2/2 the new bit was that the algorithm sorted not on popularity but probability to click (which this nytimes story doesnt confirm)
-
-
Replying to @nathanjurgenson
It is new. We knew of some personalization, but did not know if it was chunked and how. See my TL for another confirmation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
chunked? from the very start we knew everyone got different trends, and that was algorithmic
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @nathanjurgenson
It could have been "everyone in this city sees same" etc. Much different than if it is p(clickthrough) at individual level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
i thought everyone knew it was individual? we were talking about that after ferguson. it's in FBs first response to this mess
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nathanjurgenson
No, until recently we had no idea what level the personalization was, and on what parameter. I tried but couldn't discern.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
we always knew it was personalized, but we dont know and still dont know exactly how that personalization works
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nathanjurgenson @zeynep
there have been various fb groups where people screenshot and post their personalized trending. fb long acknowledged this
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nathanjurgenson
We knew about personalization. It could have been by city, by zipcode, by other groups. It matters hugely that it's this.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
again, we knew a long while back it wasnt that general
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
How not general is a big deal. It could have been by zipcode, by city, it could have ten versions it cycled through.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.