When someone says they are changing the algorithm of a news feed or search engine page it's never to benefit the reader, it's always to benefit the advertiser. It's a lazy way of fitting the advertiser to the feed rather than letting the user decide what they want, and then fitting the advertiser to the users' preferences.
I spend a lot of time curating news (see bio). It's not enough to go out and just aggregate information on a topic. I see so many products that scan the web for news and then present them in a list. Even Google does this, presenting a list of blue links with no context. There's a news article, then a tweet, then a YouTube video. but what does it mean? The reader is required to make some mental sense of it all. The reader is required to build the story. The challenge IMHO is to build an intermediate stage of human curators who can compile data that can then be built up into a story that is meaningful to humans.
Completely agree. Algos have limits and in almost every practical application that they touch my life, require a human to make sense of with understanding.
I spend a lot of time curating news (see bio). It's not enough to go out and just aggregate information on a topic. I see so many products that scan the web for news and then present them in a list. Even Google does this, presenting a list of blue links with no context. There's a news article, then a tweet, then a YouTube video. but what does it mean? The reader is required to make some mental sense of it all. The reader is required to build the story. The challenge IMHO is to build an intermediate stage of human curators who can compile data that can then be built up into a story that is meaningful to humans.