

Pap, I’m probably being dumb here, but can you explain the meaning of those percentages under the ‘Freedom Quotient’ heading, please.

Percentage of articles you are allowed to comment on from a specific source, source typically representing a news section on the Guardian.

Where do you see the worth, then? The idea is sort of predicated on the basis that ability to comment does matter. Take that out, and what's left?

I dunno tbh, I haven't really thought it through. atm I'm just attracted to the idea of monitoring / learning more about what generates comments and what is verboten. Somebody I used to work with helped set up the Open Democracy website, which was supposed to be a free and impartial news and opinion centre, but it never got the attention or readership that Tulisa's latest botox injections do. Theres a depressing moral there somewhere.

Percentage of articles you are allowed to comment on from a specific source, source typically representing a news section on the Guardian.

Ok, cheers.

I dunno tbh, I haven't really thought it through. atm I'm just attracted to the idea of monitoring / learning more about what generates comments and what is verboten. Somebody I used to work with helped set up the Open Democracy website, which was supposed to be a free and impartial news and opinion centre, but it never got the attention or readership that Tulisa's latest botox injections do. Theres a depressing moral there somewhere.

Build it then, dude.

Personally, I think the statistics in the visualisation are very telling. Freer to comment on Russia and Iran than we are our own country.

Its a worthwhile idea but I dont think you can read to much into the absence of ability to comment on any given story.

 

Most media outlets used to encourage comments because they thought it bought loyalty and engagement and they would be able to target news to the reader - which potentially is more disturbing than your belief about about ability to comment. The Daily Mail online stuck with this model -which is why its now largely celebrity inspired clickbait which enables readers to comment on almost any old gack. Most sites discovered though, like Saintsweb, that the comments didnt generally come from their wider readership but from a small section of repeat commenters. Moderating the bickering of the same few hundreds or thousands of people day in day out over "he said mean / libellous things about me / my hero" was too time consuming and ultimately expensive so they shut it down.

I made the same point to pap on PM BTT (I was a beta testers (basques(sic) in pap's reflected glory)), but thinking about it, it's still pretty damning.

The Guardian, in this instance, is arbitrarily (read editorially) not allowing you to comment on certain topics.

It may be that this is for 'legitimate' reasons such as legality, but it may be for arbitrary reasons such as cost. To those that value freedom of speech, it's important to know where the line is being drawn, and perhaps to infer for what reason.

As pap already knows, I'd like to see the same news story by media outlet. i.e. see which media outlets stop debate on some topics whilst others are happy to encourage debate.

Whilst it might simply surface those that put cost before freedom of speech/right of reply/enfranchisement, it will at least surface those that put cost before freedom of speech/right of reply/enfranchisement.

Really nice concept pap, and elegantly implemented - if I may say.

- Just not enough word clouds!

Build it then, dude.

 

Personally, I think the statistics in the visualisation are very telling. Freer to comment on Russia and Iran than we are our own country.

That is interesting, pap.

If you establish that this sort of thing is happening on a regular and wide-scale basis, will your project end there? Or will it seek reasons as to why this is happening (other than those already suggested by yourself and Tim)? If so, any ideas on how you will go about this?

I may be being dumb, so before I get off onto a wrong tanget here, can I ask are you talking about analysing what you can comment on, in what manner (ie comment content) and where? Then correlating this to free speech?

If I have misunderstood, sincerest apologies.

That is interesting, pap.

 

If you establish that this sort of thing is happening on a regular and wide-scale basis, will your project end there? Or will it seek reasons as to why this is happening (other than those already suggested by yourself and Tim)? If so, any ideas on how you will go about this?

I think at the very least, even in this early form, it acts as an interesting springboard for discussion. I'm really restricting myself to technical implementation for now, stuff like data collection and configuration for other sources. I've not even begun thinking about real-world applications yet.

I may be being dumb, so before I get off onto a wrong tanget here, can I ask are you talking about analysing what you can comment on, in what manner (ie comment content) and where? Then correlating this to free speech?

 

If I have misunderstood, sincerest apologies.

Yup, for clarity. The program collects links. It determines if those links offer the ability to comment.

The Freedom Quotient breaks down individual topic areas by dividing:-

number of commentable articles / number of articles * 100

Your basic percentage crap.

