-
How Would A Robot Read a Novel?

Last week, I went to a rather interesting talk at the LSE titled ‘How Would a Robot Read a Novel?’. I was introduced to a software, primarily used in the social sciences, called Alceste (note: this, and many other sites I’ve linked to in this post, are Google-translated pages, from the originals which are in French. There seems to be surprisingly little about it on the web in English). What Alceste does is look for repetitions of co-occurrences of words over a large volume of text to assess patterns. In the social sciences, it is used (still in only a few places, and in a limited number of cases at that) to detect instances of bias in surveys. Research has apparently shown that when words occur in the same pattern repeatedly, it is rarely random.
Alceste doesn’t understand meaning, and makes no pretenses about trying to do so. It was created by Max Reinert of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France, and is now marketed by a company called Image that holds all rights to it, from what we were given to understand.
Anyway, now that I’ve given you the context, let me move on to explaining what was really interesting about the talk. Dr. Kavita Abraham, a researcher at the LSE’s Methodology Institute, used Alceste to analyse a novel called the Kilburn Social Club by Robert Hudson. It is worth noting here that when Alceste was introduced as having been used to assess some literary works earlier as an experiment, members of the audience were easily able to identify the books as being Oliver Twist and Moby Dick. With the Kilburn Social Club, Dr. Robert Hudson (a history academic-turned-author) admitted that Alceste’s analysis matched the pattern of the story he started out intending to write, in that the words used were seen as generally being grouped around 4 themes (16% descriptive, 12% football, 22% finance and 50% relationships). So it could be used, hypothetically, during the process of writing to ensure that a book wasn’t skewed heavily in one or the other direction.
Dr. Hudson clearly meant ‘hypothetically’, though, because the truth is, as we discussed after the talk, we don’t really need Alceste to tell readers about patterns in books. Why would you want to reduce a work of art to a mere jumble of statistically co-relating groups of words? People read literary works FOR that element of bias (I think James is writing a post about how opinion – bias, if you must – is in fact often not given the respect it deserves in today’s world). A quote of Mark Twain’s was proffered by one of the panel members: ‘A classic is something that everyone wants to have read but no one wants to read’, but I’d argue that at a stretch you can extend it to summarizing business books – the way Kevin Duncan does on his blog, for example. It’s useful to time-starved people who want to be able to speak intelligently about a book and learn the distilled lessons from it, but who don’t have the time to wade through it in its entirety. You just can’t do that with novels, though! Here’s an example of how Alceste summarized that potboiler of potboilers, The Da Vinci Code. It’s quite a laugh.


One of the issues that was left simmering in my mind as I left the venue is that there are so many technologies we’re introduced to on a daily basis that many of us perhaps do not really question the need for – probably even more common in the case of clients. Is ‘I want a social media’ really still an accepted statement?
Google Buzz is being debated upon as either a highly intrusive or potentially highly social application, while right here at Made by Many we’re arguing the benefits of using Yammer at work versus plain old Twitter. The question isn’t what we can do with it, as in the case of Alceste, where it has been accepted that it is really only useful to the social sciences because that discipline is based on the removal of bias. The question is do we need it at all?
(A PDF of the talk, for those interested, is now available here).
-
Old media vs. new media…and then some
Old Media vs. New MediaView more documents from Bart De Waele.Bart De Waele from Netlash made this presentation on old vs. new media recently. You can see the whole thing for yourself, but I wanted to mention a few things that stood out for me:
The comparison of old vs. new media to Jesus vs. the jester. Some people are trying to be the Next Big Thing when all they really need to do is light a few small fires. Making people laugh is sometimes an ability that is highly underrated. It doesn’t HAVE to be an Avatar. A Juno will do quite well.
The power of real-time search and the shift from algorithm-based to social-powered search. More and more, I see friends asking for advice on Facebook about things they’re considering buying, so I agree with this.
