> "Imagine what your perfect source would tweet, or what you yourself would tweet in that situation, and search for the words that would probably be in it."
This is a technique I used to use a lot more in the days before Google became the dominant search engine, when I was using Lycos, Alta Vista and Yahoo. In those more primitive search engines that were doing something closer to a full-text search, it was important to use the words and verb tenses that were likely to appear in the answer (or target page/tweet), not in the question.
So for example, instead of querying "Which museum is the Mona Lisa in?" it was best to query "collection includes the mona lisa" and similar phrases.
Needless to say, third generation search engines like Google made this all unnecessary, and hopefully, Twitter will get there too, eventually.
This is still how web searching works. I have no idea why you would think otherwise--at its core Google is still fundamentally an indexing service, and you use indices by figuring out which words may be in the documents you want to read and then finding the documents containing those. Without doing this, it becomes impossible to distinguish documents which are what you want from documents which describe what you want (and which often refer to something behind a paywall or in a private or non-digitized collection).
But if you search "using * to pirate movies" (google will match the star, even in quotes, with a word or phrase in result context), every result will include the name of a method for pirating movies, which you can investigate further. I see "popcorn time", "bit torrent", "pirate bay" and "camcorder" on the first page. These are all direct answers that a human would consider reasonable (though of varying efficacy) to the question.
It might be due to better NLP, but it may also be due to the rise of blogging-style personal content where authors say things using that phrase. For example, "I was wondering how to start up my own Ubuntu server on AWS and thought I'd write a tutorial while I was at it." contains "how to start up . . . Ubuntu server on AWS"
And here I was able at the article for spoiling the fun of it's 'guess the search terms' game in the damn title. Nope, it wasn't the author I had to be disappointed with, it was HN's blind adherence to keeping the original title AND removing click bait. A much better title would have been the original or something like "what to include in Twitter search terms".
They use a syntax-aware search (thus refining for ME, MY, …).
I thought (hoped) that journalists among all people would be the best at semantic search.
Here the guy is just saying "whoa great dude and next I'll use regexps oh my god woaw".
We have word2vec, doc2vec, many cores, … why aren't journalists using the tools they should be using?
None of the journalists I have met or worked with in six years in publishing and investigative due diligence know about the tools you are proposing. I recognize regex, because of a problem I needed to solve (that later became two problems), but I would love to learn more about the others. If you would consider writing that up, I would happily edit it for you.
That's an interesting question - if you read the stories of how Edward Snowden's story came to light, you'll find that his main issue with Glenn Greenwald was to get the guy to use technology properly.
Hopefully out of the many tech heads who read HN, one will have the same thought as you and build the tool.
i disagree. i don't think the author's search method is intuitive at all. i think, even for a journalist, it's normal behavior to search by proper nouns and words of specificity, rather than pronouns and what we normally deem "filler" words such as "me" and "my".
Their job isn't to be good. Their job is to convince the masses that they are. In order to sell that idea, it is beneficial if they believe their own bullshit, and that selects people who are not very good.
This insight seems like a great opportunity for classification or tagging. I wonder what a stream of tweets which were purely autobiographical would look like.
This is really interesting. A great tool to search geocoded tweets is the MapD Tweetmap http://www.mapd.com/demos/tweetmap (full disclosure, my company). For example, here (http://bit.ly/1KIPSqh) are tweets containing “seat” and “me”.
Now every arsehole spammer will add the words "I'm OK me my" and when a major accident occurs the mode of transport or disaster related noun to their tweets
And this is why we can't have nice things. Twitter doesn't kill spam bots fast enough and Twitter spammers and slimey SEO douchebags crap in their own backyard. No wonder Twitter is going down: between the gamergaters, doxxers, trolls, female hating mysogynists, outraged eavesdroppers, rape loving, NLP wielding pick-up artists, swot-abusers, and vapid, brain-dead, useless celebrities - how does Twitter even exist?
