The Gentleman's Agreement(fr.anc.is)
fr.anc.is
The Gentleman's Agreement
http://fr.anc.is/2012/03/14/the-gentlemans-agreement/
17 comments
I've thought about this problem a lot, and I think the problem is recommendation systems (e.g. for feeds) are not optimizing for awesome. They optimize for having an endless amount of decent.
Bob Carpenter of Alias-I wrote a blog post about a particular NLP task he was working on, and he decided that the correct evaluation measure was to insist on 95% precision (must be awesome), and only then optimize recall (amount of awesome discovered).
In the real world, I have a few friends that don't make recommendations really often. But when they do, I jump. Their recommendations are always solid gold.
The problem with recommendation on the web is that there is no built in notion of economy. Economy in the sense of "frugality in expenditure or consumption". There is an inherent economy on the amount of time I have to consume content. So why shouldn't there be an economy on the amount of things I can endorse? Perhaps that would guide content sharers at large to only share awesome. (And I get more endorsements based upon how much people value my previous endorsements.)
I'm toying with calling this idea "the economy of awesome" or "the economy of cool".
Bob Carpenter of Alias-I wrote a blog post about a particular NLP task he was working on, and he decided that the correct evaluation measure was to insist on 95% precision (must be awesome), and only then optimize recall (amount of awesome discovered).
In the real world, I have a few friends that don't make recommendations really often. But when they do, I jump. Their recommendations are always solid gold.
The problem with recommendation on the web is that there is no built in notion of economy. Economy in the sense of "frugality in expenditure or consumption". There is an inherent economy on the amount of time I have to consume content. So why shouldn't there be an economy on the amount of things I can endorse? Perhaps that would guide content sharers at large to only share awesome. (And I get more endorsements based upon how much people value my previous endorsements.)
I'm toying with calling this idea "the economy of awesome" or "the economy of cool".
> In the real world, I have a few friends that don't make recommendations really often. But when they do, I jump. Their recommendations are always solid gold.
Can't we solve this by allowing users to internally rate their friends? Just like you, I only care about the recommendation of some of my friends. So if can somehow rate my friend's recommendation from 1 to 5, then the algorithm could just to only recommend me stuff from the friends I value the most.
You can even use machine learning to do this automatically. Instead of bothering users to rate friends, if I often like the recommendations you give to me, I should get more recommendations from you. If I often ignore your recommendations, I should get less of it.
G+ circles could even be used for further context. I might like your recommendation for food, but not for tech. So the engine could could separate each content with a context (this is a tech blog, or that is a food blog) and relate that to my circles. So I would get tech recommendation from people on my tech circle, but not from people on my food circle.
I think the big picture problem here, is that social networks usually put all 'friends' in the same bucket of equal value. When in the real world we have different values for different friends, and for different contexts. So a solution would be to simply have additional variables for friend rating, then use machine learning to try to automatically match them to each context.
Can't we solve this by allowing users to internally rate their friends? Just like you, I only care about the recommendation of some of my friends. So if can somehow rate my friend's recommendation from 1 to 5, then the algorithm could just to only recommend me stuff from the friends I value the most.
You can even use machine learning to do this automatically. Instead of bothering users to rate friends, if I often like the recommendations you give to me, I should get more recommendations from you. If I often ignore your recommendations, I should get less of it.
G+ circles could even be used for further context. I might like your recommendation for food, but not for tech. So the engine could could separate each content with a context (this is a tech blog, or that is a food blog) and relate that to my circles. So I would get tech recommendation from people on my tech circle, but not from people on my food circle.
I think the big picture problem here, is that social networks usually put all 'friends' in the same bucket of equal value. When in the real world we have different values for different friends, and for different contexts. So a solution would be to simply have additional variables for friend rating, then use machine learning to try to automatically match them to each context.
This is a partial solution, but one that is already implemented.
The problem is that people have different semantics for clicking "Like" on something, or giving it five stars. This becomes problematic when giving something five stars means that it's at least "pretty good to you". In that case, you lose the dynamic range of expressing "this is AWESOME. simply AWESOME."