I made the same point to pap on PM BTT (I was a beta testers (basques(sic) in pap's reflected glory)), but thinking about it, it's still pretty damning.

 

The Guardian, in this instance, is arbitrarily (read editorially) not allowing you to comment on certain topics.

 

It may be that this is for 'legitimate' reasons such as legality, but it may be for arbitrary reasons such as cost. To those that value freedom of speech, it's important to know where the line is being drawn, and perhaps to infer for what reason.

 

As pap already knows, I'd like to see the same news story by media outlet. i.e. see which media outlets stop debate on some topics whilst others are happy to encourage debate.

 

Whilst it might simply surface those that put cost before freedom of speech/right of reply/enfranchisement, it will at least surface those that put cost before freedom of speech/right of reply/enfranchisement.

 

Really nice concept pap, and elegantly implemented - if I may say.

 

- Just not enough word clouds!

Thanks bletch, both for your words here and your encouragement and time during the development of the prototype.

I'll be looking at many of your suggestions, and with specific respect to the one about working out which articles refer to the same thing, I think Google News can help us there. They do that anyway, and they normally have the url as a whole parameter on their links. Stay tuned (sorry, non-nerds).

Yup, for clarity. The program collects links. It determines if those links offer the ability to comment.

 

The Freedom Quotient breaks down individual topic areas by dividing:-

 

number of commentable articles / number of articles * 100

 

Your basic percentage crap.

Ok so I was along the right lines(ish).

So, I'm sure we're going to but heads on this. But honestly, I do not equate being able to comment on something = to free speech. I often find some of the best places for discussion on the internet are some of those that are unashamedly moderated.

There's plenty of reason to not allow comments on things, for example (yeah sorry, it's that again - won't go off on one I promise) take any article about a women and the comments just descend into a vile diatribe of misogynistic hate (done, I promise), same with race or even on Games sites.

I mean, yeah people should be able to free speech - but within free speech there are still parameters. I read an article about 8chan the other day, and that really is one of the darkest corners of the web. Paedophiles openly posting links to hardcore child pornography or ways to groom kids. It's founder, and users will cry free speech. I know this is obviously more extreme than the cases of comments on news sites (sometimes, depending on the site) and the nature of the site is different too.

Basically, yes, I think you should have free speech. But, I think people have the right to ignore you too, and websites have the right to not host your crap on their pages.

Anyway, all that aside I do still think this is an interesting endeavour.

It's a crude reckoning to be sure, but not without merit - especially when the information goes through the filter of the human brain. As you say, there are plenty of reasons why comments could be disabled. The entire purpose of the effort is to get a better idea of what those reasons may be.

Where we absolutely disagree is on your point about ability to comment not impinging on free speech. Of course it does. As we've both agreed, that may have some real world justification, but it doesn't change the very simple fact that you are unable to discuss one particular subject when others are available.

I hope a mod locks this thread.

It's a crude reckoning to be sure, but not without merit - especially when the information goes through the filter of the human brain. As you say, there are plenty of reasons why comments could be disabled. The entire purpose of the effort is to get a better idea of what those reasons may be.

 

Where we absolutely disagree is on your point about ability to comment not impinging on free speech. Of course it does. As we've both agreed, that may have some real world justification, but it doesn't change the very simple fact that you are unable to discuss one particular subject when others are available.

As I said, I think what you are doing is indeed very interesting. I'm absolutely not trying to dismiss or belittle what you are doing in anyway.

I didn't expect you to agree with me (that's fine, you're entitled to say that ), I dunno I just don't see why people see free speech as being able to say what you want where you want. There's always been restrictions and parameters to free speech anyway - online these seem to be met with much greater disdain. I don't see anyone as being entitled to comment on anything, on their own site. I find the notion a bit bizarre. There is nothing to prevent people voicing their own oppositions else where. I don't equate closing comments as censorship when you still have the entirety of the internet to reply.

As I said, I think what you are doing is indeed very interesting. I'm absolutely not trying to dismiss or belittle what you are doing in anyway.