The power of digital curation. When it comes to news, we don’t want to search for the news, we want the news to come to us – one of the many reasons why people use Twitter. Twitter hasn’t perfected the art yet, and Google News and others offer no way of serving up just what we’re looking for – I still wade through a lot of trash to get to the news that interests me. There’s a big role for digital curators in the future, as Bart says. Piers Fawkes at PSFK wrote a good post about what the future of blogs may be, and received an overwhelming response affirming the role of digital curators. However, Peter Rojas, publisher of Gizmodo and Engadget, made an interesting point when he said:
…….when I thought about what I wanted to do after Engadget I realized that there was something really interesting happening with the web — it was becoming more social, more dynamic, and more real-time, and I wanted to try and build a gadget site built around those ideas rather than one predicated on a team of editors cranking out posts.
I think FriendFeed went some way towards this, but it didn’t quite crack the code. I want to see things that interesting people (like some of the people I follow on Twitter) read and share on the web, but I don’t want to see comments of a personal nature they make to other friends (which includes personal stuff they share on Twitter, for example). With Google Reader I can ‘follow’ some people who choose to share their items with me, but I find that a lot of those items are from sites that are in my feed reader anyway. There’s a problem of duplication there, in other words. I think I’m describing a purely news-oriented Twitter – a sort of Google, FriendFeed and Twitter mash-up, where you follow people you want to, and get the content they’re into, on a real-time basis.
Another interesting comment from the PSFK post was:
It is endlessly frustrating to find a post that you put hours of loving care into get 1800 page views, and then throwing up a timewaster on LED encrusted eyelashes gets a hundred times that because of the power of DIGG.
There is nothing wrong with the medium of blogs, the problem is how the for-profit sites monetize it. That is why I think Fast Company and Atlantic are doing such a good job, they are bringing the discipline and editing of good magazines into the blog world and, I think, with their professionalism, will eat our lunch.
Now that is something that media outlets need to decide for themselves. Professionalism is a good thing. If the problem is the big supermarkets eating the small independent corner-shop, or the Fast Companies of this world eating smaller blogs, then the situation is the same as it was when globalization happened in South Asian countries like India years ago – some Mom and Pop shops died, but some didn’t. Sites like Unchained Guide are proof of the fact that there are plenty of independent boutiques that I personally would much rather patronise than H&M or Topshop in the UK, for example. Besides, if your blog is good, or popular (which is arguably more more important, from a monetization point of view), you may even get bought by a conglomerate, like Mashable is rumoured to be by AOL (whether or not the $15-25 million valuation is justified is a different issue altogether).
It’s called creating a niche for yourself.
I submit, however, that it IS irritating when sites like Digg give silly posts undue attention – I’m skeptical of the kind of people that use services like Digg in the first place. Taking this a bit further though, it would be useful to have a Digg-type vote up/vote down functionality on the mash-up service I described above.
-
Death to the banner ad, long live brand stories
Adweek has an interesting article about sponsored blog posts and sites like Gawker and Digg “lending a hand with brands looking to fit into their environments without being relegated to the sidelines with run-of-the-mill banner ads”. I think this is a very smart proposition because it is one way for a brand to get access to a section of their audience that would be very difficult to reach otherwise. They mention the example of Federated Media crafting a sponsored blog post for Virgin America, in the design-conscious Apartment Therapy blog, that spoke of Virgin’s plush leather seats and soft lighting. The idea was to distinguish Virgin from low-cost competitors like Southwest Airlines.
Now obviously there could be issues if a post is not keeping with the general tone of a blog, but if the publisher does this on the brand’s behalf, it’s a win-win situation. Obviously there will be critics but hey, there isn’t such a thing as a free lunch. Running a website isn’t completely without its costs.
One thing I can tell you as a reader of multiple blogs is that I just gloss over banner ads. They’re almost invisible to me. This particular Apartment Therapy post isn’t the best example, but if a post was particularly witty and just happened to be sponsored, you’re not going to get me complaining at all. It’s all about engaging the reader. Banner ads are an example of one-way communication and are definitely not engaging. A blog post, on the other hand, can tell a whole story.