So a machine learning algorithm cannot distinguish between good and AWESOME if the user is lumping them into one category.
Which is why I propose actually creating scarcity around the amount in which you can promote or approve or content, perhaps backed by a currency of cool. I can only click like five times a day, for example. That would limit people's ability to blithely approve of everything, and their ability to collapse the distinction between good and AWESOME.
This approach is much stricter than the optional "gentleman's agreement" proposed in the article, but might also create more desirable properties, and a fun incentive around only sharing AWESOME.
The problem is that people have different semantics for clicking "Like" on something, or giving it five stars. This becomes problematic when giving something five stars means that it's at least "pretty good to you". In that case, you lose the dynamic range of expressing "this is AWESOME. simply AWESOME."
So a machine learning algorithm cannot distinguish between good and AWESOME if the user is lumping them into one category.
Which is why I propose actually creating scarcity around the amount in which you can promote or approve or content, perhaps backed by a currency of cool. I can only click like five times a day, for example. That would limit people's ability to blithely approve of everything, and their ability to collapse the distinction between good and AWESOME.
This approach is much stricter than the optional "gentleman's agreement" proposed in the article, but might also create more desirable properties, and a fun incentive around only sharing AWESOME.
Can't we solve this by allowing users to internally rate their friends?
I think Facebook already does that. Notice they put lists in your profile now called "Friends", "Close Friends", "Acquaintances", etc.
The one thing that annoys me about this notion is that those relationships change IRL. What if I suddenly want to have a party and invite only my "Close Friends", which then ends up including some guy I very much hate by now?
One of the biggest problems with social network evaluation schemes is that they always work on the assumption that relationships between people are static. They are, however, dynamic. And the rate of dynamics changes from person to person and changes over time as well. It's not as simple as saying "this guy makes the best content ever". Maybe tomorrow his dog will die and he'll start posting emo poems.
I think Facebook already does that. Notice they put lists in your profile now called "Friends", "Close Friends", "Acquaintances", etc.
The one thing that annoys me about this notion is that those relationships change IRL. What if I suddenly want to have a party and invite only my "Close Friends", which then ends up including some guy I very much hate by now?
One of the biggest problems with social network evaluation schemes is that they always work on the assumption that relationships between people are static. They are, however, dynamic. And the rate of dynamics changes from person to person and changes over time as well. It's not as simple as saying "this guy makes the best content ever". Maybe tomorrow his dog will die and he'll start posting emo poems.
Wish I could upvote you twice for rephrasing what has been ruminating in my mind for such a long time. The problem is an economical assymetry: it 'costs' far less to produce content than to consume content so there is no incentive to be selective. What if we somehow could artificially constrain the supply-side?
This is exactly what I'm proposing. The idea revolves around creating a scarcity. I'm inclined to call it an artificial scarcity, but in some respects the scarcity is intrinsic in people's finite time.
Simply put, you start with a certain number of "cool dollars". You spend them by promoting something. I'm still working out the mechanics so that the market has the desired properties. Maybe you get one dollar a day. Maybe you spend money to agree with someone's endorsement.
Simply put, you start with a certain number of "cool dollars". You spend them by promoting something. I'm still working out the mechanics so that the market has the desired properties. Maybe you get one dollar a day. Maybe you spend money to agree with someone's endorsement.
Minor quip: assymetry is the science of measuring mules.
ranking social content created and shared and filtering out the noise is I think the biggest problem with current gen of social networks and though fb's edgerank is better than anything else out there I still find myself on g+ to avoid the overload. but the biggest offender is twitter using only time as the decision making point to update me about my interest graph is not very effective (and its slow loading of old tweets doesnt help either). [though if its only intended as a real time feed I may be using it wrong]
The biggest problem is that Google only had to index HTML; there isn't even an all-encompassing standard for social networks, and if there were, it would quell the current rapid development we're seeing. You don't want to freeze something in place before it reaches maturity, and social networks definitely haven't.