 

I didn't expect you to agree with me (that's fine, you're entitled to say that ), I dunno I just don't see why people see free speech as being able to say what you want where you want. There's always been restrictions and parameters to free speech anyway - online these seem to be met with much greater disdain. I don't see anyone as being entitled to comment on anything, on their own site. I find the notion a bit bizarre. There is nothing to prevent people voicing their own oppositions else where. I don't equate closing comments as censorship when you still have the entirety of the internet to reply.

Oh aye. The press doesn't have to give you a platform to voice your opinion. When it does though, I think you're entitled to wonder where it does and why it does.

As I said, I think what you are doing is indeed very interesting. I'm absolutely not trying to dismiss or belittle what you are doing in anyway.

 

I didn't expect you to agree with me (that's fine, you're entitled to say that ), I dunno I just don't see why people see free speech as being able to say what you want where you want. There's always been restrictions and parameters to free speech anyway - online these seem to be met with much greater disdain. I don't see anyone as being entitled to comment on anything, on their own site. I find the notion a bit bizarre. There is nothing to prevent people voicing their own oppositions else where. I don't equate closing comments as censorship when you still have the entirety of the internet to reply.

Interesting stance, KRG.

I think it's important to distance oneself from the emotion as much as is possible, to try to understand what pap is trying to accomplish. Not speaking on behalf of his papship here, and I'm sure he'll chime in if I'm misrepresenting him.

Not allowing a paedophile to comment on 8Chan is a restriction of their freedom of speech, in the same way that them not being able to share images would be some form of restriction on their freedom of expression.

It's just that many of us believe that these paedophilic desires are wrong, and so society through its representatives has created laws to stop this. Despite most people agreeing that these restrictions are understandable and just, it is still a restriction of those individuals' freedoms - to the point where we no longer consider this legally a 'right'.

In the same academic sense of freedom of expression, pap's Freedom Quotient will uncover the facts about which topics and which outlets restrict/don't restrict discussion. Those that restrict discussion are, perhaps only in a minor way, arbitrarily restricting your right to express your views (via their site).

It could be that for each topic where a comment restriction applies, there is a valid reason (sub judice, appeal-pending, etc.), other reasons may be 'legitimate', but arbitrarily implemented (such as your 'vile comments' about a woman, too much spam, too costly to moderate, etc).

As for the fact that we have no absolute right to comment on their site, I completely agree. And if they allowed no comments site-wide, I'd understand that. But personally I find it interesting to see where they are drawing the line and to try to understand the (potentially legitimate) reasons why.

The fact remains that at the moment, nobody knows which articles/categories of articles/publishers have restricted comments.

I think stage one for pap is to uncover the 'facts' and make these public in an easy to understand way.

I hope a mod locks this thread.

Very good CB Fry.

Very good CB Fry.

Oi. That's whelk's job

As I said, I think what you are doing is indeed very interesting. I'm absolutely not trying to dismiss or belittle what you are doing in anyway.

 

I didn't expect you to agree with me (that's fine, you're entitled to say that ), I dunno I just don't see why people see free speech as being able to say what you want where you want. There's always been restrictions and parameters to free speech anyway - online these seem to be met with much greater disdain. I don't see anyone as being entitled to comment on anything, on their own site. I find the notion a bit bizarre. There is nothing to prevent people voicing their own oppositions else where. I don't equate closing comments as censorship when you still have the entirety of the internet to reply.

Apologies for drowning you in my thoughts, but I just thought of an example close to home.

Imagine if this site closed comments on threads when Saints had lost, and allowed them to stay open when Saints won.

The Man could easily argue that the 'cost' of moderating threads when we win is much less than when we lose.

You couldn't argue with the logic he's applying, but what would the impact of such a stance (legitimately made on 'cost' gounds) have on the personality of this site?

On it's own that isn't such a problem, but then imagine that The Man controlled all the Saints related discussion forums, and then you start to ask questions.

Some Telegraph stuff added. Quite amusing, really. The things it thinks its readers will find important!

http://nocomments.uk/

Guardian stuff still there. Will add some filtering soon. Promise

Apologies for drowning you in my thoughts, but I just thought of an example close to home.

 

Imagine if this site closed comments on threads when Saints had lost, and allowed them to stay open when Saints won.

 

The Man could easily argue that the 'cost' of moderating threads when we win is much less than when we lose.

