« Google Sinks Its Teeth Into Facebook | Home | Outbound Links and Misunderstandings »
Google News, Can I Comment?
By Matt Keough | September 6, 2007
Google recently announced that they will allow participants in a news story presented at Google News to comment.
We’ll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we’ll show them next to the articles about the story.
My initial reactions were:
- This might be a very good thing if it allows for factual corrections to attach themselves to stories.
- This will also allow participants to tell their side of the story, even if it is not a factual correction. This might allow those involved in public relations, particularly online PR, to add a different angle to the one originally presented.
- This could get really complicated really quickly. Google is now taking on an editorial function in addition to their gatekeeper function. They will now have to define “participant”, and ‘news”, and “story”.
Google seemed to define “participant” pretty closely. A person/company named in a story. Perhaps they were quoted, perhaps not. At least there was a mention of that entity.
I cannot begin to speculate on how many words in how many dissertations have been inked to try and define “news”. I’ll give Google a pass on this.
What is a “story”? I thought it was akin to an article in the traditional print media. But upon evidence I’ll present below and my own re-thinking, a story could be a series of articles from any number of publications.
What prompted me to think more precisely about all of this? Two days ago, I was browsing Google News and noticed a comment attached to an article about Senator Larry Craig.
And they next day the comment appeared next to a different article.
And this morning another.
This demonstrates that the story is not defined as one particular article. This, of course, widens the parameter of who can be considered a participant.
The comment in question is from Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington. Are they mentioned in the articles under which the comment appeared? None of the articles I read.
A quick review of their roster and the statements on their website gives the impression that they may have a slightly partisan slant. Nothing wrong with that. I just wonder why Google gives them standing in the story? Is it similar to an amicus brief whereby a “friend of the court” weighs in? They have called for the Senator’s resignation. But they are not alone in this by any means.
Let me be very clear. I am not alleging there is any partisan conspiracy at Google. I am not saying Melanie Sloan is wrong to want to put her two cents in. I’m just curious as to how this particular comment fits Google’s own definition of their standard
Who can comment on stories?
Right now, Google only posts comments from participants in stories. Participants are people mentioned in a story or related to organizations in a story.
Perhaps somewhere among the thousands of articles about this story the commenter was mentioned. I’ll make that presumption. Believe me; I have no interest in reading anymore articles than I already have about this story. Logic then dictates that there have been many participants related to the story. Why is there seemingly only one comment attached to all the various articles? Again, no implied conspiracy. I’m just asking the question. To anyone involved in online public relations, the answer to this question should be of great interest. Have you observed how comments have been attached to other stories?
Want to know more about search?Visit our search engine marketing forum.
Want to know more about online videos?
Stop by our Internet video marketing forum.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am
This is going to end sooner than later, and it’s going to end badly with egg on Eric Schmidt’s face.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Great analysis, tracking on this new model and its limits or unusual presentation of “news.”
September 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Matt, I really think the point in your last paragraph about which other comments might be out there is salient. Maybe there are no other “participants” who commented yet, but if others where to chime in, how are their results displayed? Does Google order the comments top-to-bottom chronologically, alphabetically, or do they have some other seemingly random way of ranking that?
On the one hand, I see where indexing comments on news stories makes sense: reputation management, ongoing debate, and fluid interactivity between producers and consumers of news represent natural growths in the way news is consumed (and produced) on the internet, but the implications of Google’s latest moves as news editor-in-chief (or “objective” observer/enabler) bear some serious consideration.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Paul-
It seems like we just need more data. It still seems rare that a story IS appended with a comment. I recall reading that Google News was considering soliciting comments. (Danny Sullivan’s Q&A at Search Engine Land?)If that is the case, I would consider Google News is also attempting the role of reporter or fact-checker.
-Matt
September 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Here is the SEL Q&A I mentioned in my earlier comment -
http://searchengineland.com/070808-191446.php
September 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
[...] blog article? If so, you may want to subscribe to the FathomSEO RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!I recently posted about the comments that appear with Google News stories. Since then, I’ve noticed that Google [...]