However, perhaps instead of exposing the data, you could expose the search better. Then, specific standard APIs could be defined concerned with what you want to search for: for example you want to find all the neighboring nodes of a specific node, or during christmas find all people who are friends of sport enthusiasts. This would, however, take the control away from the likes of Google and put it in the hands of the content holders, such as Twitter and Facebook.
However, perhaps instead of exposing the data, you could expose the search better. Then, specific standard APIs could be defined concerned with what you want to search for: for example you want to find all the neighboring nodes of a specific node, or during christmas find all people who are friends of sport enthusiasts. This would, however, take the control away from the likes of Google and put it in the hands of the content holders, such as Twitter and Facebook.
Here's a tip: Write in a "top down", "newspaper" style.
I don't want to have to scroll/scan to paragraph 8, or to the end of the article (blog post, whatever), to see what you're about.
While you're at it, put the publication date and author at the top. If you don't, experience tells me it's at least 50% likely that you're "hiding" these deliberately.
I don't want to have to scroll/scan to paragraph 8, or to the end of the article (blog post, whatever), to see what you're about.
While you're at it, put the publication date and author at the top. If you don't, experience tells me it's at least 50% likely that you're "hiding" these deliberately.
Good point, I admit this post was more of a flow of thoughts rather than a carefully crafted post. But guess what? I was prepping another post & it suffered from the same symptoms, will rewrite it a bit. thx
Well, my comment was also meant generally and not overly specifically. Your post did take a bit to get to the point, but was not that long in total.
The "descriptive story" format (I'm sure there's probably a better, more precise and pre-defined term for it) has become prevalent in today's communication, in "official" news as well as e.g. blog posts.
To some extent, it may reflect today's training in writing, and/or the desire of authors to scratch a "creative", "tell a story" itch.
To some extent, it may reflect the desire to retain eyeballs (e.g. in front of ads) and to lead the reader to subsequent page turns for a multi-page article.
In the case of the latter, perhaps my argument would decrease revenue. On the other hand, I'm more likely to return to a site and a writer who effectively communicates. (Meaning, in my case, clearly and concisely, with details, background, documentation, and further argument following as appropriate.)
The "descriptive story" format (I'm sure there's probably a better, more precise and pre-defined term for it) has become prevalent in today's communication, in "official" news as well as e.g. blog posts.
To some extent, it may reflect today's training in writing, and/or the desire of authors to scratch a "creative", "tell a story" itch.
To some extent, it may reflect the desire to retain eyeballs (e.g. in front of ads) and to lead the reader to subsequent page turns for a multi-page article.
In the case of the latter, perhaps my argument would decrease revenue. On the other hand, I'm more likely to return to a site and a writer who effectively communicates. (Meaning, in my case, clearly and concisely, with details, background, documentation, and further argument following as appropriate.)
I don't get your last point though, I think publication date & author are pretty obviously at the top.
I was speaking generally, not to you specifically. A lot of blog posts, and more and more ostensible news articles, are placing date/time and author at the end of the post ("below the fold"), if providing them at all (i.e. not always).
Others on HN have commented on this, as well. It's an annoying distraction when a non-specific title leads e.g. to year old news that they've already absorbed and dealt with. Combine this with a "story" that withholds this and other pertinent details until e.g. paragraph 12, and such readers begin to get annoyed.
Again, this wasn't addressed to your post, where both author and date are/were "above the fold".
I'll qualify myself, again: I don't typically write copy, and my comments reflect my personal attitude and desire. They may or may not reflect what is currently considered to be desired/successful copywriting, per the Internet du jour.
Others on HN have commented on this, as well. It's an annoying distraction when a non-specific title leads e.g. to year old news that they've already absorbed and dealt with. Combine this with a "story" that withholds this and other pertinent details until e.g. paragraph 12, and such readers begin to get annoyed.
Again, this wasn't addressed to your post, where both author and date are/were "above the fold".