 

You couldn't argue with the logic he's applying, but what would the impact of such a stance (legitimately made on 'cost' gounds) have on the personality of this site?

 

On it's own that isn't such a problem, but then imagine that The Man controlled all the Saints related discussion forums, and then you start to ask questions.

In this example, the integrity and as you say personality of this site would be compromised to an extent that it would almost certainly be abandoned by its audience. "The Man" would only take control of this site to monetise it, and closing down discussion to that extent would have the opposite impact.

I know you are making a wider point but I think it still stands. Comment threads on newspaper websites is a click driver far more than it is some platform for free speech. It's Internet landfill.

As others have said the decisions to not open threads are going to largely be economic/technical/legal rather than a way to stop free speech.

I know you are making a wider point but I think it still stands. Comment threads on newspaper websites is a click driver far more than it is some platform for free speech. It's Internet landfill.

If only. Half the reason that I've only got two sites aggregated is because many of the other national newspapers don't feature any indication from summary pages that you can comment on the underlying article. Yes, the Independent's click driver is so subtle that you only find it the driver after you've already clicked

Pure click bait is shít like "Local Mom Finds Amazing Dental Secret" or these endless fúcking "lists" sites that are all over Facebook at the moment. They exist purely to generate cash, aren't tied to respected mainstream news audiences and unless those bastard dentists really are hiding obscure secrets, unlikely to have much of a bearing on free speech.

Comments on mainstream media articles are less about selling advertising and more about user engagement. As such, I think the question of WHAT the media seeks to engage its users over is entirely relevant.

As others have said the decisions to not open threads are going to largely be economic/technical/legal rather than a way to stop free speech.

Legal is a decent reason; we've established that. Economic is always going to be debatable, because there is an implied set of priorities. Where does the money get spent, and why?

Technical is a bit of a laugh. A huge number of the sites use the same underlying tech supplied by third party vendors. Even if an outlet is running their own bespoke solution and holding it on their own servers, hard disk space is still the cheapest component of computing, and there are other mechanisms for handling volume, such as time-limiting threads, that many use.

As for whether free speech is being curtailed, that's for the app to provide some direction on. I wrote this because I felt like I was seeing a pattern, but like the others you mention, only really had my own anecdotal experiences and unscientific analysis to go on. The program, however nascent it is now, is a bit more diligent than us and will yield better results over time.

It might be worthwhile adding something to count the number of comments on articles. Allied to a topic, this could give a good indication of what people comment on and how fervently - useful information I'd imagine.

In this example, the integrity and as you say personality of this site would be compromised to an extent that it would almost certainly be abandoned by its audience. "The Man" would only take control of this site to monetise it, and closing down discussion to that extent would have the opposite impact.

 

I know you are making a wider point but I think it still stands. Comment threads on newspaper websites is a click driver far more than it is some platform for free speech. It's Internet landfill.

 

As others have said the decisions to not open threads are going to largely be economic/technical/legal rather than a way to stop free speech.

Yep. I'd agree with most of that CB Fry, and I offered a list of 'valid' reasons myself - some legal, some discretionary.

But, let's see if we can't stretch this shared analogy to breaking point; what if the capitalist motivations you ascribe to The Man were replaced by, let's say a desire for a closer link to the wealthy and powerful Liebherr family?

The Man would be controlling Saints-related information flow, whilst extracting fivers from those that were happy to 'discuss' positive things about Saints, and at the same time providing loyal service to the Liebherr family*.

I personally find it interesting to see where the discretionary line is drawn by these media sites.

I wouldn't be surprised if some use the comments section as a device to reinforce their editorial stance (der!), and to feed their readership self-validatory material, so that in doing so they serve somebody's political ambitions with the expectation of reward someday.

I also wouldn't be surprised if pap's site found that media companies by and large turn their comments off for valid reasons such as time, cost and effort.

*I guess I should point out that this is an analogy - there is no way that Saints' forum owners would ever attempt to ingratiate themselves with the owners of the club to the detriment of their memberships.

It might be worthwhile adding something to count the number of comments on articles. Allied to a topic, this could give a good indication of what people comment on and how fervently - useful information I'd imagine.

Very good suggestion KingdomCome, and readily available too. Cheers.

