<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Out of Touch or Moral Guardian?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://twopointouch.com/2006/11/25/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/websites/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/</link>
	<description>web 2.0, blogs and social media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:32:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Riley</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/websites/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/comment-page-1/#comment-4992</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Riley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/11/25/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/#comment-4992</guid>
		<description>Hi, thanks for blogging about BBC Touch.  To answer Stephen&#039;s point, the cateogorisation is simply down to the Yahoo Content Analysis API I use to extract keywords from the headlines.  I&#039;ve not done any kind of manual analysis into this, its all automatic.  Hence breaking it down further by reader would be tricky too, since that data isn&#039;t readily available in a machine readable form.

Hope that helps, it really was a quick &quot;idea - execute&quot; project, so will have its flaws!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, thanks for blogging about BBC Touch.  To answer Stephen&#8217;s point, the cateogorisation is simply down to the Yahoo Content Analysis API I use to extract keywords from the headlines.  I&#8217;ve not done any kind of manual analysis into this, its all automatic.  Hence breaking it down further by reader would be tricky too, since that data isn&#8217;t readily available in a machine readable form.</p>
<p>Hope that helps, it really was a quick &#8220;idea &#8211; execute&#8221; project, so will have its flaws!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Delaney</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/websites/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/comment-page-1/#comment-3763</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/11/25/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/#comment-3763</guid>
		<description>Trouble is, as far as my own experience is concerned, is that tracking data is really poor. I also think there&#039;s some very valid privacy concerns around this.

That said, I would not be surprised if the BBC had access to the best that&#039;s available when it comes to that sort of data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trouble is, as far as my own experience is concerned, is that tracking data is really poor. I also think there&#8217;s some very valid privacy concerns around this.</p>
<p>That said, I would not be surprised if the BBC had access to the best that&#8217;s available when it comes to that sort of data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Boydston</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/websites/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/comment-page-1/#comment-3762</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Boydston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/11/25/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/#comment-3762</guid>
		<description>From what is presented, each &quot;popularity point&quot; is equal.  What about a breakdown on what the interests are of each of the &quot;readers?&quot; A weighted statistic may show that the true &quot;guardians&quot; are none other than all of us! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what is presented, each &#8220;popularity point&#8221; is equal.  What about a breakdown on what the interests are of each of the &#8220;readers?&#8221; A weighted statistic may show that the true &#8220;guardians&#8221; are none other than all of us! :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Delaney</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/websites/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/comment-page-1/#comment-3754</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/11/25/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/#comment-3754</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment, Stephen.

The focus is on the BBC because Chris has been good enough to do the analysis. Personally, I am interested because I&#039;m British. Insight into US media producers is more than welcome. though.

I assumed &#039;Cruise&#039;, &#039;Cruise Holmes&#039; and &#039;Tom and Katie&#039; refer to three different stories on different days. i.e. They are stories, not categories of story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Stephen.</p>
<p>The focus is on the BBC because Chris has been good enough to do the analysis. Personally, I am interested because I&#8217;m British. Insight into US media producers is more than welcome. though.</p>
<p>I assumed &#8216;Cruise&#8217;, &#8216;Cruise Holmes&#8217; and &#8216;Tom and Katie&#8217; refer to three different stories on different days. i.e. They are stories, not categories of story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Downes</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/websites/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/comment-page-1/#comment-3753</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Downes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/11/25/out-of-touch-or-moral-guardian/#comment-3753</guid>
		<description>As I comment on Jarvis&#039;s post, the categorizations are so bad they make any conclusion useless. Look at the list you saw: we have &#039;cruise holmes&#039;, &#039;cruise&#039; and &#039;tom and katie&#039; as three separate categories. Which is then interpreted as the BBC missing three separate topics people are interested in. Meanwhile, on the BBC side, we have &#039;england&#039;, &#039;cricket&#039; and &#039;pakistan&#039; as three separate topics, not one story about a home.

I would also ask, why the focus on the BBC? Have you seen how the top stories on Digg compare to, say, the top stories on CNN or the NY Times?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I comment on Jarvis&#8217;s post, the categorizations are so bad they make any conclusion useless. Look at the list you saw: we have &#8216;cruise holmes&#8217;, &#8216;cruise&#8217; and &#8216;tom and katie&#8217; as three separate categories. Which is then interpreted as the BBC missing three separate topics people are interested in. Meanwhile, on the BBC side, we have &#8216;england&#8217;, &#8216;cricket&#8217; and &#8216;pakistan&#8217; as three separate topics, not one story about a home.</p>
<p>I would also ask, why the focus on the BBC? Have you seen how the top stories on Digg compare to, say, the top stories on CNN or the NY Times?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