I'll qualify myself, again: I don't typically write copy, and my comments reflect my personal attitude and desire. They may or may not reflect what is currently considered to be desired/successful copywriting, per the Internet du jour.
The last paragraph makes me think of http://www.thisismyjam.com/, where you get to recommend a single song for a limited time (7 days). A perfect example of a place where you think twice before you share and share strictly one item per {time_period}.
And yet still my twitter timeline is clogged with stuff I don't care about from there.
I get that that's not twitters fault, of thisismyjam even, it's the people I know / follow, but for a while at least it seemed to be throwing out a disproportionate level of stuff I didn't care about.
I get that that's not twitters fault, of thisismyjam even, it's the people I know / follow, but for a while at least it seemed to be throwing out a disproportionate level of stuff I didn't care about.
My guess is that a "Gentleman's agreement" to only share your best things will only work if you also limit your circle of friends who are bound by the agreement.
Online social networks have gotten a lot more complicated since Facebook was just a college tool. Now the basic, joyful simplicity of keeping your friends in one place has developed all the complexity of real life -- you have to make sure Grandma is separated from Vinny the frat brother at all costs but everyone still wants to be friends. If we even have to create a "trusted friends" subset, it feels a lot like we've lost something important that the whole concept was originally meant to provide.
Be in regular specific contact with actual friends that you know, either face to face or email. Use a mail list or a private Google group or similar if you want a group. Recommend stuff. Ask for stuff.
Monetization not required.
Monetization not required.
To what end, really? I don't see why a social network, which seems to be what he's talking about, should be the source or main distribution point for great content. A single , dedicated curator (whether for music or political thought or tech news or new podcasts...) will always blow away my entire friend list with a quick browse of their webpage. Even better, Google, Amazon and other tools like Goodreads have made it easier than ever to surface high-quality long-form content on any given topic.
To me, social networks are for being social. The main benefit we derive isn't information or culture - it's building and/or maintaining contact with people whose company we enjoy. As in reality, we all have to walk that line between saying too much and being a wallflower (which a solemn "one post a day" pledge veers on IMO).
To me, social networks are for being social. The main benefit we derive isn't information or culture - it's building and/or maintaining contact with people whose company we enjoy. As in reality, we all have to walk that line between saying too much and being a wallflower (which a solemn "one post a day" pledge veers on IMO).
What we need is algorithms that can recommend like a human who knows you would. An rapid publish/editing filter engine based on my previous interactions...
With the new project I am working on we're attempting to create a content filtering algorithim that can determine the content a user likes based off of previous interactions of upvoting and hiding content from their feed. I think with enough interactions and utilizing a user grouping system, the majority of irrelevant content could be filtered. Assuming the community is large enough and provides an adequate amount of feedback.
How do you include "serendipity"?
I subscribe to "One Story" on Kindle. I read a short story by Caitlin Horrocks. I would never have picked her book up, but because of that short story I bought her book of shorts. It's one of the best books I've read in the past few years. I have no idea if it would have been picked up by your algorithm.
I do know that "Amazon recommends" has got much less useful.
(http://www.caitlinhorrocks.com/prose.htm)
(The story was “Life Among the Terranauts”.)
I subscribe to "One Story" on Kindle. I read a short story by Caitlin Horrocks. I would never have picked her book up, but because of that short story I bought her book of shorts. It's one of the best books I've read in the past few years. I have no idea if it would have been picked up by your algorithm.
I do know that "Amazon recommends" has got much less useful.
(http://www.caitlinhorrocks.com/prose.htm)
(The story was “Life Among the Terranauts”.)
...a neural-net processor. A learning computer.
I'm convinced this is why geekologie took off like it did. It used to only update maybe 3 times a day with the most awesome parts of the internet. It's biggest downfall was increasing the postcount so that now it just feels like browsing another reddit. I liked the fact that I could get a 'digest' version of 'what happened today on the internet'.
[deleted](1)
I think HN is the closest place to what he describes I know. Thats what keeps me coming back.
Yes, I must second this. The quality of conversation on HN is simply put... amazing. It boils down to the people that you choose to associate with.
