Yahoo Faces Questions After Discovery Of Comment Replication 97
An anonymous reader writes "Someone noticed that certain Associated Press stories on Yahoo seem to be appending old comments to new stories in a way that was highly misleading (suggesting new stories had a lot more interest than they really did). The initial theory was that this was some sort of nefarious scam, potentially by Yahoo and the AP. However, Mike Masnick at Techdirt dug into the details and found evidence that it's more about incompetence in the way Yahoo built its comment system, combined with the way that the AP pushes and rotates its articles to partner sites."
How does that saying go again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to nefarious scams that which can be adequately explained by incompetence?
Or something like that anyways
Re:How does that saying go again? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How does that saying go again? (Score:4, Funny)
You have to purchase my 10 DVD Box set on how to read minds through the internet. 11 small payments of 30 dollars + shipping and handling*
*dvd's shipped seperately
Re:How does that saying go again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Never attribute to nefarious scams that which can be adequately explained by incompetence
if this sentiment was universal, all truly nefarious people would simply hide behind the protection of incompetence.
i'm attributing this to orchestrated incompetence.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
There you go, trying to bring George Bush into this discussion.
Shame on you liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't make enough money and my parents aren't rich enough for incompetence to be a plus for me.
If I screw up, I end up paying.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
but seriously, we heard "never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity" record numbers of times over eight years. That statement doesn't hold any water anymore. It's an excuse to be as malicious as possible and to never be held accountable for anything you do, especially if it was intentional. After all, no matter what happens, you can always claim you're older and wiser AFTER THE FACT.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "only a sith deals in absolutes"?
That sounds like the sort of absolute statement a Sith would make.
Or perhaps it's not just the Sith who deal in absolutes after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether the paradox was deliberate or not in the original context. In the movie it seemed to be given as impromptu advice, which would imply that either the speaker didn't see the paradox, or the phrase, its paradox, and the resulting lesson were all well-known to both master and apprentice despite never being mentioned elsewhere.
However, this is not the original context. I was responding to the quotation in Kingrames' comment, where it appeared to me to be taken literally. Perhaps I was wrong;
Re: (Score:1)
Star Wars sucks anyway. Well, the new ones do. http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/ [slashfilm.com]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm I read the parent before. I think Slashdot is appending old comments to new stories. It's no doubt some sort of a nefarious plot to make the stories seem as though there is more interest in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think people around here give those companies too much credit. From all the theories that arise after such stories, you would think that each company is controlled by a criminal mastermind (AKA Doctor Evil) that sits all day and tries to create plans to f^%$-up everyone just to gain "One Million Dollar!".
Now, I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that those companies are the exact opposite (i.e. they want to spread little bits of happiness all around), but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle: The
Re:How does that saying go again? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
(attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, born 1769 - likely competently poisoned to death in 1812)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_I#Cause_of_death [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
"Napoleon Bonaparte, born 1769 - likely competently poisoned to death in 1812
...not to mention maliciously.
I noticed the same on Amazon.com (Score:3, Interesting)
On some movies, like the DVD of a certain franchise, Amazon now includes reviews from all the other seasons or even completely different titles, going so far as to calculate the star ratings based on these seperate products.
This doesn't seem to be across the board and may be up to the individual seller of the product, but it has turned movies that were rated 2 stars 2 years later into 5 star products -- without having an additional actual reviews pertinent to the title added, rather than reviews of better m
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's an attempt to keep a conversation about a particular topic going through multiple headlines and stories. New stories are being written all of the time, usually with just a paragraph or two that are different from the old story.
Perhaps it was an attempt to cut down on the number of stupid posts. After all, who reads the end of a comment thread that contains 99,601 comments [yahoo.com]. Surely pe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"incompetence before conspiracy" is how I have naming the rule. It has applications all over the place from 9/11 some World Bank actions and others.
However, I am not sure if I would apply it to the latest financial meltdown. It smelled a little to much like disgruntled employees pilfering as much as they can on the way out the door.
Sloppy programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in this case, they're treating the last path part as a unique identifier, which it obviously is not. I read the article half expecting it to be an integer overflow bug....
Re:Sloppy programming (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Yahoo is fairly incompetent when it comes to technology for a company its size.
Thank you Captain Obvious ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately it looks l
Re: (Score:2)
some sort of a story ID, because they want the comments to stay on the story as it's revised. Imagine a story on the World Trade Center attacks coming through 10+ times as more and more detail filters in
The solution to that is to also store revisions, e.g. revision_id 2, 3, and 6 belong to story_id 4.
In other words... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Nothing To See Here, Slow News Day, and so on... NEXT!
Hmmm... apparently /. also suffers from this symptom of comment duplication... :-P
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Nothing To See Here, Slow News Day, and so on... NEXT!
