Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet The Media

Google News Allowing Story Participants To Comment 100

Jamie found this analysis of Google News's foray into community commentary. They are starting it off by only allowing people involved with the story to comment — and participants must first be authenticated by email. The article rounds up other bloggers' views on the game-changing nature, and the possible dangers to Google, of this new feature. Here is a sample of comments to a Google News story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google News Allowing Story Participants To Comment

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Atypical (Score:5, Informative)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Thursday August 09, 2007 @01:32PM (#20172129) Journal

    Oh, and just to head off a couple of the replies saying things like "well, they also filter based on who you are and if you're involved." What's keeping anyone from saying they are "Professor of X", where X is whatever they claim. Unless they are sending in more credentials than their email address, it's rife for abuse.
    Next time, RTFA.
    Not only does it specifically state that an e-mail address needs to be verified, TFA links to the Google Help page which states their policy.

    http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/answer.py?a nswer=74123&topic=12285 [google.com]

    The email should contain:

    Your comment
    A link to the story you are commenting on
    Your contact details: your name, title, and organization
    How we can verify your email address.
    For example, if the Tooth Fairy wanted to comment on a recent story about dental hygiene, she might sign her comment:

    "Sincerely, Tooth Fairy.
    Verify my identity by losing a tooth and placing it under your pillow. I will leave you a business card along with a small payment for your tooth. Alternately you can call 1-800-TEETH-4-ME and speak to my assistant, The Tooth Mouse, who can confirm my email address and comment."
    Yes, that really is the example Google uses.
  • I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) * <.ten.yxox. .ta. .nidak.todhsals.> on Thursday August 09, 2007 @01:33PM (#20172147) Homepage Journal

    The people that have the time and the resources to monitor this stuff are the big corporations
    Never doubt the spare time available to college students and the unemployed.

    The big corporations have to pay big bucks to their PR firms to keep tabs on this sort of stuff. Average technologically-literate people, which is heavy on students, probably make up the bulk of Google News' audience.
  • by Magic5Ball ( 188725 ) on Thursday August 09, 2007 @10:02PM (#20177945)
    Can anyone who actually works in a news room say how they verify things normally?

    In real news, it ideally works like a web of trust:
    1) We use more than one source for each story first to get contrasting or concurring opinions on a subject, but also to establish at least the plausability of what each of the other sources has told us. Experts are more than happy to point out and provide evidence that another source is a kook.
    2) We find the contact information for interviewees through reliable sources, such as published directories, an organization's switchboard, others whom we trust, or from previous third-party publications or interviews.
    3) For submitted items, we still go through 1) and 2) as part of research and to fill in the story. We will also ask the submitting organization or source for the names of some other people from another organization who would be able to verify or comment on the story. The source from the other organization(s) is also vetted via 1) and/or 2).
    4) We often also ask others in the same or competing newsroom, the news wire, or search the archives for a previous reference to the source or the story.

    If a completely new source or story can't be vetted through any of the above methods, it will likely receive less or no attention on the basis that it's either not important to a significant number of people, that it can't be verified, or that there is more important news deserving coverage.

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...