As for whether free speech is being curtailed, that's for the app to provide some direction on. I wrote this because I felt like I was seeing a pattern, but like the others you mention, only really had my own anecdotal experiences and unscientific analysis to go on. The program, however nascent it is now, is a bit more diligent than us and will yield better results over time.

I suspect a lot of us spot apparent patterns, get hunches, gather anecdotal evidence etc about various things, from time to time … but, for most of us, that’s where it ends. So, hats off to you, pap, for setting up something to test whether your anecdotal experiences are a true reflection of what’s actually occurring.

I don’t profess to understand the technicalities involved in gathering and processing this information, but I assume data will be obtained and analysed in a ‘blind’, unprejudiced fashion, i.e. not subjected to experimenter, expectation, observer-expectancy-effect biases etc – the pitfall of many investigators, scientists, journalists, politicians, football fans etc.

I wish you well with this project and look forward to watching its progression and eventual conclusions.

The ability to add a comment in response to a on-line news story is just the modern equivalent of the 'letters to the editor' page that most printed newspapers still feature. In any printed newspaper limitations of space mean that the editor must carefully select which letters he/she chooses to publish - most decent papers will however habitually reflect views that run contrary to the editorial stance of the paper. Those publications at the top end of the market - such as The Times for instance - will also generally give precedence to letters they receive from expert (or distinguished) sources.

While there are few real limitations of space concerns on the internet, and so anyone should be able to have their say (within the restrains of our libel laws) this is not to say that news providers are under some sort of obligation to provide a platform for anyone to express any opinion they choose to. A traditional printed newspaper is at liberty to choose which views it chooses to display in its pages and it seems to me that the same applies on the Internet.

This ease with which expression is now possible is of course a weakness and well as a strength because any truly worthwhile contribution is in danger of being lost in the sea of repartition, prejudice and misunderstanding that such a invitation is likely to generate. If you really wanted to 'bury' some inconvenient truth then you need only place it well down the 'comments' running order and you can rest assured that few will ever read it.

As for any freedom of speech issues here, methinks the OP sees conspiracies where there are none (not for the first time) and that in truth the modern world presents us with more opportunities to both gather information and for us in turn to share our opinions with the outside world than has ever been available before to the Human race.

I suspect a lot of us spot apparent patterns, get hunches, gather anecdotal evidence etc about various things, from time to time … but, for most of us, that’s where it ends. So, hats off to you, pap, for setting up something to test whether your anecdotal experiences are a true reflection of what’s actually occurring.

 

I don’t profess to understand the technicalities involved in gathering and processing this information, but I assume data will be obtained and analysed in a ‘blind’, unprejudiced fashion, i.e. not subjected to experimenter, expectation, observer-expectancy-effect biases etc – the pitfall of many investigators, scientists, journalists, politicians, football fans etc.

 

I wish you well with this project and look forward to watching its progression and eventual conclusions.

I appreciate the encouragement, Halo. I am looking forward to putting the data to the test. In terms of what I'm collecting at the moment, I'm just trying to ensure a bit of equivalence. So if I grab the Telegraph's Iran section, I'll grab the Guardian's too. I might be biased, but the program aims not to be.

Indeed, one of the things I like most about this project is its purity. No bold and/or unsubstantiated claims are being made here (for once, arf!). The only thing my app does is clarify what's already in plain sight, shining a light onto an area of darkness. That's it. Let the results fall where they may

Interesting project and some interesting discussion here, I like it.

Some thoughts here, bearing in mind I'm an IT numpty.

Strikes me that the type of articles people respond to most are those written by Opiners on subjects as opposed to articles that are simply reporting events. Is there any way of separating or grading these ones? I guess some rags will have more columnists than others.

Also, can the type of article be assigned a category? Articles on Prince Harry visiting mosques is unlikely to raise any comments (i assume) but those on high profile paedo cover-ups are likely too raise plenty

Again, don't know how complicated it would be to implement (i'm a simple builder, guv) and i guess that this sort of filtering may well be something that leads on from the basic model, but was just wondering, like.

Some thoughts here, bearing in mind I'm an IT numpty.

 

Strikes me that the type of articles people respond to most are those written by Opiners on subjects as opposed to articles that are simply reporting events. Is there any way of separating or grading these ones? I guess some rags will have more columnists than others.

