Comments on: Keywords and Meaning

By: data recovery

data recovery — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:44:29 +0000

I love using site everwas.com

By: Do Social Gestures a Business Model Make?

Do Social Gestures a Business Model Make? — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:30:53 +0000

[...] went wrong with the Intense Debate comments on last night’s post on Keywords and Meaning. It’s unfortunate because there were some really thoughtful responses to the post which [...]

By: Davide DIncau

Davide DIncau — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:01:00 +0000

not sure whether classifying tweets by type would help much.

By: jhstrauss

jhstrauss — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:24:00 +0000

The TechCrunch post you cite was inspired by John Borthwick's very interesting essay on how Google's approach to content filtering breaks in the realm of what he calls the "Now Web." Like you say above: "Google's PageRank, while valuable in sorting out the reputation and tossing the hucksters, is no good when applied to real-time news which is too fresh to build up a linkmap." In the (relatively) static web, the network nodes are pages and the endorsement actions are the links between them which are effectively permanent as well as public, and thus crawlable. In the Now Web, the network nodes are people and the endorsements are ephemeral share actions, the majority of which are not public or crawlable (i.e. email, IM, Facebook -- what I call the "Deep Now Web"). And so, authority also takes on a different form from the aggregate view that PageRank provides to the personal measure of how much influence an individual has with her social network on a particular topic at a given moment. I agree that we need to have a means of systematically capturing the newly important metadata of share actions and that it needs to be done at the point of sharing (see Jeff Jonas). But, I believe the more easily adopted (and thus ultimately more useful) taxonomy will be one of contextual metadata (i.e. who/what/when/where/why/how) rather than the more personal folksonomy/tagging approach you suggest.

By: jhstrauss

jhstrauss — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:24:00 +0000

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:00:00 +0000

Keyword extraction from Twitter could be cool, but may kill of serendipitous discovery, my favorite aspect of Twitter. If keywords or meta-categories are predetermined truly unique hawtness, unprecedented new things ( a Twitter specialty ) will just get deleted? That would be FAIL. I wonder if more of a "people with attributes" are really what’s needed. Example, I do want to know what’s going on with the latest developments for Symbian operating system, particularly activity streams and address book stuff. Rather than rely on keyword extraction, I could just assign an attribute to your tweets… twitteruser:iankennedy=novi …I can be fairly assured news filtered by real humans, THEN assigned an attribute of my choosing will bring me some good results. A tag cloud of all tweets containing “symbian, activity stream, address book” would be noisy ( pollute with people asking each other for tech support? ), difficult to pull meaning from while drinking beer at my favorite bar. Speaking of which, I urge you to reconsider your absence from South by southwest this year. Please come, if just for Sunday evening and Monday, and bring this post’s topic to us all in person – Noise reduction from social network activity streams will be a hotly contested subject this year and your opinion would be of immense value.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:00:00 +0000