Think of your Facebook friends. I seldom talk to my "friends" there so it would make sense that the content they produce is usually of very little value. Most times Facebook makes me aware of internet memes and that is about it.
Think of your Facebook friends. I seldom talk to my "friends" there so it would make sense that the content they produce is usually of very little value. Most times Facebook makes me aware of internet memes and that is about it.
I've seen plenty of attempts to transplant the HN 'spirit' to other verticals (HN Europe comes to mind) but until now the kind of self-discipline that makes HN tick doesn't seem to translate well to more mainstream niches.
Just Divide your social networking accounts into a Work account and a personal account. Simple really.
[deleted]
Completely agree with the author. I have signed the Gentleman's Agreement. Have you? :)
I wasn't meant to be something you sign, but that smells like an idea in its incubation period ... a website where you could go & sign the "Gentleman's agreement". Hmmm ...
Would be great to have such a website ;)
Am I the only one who thinks this whole sharing business has gone a bit too far?
Honestly, how many people would say that finding content is one of their biggest problems today?
It's easy to think all you need is more optimized/better content while what you really need in fact is probably something of the following:
- think about something
- focus your attention
- get to work
- get in touch with other people
Honestly, how many people would say that finding content is one of their biggest problems today?
It's easy to think all you need is more optimized/better content while what you really need in fact is probably something of the following:
- think about something
- focus your attention
- get to work
- get in touch with other people
Finding good content is a problem for me in the sense that content consumption has become a new form of entertainment. So if you don't entirely dismiss entertainment, then, yes, finding good content I will enjoy and maybe learn something from is a problem to me. The main issue I see here is that the incentives in social networks are all wrong: we're being prodded into over-sharing because that's where the money is. As a result of that we're drowning in a shit-stream of content.
Sparks in Google+ seem like a step in the right direction, but it seems lacking. Though I cannot pinpoint exactly how I would improve it.
Imagine Facebook with this rule: when a user posts content, that content is rated by popularity (number of likes/shares/comments). Every user has a popularity score. Users can opt in to being ranked on a public popularity list in, let's say, up to 3 categories like Sports, Tech, Music, Politics, etc. Any FB user can check out the "top 50" lists for topics they're interested in, and subscribe/friend/follow people that are on those lists.
Why are you asking me to imagine Facebook with the rule that it's Reddit and not Facebook?
I don't like "the gentleman's agreement". The worst part of it is limiting yourself to one post a day. Even looking at my comment history on HN, things I have "just posted" without caring too much get on average more points than posts where I really tried and made a lot of effort.
Ergo: Filtering at the source only works if the source knows what the countless receivers will like most. It never does, though. That's why sources on any platform need to be verbose. I'd even say this is the law of social networks and what makes them so great:
Verbosity over self-control -- put the control in the hands of others.
If you want to separate the gold from the drivel, you can do it later. But if you constantly keep on removing gold from your cart before you even get it out of the mine, you've already lost at this game.
Ergo: Filtering at the source only works if the source knows what the countless receivers will like most. It never does, though. That's why sources on any platform need to be verbose. I'd even say this is the law of social networks and what makes them so great:
Verbosity over self-control -- put the control in the hands of others.
If you want to separate the gold from the drivel, you can do it later. But if you constantly keep on removing gold from your cart before you even get it out of the mine, you've already lost at this game.
Over on Google+ Nick Pollard made a great suggestion: "We need bayesian spam filters for our social networks."
It's not about you! It's about the community.
In real life, I often receive compliments on my gifts because I've actually paid attention to the receiver, over time, and have put some thought and attention into finding something I think they will really enjoy. Not necessarily, or even often, something they have asked for. But something that I have worked out they would like -- not infrequently, an item they were actually unaware of. My perception and attention seems to be as appreciated as the gift itself.
That is being social. Not a bunch of non-questioning "How are you?"s, nor tweeting every personal chuckle.
Paying attention to, and taking care of and for, the other person. Will this really add to their day or well-being?