 

Also, can the type of article be assigned a category? Articles on Prince Harry visiting mosques is unlikely to raise any comments (i assume) but those on high profile paedo cover-ups are likely too raise plenty

 

Again, don't know how complicated it would be to implement (i'm a simple builder, guv) and i guess that this sort of filtering may well be something that leads on from the basic model, but was just wondering, like.

Hi Special K.

I'm presently building the plumbing for data retention. Right now, it's all real time but nowt is stored for posterity. Moving forward, I'll have a structural framework to store information and produce stuff like trends graphs over times.

One point of order though; I'm more interested in the simple yes/no can-you-comment than the volume of comments on any given article, although as I said to KingdomCome, that'll be something that is built too.

In terms of classification, categories will be included as searchable, as will source news region and country ( e.g. found this story on a Europe -> UK website ). The categories can be broadly inferred from each subject page, and I'll be hooking them up (so Guardian Iraq will know its about Iraq, as will Telegraph Iraq).

Filtering has got to happen before I introduce any more news sites. Already a bit busy, guv

Thanks for the feedback.

Hi Special K.

 

I'm presently building the plumbing for data retention. Right now, it's all real time but nowt is stored for posterity. Moving forward, I'll have a structural framework to store information and produce stuff like trends graphs over times.

 

One point of order though; I'm more interested in the simple yes/no can-you-comment than the volume of comments on any given article, although as I said to KingdomCome, that'll be something that is built too.

 

In terms of classification, categories will be included as searchable, as will source news region and country ( e.g. found this story on a Europe -> UK website ). The categories can be broadly inferred from each subject page, and I'll be hooking them up (so Guardian Iraq will know its about Iraq, as will Telegraph Iraq).

 

Filtering has got to happen before I introduce any more news sites. Already a bit busy, guv

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Sound. Good luck with it pap.

Version 2.0 is up:-

Data collection, filtering, more visualisation categories.

Freedom Quotient now respects your filters! (I like that bit).

Anyone that has visited the site before may need to do a Ctrl-F5. This forces your browser to reload all scripts.

http://nocomments.uk/

Sounds like youre trying to get a contract with GCHQ...

Sounds like youre trying to get a contract with GCHQ...

I don't think they'd take me, Jonnyboy

Just plugged the Daily Mail in. Interesting experience. From a pure numbers perspective, the Daily Mail looks like a paragon of virtue when it comes to engaging its audience. Very little is off the table, but (you knew this was coming) the table isn't that complex. One large news section, covering pretty much everything. They have a separate page for US news, but don't have individual country pages like the broadsheets collected before them - so ironically, getting solid data on how the Daily Mail REALLY feels about foreigners is going to take a bit of work.

First time for everything.

getting solid data on how the Daily Mail REALLY feels about foreigners is going to take a bit of work.

Do papers really care about issues any more, or are they amoral businesses who want to maximise revenues so their 'angle' just reflects whatever niche they see as an opportunity? Arguably the Guardian (owned by a trust) and the BBC are driven by things other than popularity but for the rest.....

Do papers really care about issues any more, or are they amoral businesses who want to maximise revenues so their 'angle' just reflects whatever niche they see as an opportunity? Arguably the Guardian (owned by a trust) and the BBC are driven by things other than popularity but for the rest.....

The lengths that the press went to during the phone hacking scandal will suggest that they are amoral businesses. Context and coverage seem to be key so far. Based on numbers along, The Telegraph and Guardian look like they're pretty selective about what they'll let people comment about, especially compared to the Mail which has a very high percentage of commentable articles. I suspect that the Mail is simply covering less; I can bear this out crudely with numbers, but bletch's idea about being able to detect different versions of the same story (or absence of) is what's really needed there. tbf to the Mail though, their coverage does seem to be reasonably broad - there's just little categorisation per page.

I fed the RT.com configuration into the dev version of the site today. Almost not worth doing. You can comment on everything. On the numbers alone, it's the winner - but then you consider its raison d'etre, an English language web site run by the Russian government, and you'd feel less comfortable about making any sort of judgment on RT's overall freedom based on their perfect record. They want people to have a pop.

The metric is still prey to editorialisation, unfortunately. I can't measure what isn't published - but I've found the results so far fairly interesting.