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo Answers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yahoo Answers (Score:5, Funny)
So you are the bastard that got the black vans to my house when i had that wireless problem !!!!! potus my ass!!!
Re: (Score:2)
They need to do WAP instain mother>
Re: (Score:2)
And the best part is there will always be some knob discrediting everything you said because of a misspelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I absolutely detest Slashdot's system.
And yet here we are...
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
QQ
Remmeber .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awww come on, maybe they got a visit from the (Score:1)
Bigger problem is editing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the irony of a grammar complaint coming from one who fails to live by his own rules.
timeline of Yahoo quality (Score:4, Informative)
Kinda lame, but useful
Still lame, not as useful
Somewhat better presented, less useful compared to competitors
Kinda flashy and a little more useful than before
Crufty and deliberately defeatured
Kinda buggy and simplistic compared to competitors
Definitely suffering bit-rot, not any more useful
Total crap with pockets of new development of script-kiddie webdev showoff crap that makes it no more useful and often worse than useless
Re: (Score:1)
even hotmail is better than yahoo mail.
google news is much much better than yahoo news.
yahoo search??? what yahoo search?
Duh! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make any difference (Score:2)
Because the comments of new stories on Yahoo are all the same to start with!
Half will directly hold the current sitting President responsible for the article's topic. Some will hold the political party with majority in Congress (yes, this includes articles about Acts of God -- see articles about Hurrican Katrina blaming the Right Wing). Then there will be all the responses to the first two groups that instead blame the other party or previous President. There will be a few that comment on terrorism. And the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" comments now like on YouTube, and ones that score low enough (the threshold seems pretty damn low) will be hidden by default. So there is actually a possibility that the old crew of outright racist and vulgar comments will be actually suppressed a bit (that was why Yahoo pulled the comment plug to begin with, it was during that scare about lawsuits on sites that allowed hate speech to be published in reader comments). But the general quacks will still get the atte
Re: (Score:2)
Tim S.
plausibly deniability (Score:2, Funny)
Getting a cue right from The underhanded C contest
</tinfoilhat>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a FEATURE!!!!
Advanced Comment Duping System? (Score:2)
Has Yahoo stumbled upon the Holy Grail of dupes? Have they unwittingly produced the mother of all duping systems? We must know, is there anything slashdot can learn from this to ensure more efficiently
Re: (Score:1)
Has Yahoo stumbled upon the Holy Grail of dupes? Have they unwittingly produced the mother of all duping systems? We must know, is there anything slashdot can learn from this to ensure more efficiently duped articles? Why stop at duped stories when we can have duped comments?! This would save so much time.
Re: (Score:2)
Nefarious is overused. And usually incorrectly. (Score:2)
adjective
(typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal
adjective
flagrantly wicked or impious
Ever since it was used in Raiders of the Lost Ark it seems.
So, did Yahoo have a wicked or criminal scam, or was was it something less. Maybe just a scam?
If you ever think that Slashdot's system is bad (Score:2, Interesting)
You just need to take a look at Yahoo's comment system to see how much incredibly worse things can be.
I'm not even talking about the quality of the comments themselves, which make your average Slashdot troll look like a PhD in comparison.
Still, though, I think comment systems in general need lots of improvement. One idea I have is weighted tags: allow tags to be added to comments, along with +/- buttons to allow others to alter the weight of the tags. Then, design the display system to let you filter or a
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it's not a new website... (Score:2)
Well, to be technical, Yahoo! really isn't a news site. They are more of a web portal, and I'm sure if you pressed them, they would say the purpose of their existence is to entertain visitors with interesting content, not be a news organization. I mean, it's not like this is cnn.com... if comments keep people entertained (read some of them, they ARE entertaining) and coming back to the site then they
Re: (Score:1)
That's nothing (Score:2)
I've found that yahoo routinely changes the links to their articles. After sharing on one facebook I clicked it to show it to someone else on MSN the next day and found that the story at the page was drastically different than the one that I had posted. in fact it was an entirely different article.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This was an entirely different article. Several other sites still had the article, searching the text I had quoted on FB for it I found hundreds of copies. Yahoo just up and changed it though with no notice that I could find.
Re: (Score:2)
What I hate is they don't have permanent links to articles. Or they don't archive their news stories, one of the two. If I find an article I like I can't really bookmark it. If I try to come back to it months later I'm simply told the article doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, I have bookmarks to articles on Wired's website from a decade ago that still load correctly.
So it's not on purpose? (Score:2)
I always figured it was on purpose, the better to keep conversations about the same topic together. Seemed a bit ham-handed but I figured they had a reason. I mean there's no way they could not have known about it is there? All you would have to do would be to glance at one of the major stories and it would be obvious that the comments do not pertain to it directly and are old with thousands of responses.