Is automated content curation helping or hurting?

Is automated content curation helping or hurting?

Summary: The quest to clean up the noisy Twitter streams with efficient content curation is needed but can it be done effectively.

SHARE:

Every time I publish a post and hashtag it with #socialmedia on Twitter, I get notifications about how someone's latest "Social Media Daily" being released with "Top Stories" by me and others has just been published. Most of you in the social media world are aware of sites like Paper.li - they allow you to set up an account and automatically aggregate content based on hashtag and organize it into what looks like an online news publication.

In probably one of the noisiest chapters in the online content era, I agree with the need for some help with meaningful content curation in an effort to cut through the noise that has rendered most high-level hashtag streams worthless because they're so bloated. Initially I thought the Paper.li type service made sense until lots of users I follow or that follow me, started using it. Now I see dozens of Social Media Daily tweets containing all the same content as other Social Media Daily tweets from these users on top of their actual tweets and retweets.

I definitely don't blame the users themselves for their intent to organize their content for their followers. I also don't blame Paper.li or see their service as spammy. The bigger chicken/egg problem though is that while automating curation feels more necessary than ever, the byproduct of everyone doing it ends up achieving the opposite of what the desired intent was in the first place.

It can feel like taking a cab in New York. Your intent is to consolidate and use public transportation but if you replace personal vehicles on a packed street with taxi cabs, you now just have streets gridlocked with taxi cabs.

[image source]

Topics: Security, Social Enterprise

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

8 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • There would be fewer Taxis than cars

    Rich...an interesting perspective. I see your point, however think about all the tweets that DIDN'T get in that paper. And only so many people are going to create a social media paper. And the lens of that paper is who that person's trusts or their topical lens. What curation does is perhaps cut back on the me-too content creation (traffic) and bring together (through the lens of the person or topic) the best content (yours). It's as if you fit 4 people in a cab, rather than 4 cars on the road. In the end, there have to be fewer cabs than cars :-)
    samdecker
  • RE: Is automated content curation helping or hurting?

    My view is that content curation (defined as getting just one instance of the "tweet-story") is needed, and also possible - but difficult, of course. It comes to my mind that near-dupplicate, plagiarism detection techniques may help, along with Topic detection and Tracking. What I personally miss (please note I have not even browsed your links) is a personalized tweet ranker // recommender :-) a nice project :-)
    jgomezoptenet
  • RE: Is automated content curation helping or hurting?

    I agree with samdecker. While the current curation technologies may not be optimal, they do help the reader focus on what the curator thinks is noteworthy. Ultimately the curator's brand and the quality of curation will determine which offerings gets more readers.
    neeraj_b
    • RE: Is automated content curation helping or hurting?

      @neeraj_b the most important statistics and analysis<a href="http://www.muebles.pl">,</a> can be identified by analyzing a lot of interesting and emphasize that something new and to identify deficiencies
      densk
  • RE: Is automated content curation helping or hurting?

    I think filtering (inclusions and exclusions of keywords, #hashtags, and sometimes specific users) is more important than curation. I'm working on the simpest possible way to do that with @Refynr :)
    refynr
  • Is Inbound Filtering really Curation?

    I think Paper.li, and similar services, are useful to filter and present inbound data flow. That's their prime mission and it's a good one.<br><br>Then when people share their "Daily Social Media", without adding any value, they re-publish content which was already known. It's not useless (they increase the social weight of such content) but this is not curation: they turned inbound filtering into outbound data flow, while outbound curation should be what they personally select, and what they enrich with context and perspective.<br><br>I believe there is value in inbound filtering (extracting signal out of noise for me) and in outbound expression by curation (enriching and sharing existing content). These are different acts, requiring different tools and different behaviors. While algorithms can work for the former, human beings are required for the later.<br><br>(disc: I'm a co-founder of scoop.it, a publish by curation tool)
    Marc Rougier
  • eqcckfp 97 dph

    shzuyd,gynjzpkl60, dhibu.
    dmakrekdw73-24379094848266571466272879085555
  • ltyjttj 23 nwx

    vehqcx,qvgnzcpc07, fxfry.
    bdsfwrryd5501-24379014088513250486224451995495