Slashdot Mirror


Quoted in Google News? Post a Comment

An anonymous reader writes "Google News has a feature it calls "Comments From People in the News." (rude interrupting registration may be required) The idea is simple: if you have been quoted in an article that appears on Google News, you can post a comment that will be paired with that article. (Journalists can comment, as well, Google says, though none have done so thus far.) Since it was introduced in the spring, the feature has largely existed under the radar, with roughly only about 150 total comments having been made. Thus far, Google News has used e-mail messages to encourage people quoted in articles to submit comments — an effort to prime the pump similar to the process that results in the first issue of a new magazine magically having letters to the editor."

13 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. Google Quote? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So we now have a "Google Letters to the Editor" search now? Interesting.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  2. how do they authenticate the comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do they authenticate the identity of the poster? How do I know it really is the person quoted in the article and not some disgusting slashdot troll?

    1. Re:how do they authenticate the comment? by GuldKalle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy: Google will send you an 8-character registration-code, and next time you speak to the press, just make sure they quote your registration-code

      --
      What?
  3. I've kind of liked this idea by techpawn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If someone is panted in a poor light in an article they get a chance to rebut. It's a neat feature but do you really think 9/10th of people in the news will take time to respond to Google's news page and jump through the needed hoops to prove they're who they claim to be?

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  4. Old and Pointless News by garcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I realize that this is Slashdot and there are slow news days, especially around the holidays, but for the New York Times to be that far behind the times is a little ridiculous. I know, I know they are talking about how few people have been using it since it was introduced this spring but come on.

    Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say. What I would like to see is related blog articles, with user comments, linked straight from Google News itself. Hell, Google knows what types of blogs I prefer to read (I use Google Reader), make certain that the blogs you link to are ones that I'm more likely to read and then post on.

    This feature, while obviously still "beta", could be improved so much more. I know you crazy engineers are out there reading this, just do what I said and it'll be a helluva lot more popular :)

    1. Re:Old and Pointless News by ricebowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say.

      So...you skip the quotes in the articles? You wouldn't be interested if the person quoted posted a rebuttal to their own quote? Whether to say they were misquoted, misattributed or misinterpreted? How about if they wanted to add a more thorough analysis to expand upon the soundbite that the journalist used?

      I don't use Google as a news source that often, preferring instead the BBC but if they were to adopt this idea then I'd be more than happy to see, and read, an extended analysis of the reported stories. But...you wouldn't?

      Why?

    2. Re:Old and Pointless News by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So the NY Times shouldn't post this story because it is old news to you? I'm no dummy on the tech front, but this is news to me and probably thousands of others, given the NY Times editors thought it worthy. It's not like they are posting a story about those new-fangled Microsoft Xboxes.

      To be even more contrarian, I think it is a GREAT concept to be able to hear more from the people quoted in an article, because the press has a bad habit of picking and choosing (taking out of context) their favorite sound bites. This seems like it could give a little more depth to any story.

    3. Re:Old and Pointless News by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted. I expected people to be misquoted and thus I take articles in the news media with a grain of salt. I also know that many times people aren't misquoted and don't like the result of the article as a whole and then bitch that they were misquoted in order to cover their own asses.

      What I want to see are related content where the general public can respond to the articles and I can see, from both sides of the issue, responses that are far more relevant than the two pages and misquoted whinings that appear linked from Google News.

    4. Re:Old and Pointless News by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty much everybody is misquoted, Journalists do a cruddy job of getting it right, and in many cases they mis characterize quotes or paraphrase them. The operating assumption that people have when they read quotes in the news is that they aren't an accurate representation of what was said.

      Sort of like all the buzz about Will Smith liking Hitler. It was a preposterous misquote, that was more than a little bit insulting the religions that teach people to consider every person to have a little bit of goodness inside of them. The extended quote was an amazingly insightful statement about the human condition. Of course that version isn't of any particular interest, because it wouldn't keep people reading blogs.

  5. There's one interesting use for that by Enleth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Journalists (not all of them, sure, but way too many) like to misquote on purpose, quote selectively, out-of-context or in any way otherwise changing the intended meaning of the quoted statement, after which the quoted (quotees? Is that even a word?) are left for the public to tear apart for something they didn't mean but the journalist wanted to put in their mouth - with no real way to correct what has already been printed, save for a few rich enough to take a legal action or just so rich to not give a crap about that.

    Such a system gives a way for corrections like that to be made public instantly and directly. Maybe that has even happend already, I don't know - but I think that's the most interesting and possibly useful outcome of this.

    --
    This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
  6. Re:So by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is stoping me from saying that I'm some guy that is quoted saying something?

    Probably the fact that you've identified yourself as "some guy that is quoted saying something". That might tip them off.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  7. Not only that.. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if they do somehow verify your name, how do they know you're the right person with that name? I can't wait for someone called John Smith to make the news.

    1. Re:Not only that.. by techpawn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Very True Mr. Lebowski... Now where's the money!

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you