A hierarchy of gestures for the Holy Grail

After transcribing the pertinent 9-minute passage from RBTN 82 and offering some conceptual input to the idea of developing a personalized recommendation system for news, I kept thinking about the different kinds of gestures in the mix.

So it might be useful to establish a hierarchy of on-line gestures, which can serve as signals indicating endorsement or recommendation.

1. Subscribe. To a feed, a publication, a newsletter. Or even the repeated act of visiting a service or a web site. That’s a gesture saying: this is potentially interesting to me. Or, in some cases: I know that this is interesting to me.

2. Read. As Doc Searls might say, when I read something, it means that I let it inform me. I let it “author” me. I’m voluntarily exposing myself to its influence. I hope or expect to gain something from acquiring the knowledge or information encapsulated in the article or story.

3. Store (and tag) privately. Make it findable for myself. It builds an archive of things that I’ve read. I find it worth documenting that I read it. And I expect that sometime in the future I might find it worth retrieving it and re-reading it or using it some way or another.

4. Share. For example on Google Reader, as I tend to do with news. In addition to making it findable to me, sharing the feed publicly is also something of an endorsement or recommendation. Or at least, it communicates to anyone interested that I have read this and found it worth putting that fact on the record. Twitter, Facebook, Dig, Reddit, StumbleUpon…

5. Tag publicly. Contribute to the public goods of findability and folksonomy. (Same services as above)

6. Rate. Personally I don’t rate content much. What’s the point? What’s the benchmark? Except Facebook “likes”, which kinda combines rating, tagging and sharing.

7. Copy-share. Arguably it takes a slightly bigger effort to copy content into a draft blog post, although “Press This” makes it almost as easy as any other browser bookmark.

All public gestures of sharing and tagging are instances of amplification. And as we know, amplification is the new circulation. When sharing, two things happen. One: I help this piece of content which I find interesting, to find more readers, to get more exposure. Two: I endorse it, because I kind of associate my name with it when I tweet it or put it on Facebook or on my blog.

But I don’t necessarily interpret it. It can be: this is interesting, an endorsement, a recommendation for reading. Or the purpose may just be to say, I am reading this kind of stuff. My mind is now working with this kind of stuff. So, thinking about the edges of the social networks, if someone else reads the same, finds it interesting, then maybe it’s something worth talking about.

It’s a message from me, indicating that I’m open to conversation about this topic.

8. Send the article (link) to someone I know, for whom I think it may be highly relevant. The threshold for making this gesture is quite high. It’s a strong gesture, and it’s also a very personal gesture, not a public one.

9. Comment on a blog post or news article. Nowadays I don’t often do that, because I think that if it is worth commenting on, it’s worth keeping that comment on my own side, on my own blog, on my own “infrastructure (as I think Dave would agree).

10. Blog about the topic I read, because I have something to add: interpretation, commentary, fact, opinion, context. Or to take it in an entirely new direction. The point here is to create original content. It can be a blog post, a tweet, a status update or what have you. For our purposes, in order for this to be a gesture it’s important to link back to the original article/post/story.

11. Possibly: pipe it through to a (possibly closed) special-interest community, e.g. on a LinkedIn group, a Ning site or some such.

[UPDATE, 2011-02-11, 13:47 : For some reason I had overlooked number 12. And number 13 was inspired by Richard Grusin's comment below:

12. Link inside a (micro)blog post to stuff that's relevant to the topic at hand. In fact, links could well be the most important gestures that we should measure.

13. Approve/reject incoming blog comments or track backs. With this one, the negative signal of rejection might be the more significant one.]

Anything else?

These gestures inform the public or people in my on-line communities and on the Internet in general, as to which content gets through my personal cognitive filters, my interest filters, and therefore get amplified and possibly more widely distributed.

These gestures can be used as input for social recommendations. And that includes news. Why not? Actually, the concept of news is in itself quite fluid. A colleague of mine a couple of years back would define news as “something that is new to someone” – information which is new to someone. Looking at it that way, a lot of information can be news.

Booting up a personal recommendation system for news

As I mentioned yesterday, I’m a big fan of ‘Rebooting the News’. That goes for both meanings: I love the podcast series by Jay Rosen and Dave Winer; and I’m also totally intrigued by the phenomenal transition of our system of news which is happening right under our noses.

In the 9-minute passage of RBTN 82 that I transcribed, our hosts talk about an idea that Dave put forward in a recent blog post, ‘Find me stuff that I’m interested in‘. It’s a discussion about the concepts of a personal recommendation system for news, on Dave’s part inspired by collaborative filtering technology which underpins Amazon’s personal product recommendations.

Not only do I agree with all the conceptual choices that Jay and Dave favor, – such as avoiding categories, using gestures, using feeds, looking at other users’ previous behavior, including information about authoring as well as consumption, including serendipity… – ; I have actually been thinking about these exact concepts for years.

Now, I’m not going to say, “It’s all been done already”, because Dave would think I’m trying to pitch a product :-)   Truth is, had it been done, we would all be using it. A personal system of highly relevant information is pretty much the Holy Grail of the Internet.

One potential complication with applying collaborative filtering to news content is that, when news breaks, there is no critical mass of gestures from previous users. This may cause some delay in the build-up of a recommendation. Instead of immediate, mass-scale amplification of the breaking news event, the news item might be a more slowly developing “trending topic” as per Twitter.

Also, when the news is very fresh, and its relevance is very personal (i.e. highly relevant to a small number of people), it may take too much time for a collaborative filtering system á la Amazon to collect sufficient gestures from other users in order to deliver the recommendation to the right people.

Therefore, rather than waiting for a new news item to pick up the critical mass which can enable collaborative filtering the Amazon way, we could instead look at the *history* of users’ gestures. If the stuff I have “gestured” in the past is very similar to the stuff you have “gestured” in the past, there is a likelihood that what you “gesture” next will be of interest to me.

So what I propose, instead of collecting many gestures from different users in order to generate a recommendation to one specific user, is to identify pairs of users whose gesture behavior is most similar, and let their behavior inform their mutual recommendations.

One could calculate a “similarity-percentage” for each combination of two users based on their gestures. With a view to serendipity, the ideal similarity is not necessarily approaching 100 percent. The system could offer users a feature to mix their own doses of serendipity. Want more off-beat news today? Turn the potmeter down to 70 percent signal and get 30 percent noise!

BTW, one headache which this idea would take care of is the eternal question: “What is news?” Whatever news means to you is defined by what you “gesture”. Hence the more accurate question to ask would be: “What is relevant?” or, indeed: “What is interesting?”

Like said, I’ve been pondering over this stuff for a while and I’d just love the opportunity to help make it happen.

Removing the clutter around published content with Readability

I heard about Readability on the Rebooting the News (RBTN) podcast, episode 55, where Rich Ziade was a guest. Seems very useful. I'm thinking that we might want to apply a similar technology in the content retrieval algorithm of Cluetail Radar Pro – Cluetail Ltd's on-line Media Intelligence tool.

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8798492&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

Readability – Installation Video for Firefox, Safari & Chrome from Arc90 on Vimeo.