It's truly amazing how a medium with only a 140 character limit can a. make money, b. communicate anything really worthwhile, or c. be read by anyone with any serious intent! Several years ago the criticisms were that everyone tweeted about mundane crap and it went down frequently [1], now it's being abandoned because it's no better than swimming in a sewage system [2].
Yup. Your feed might not be full of spam, but how are you going with searching for specific tweets? And I'm assuming you aren't a female who tweets about feminism or calls out mysogynists and who consequently gets threatened with rape or murder; you're not a woman or defending women who build or critically review games; you aren't being doxxed by gamer gaters; you aren't trying to debate a controversial issue so you aren't getting flamed or trolled; you've never quietly joked about a dongle at a tech conference and not realised you were a little bit too loud and subsequently lost your job when someone tweets your photo instead of confronting you directly or taking it to conference organisers; and lastly, you aren't a teenager being influenced by celebrities encouraging you to buy into a vapid and stupid lifestyle instead of contributing to society in some meaningful way.
You live in a nice world if that's the case. Twitter is great for you, but pretty awful for everyone else. Which is great, but let's leave Twitter to this niche market and let everyone else find some other medium that isn't so corrosive for them. People of course don't leave this medium, and it beats me why.
Uhhh.. I think I just found what twitter needs to do to make more revenue. Find a way to charge journalists searching for easy sources to make their deadline.
It would have taken 10 seconds to add a box over the username while he was adding those arrows, given the context of the article, it seems outright irresponsible.
Hardly. He's asking permission to talk to them in the first place, and presumably asked permission to use their names in the article. And the article body mentions them by name. And the article is about how to find them in the first place.
You're advocating blurring the names out but then telling readers how to find them very easily (it's the point of the article) - this would justifiably open the author to ridicule.
Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith.
It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?
Treating adults equally regardless of gender is a part of what we expect of others we interact with. It's a pretty major clash with something that doesn't really fall under religion, but the even more general social values we use to form a society.
If this person wants to avoid women, he should do what other reasonable people do to accomodate themselves: arrange for it in advance, without inconveniencing others. Telling people to their face that you can't sit next to them breaks most social rules.
You have the freedom to practice your religion. You don't have the freedom to interfere with a planeload of other people.
> When passengers started to board, he said, an ultra-Orthodox man stood in the aisle, refusing to move and delaying the departure for 15 to 20 minutes until another passenger volunteered to switch seats.
That's wasting 75 hours because he didn't make his needs clear before hand, or didn't take the option of paying for an extra seat.
To be fair, it's not really possible for someone to even attempt to arrange gender-separated seating in advance , even if plenty of other passengers are perfectly content to cooperate (perhaps even desirous! there are many cases where even non-religious women are more comfortable not sitting next to a man)
Sure there is, just buy the seat next to you. Or book a private flight. Or drive.
There's all kinds of things I don't like about commodity-priced airline seats either, but that's the choice we all have; either buy what you actually want or take what you paid for.
I haven't heard multiple cases of women who don't want to sit next to men so strongly that they're prepared to delay an international flight in order to rearrange the seats.
My approach to answering this comes down to a very simple phrase that explains my political beliefs succinctly "my rights begin where your rights end."
I don't think anyone has any problem with people wanting to adhere to their faith. The problem they have is with people of faith demand that someone else, who is otherwise "following the rules" do something that inconveniences them because of beliefs they don't share and probably don't agree with. I've had vegan friends who choose not to eat meals with me because I am a meat enthusiast. I'm fine with that and with their life choices. But if we're dining together and they begin dictating to me what I can and cannot eat on the menu, you can expect that I'll be aggravated and won't comply.
It's wrong to ask someone else to accommodate your faith for you, especially when them accommodating might just as well fly in the face of their own, personal, convictions. Now, if this person attempted to purchase a second seat next to them and had that seat filled by another passenger, then I can understand them asking if they could be moved elsewhere. But if they're refused, the only remaining choice is to politely get off the plane and wait for a flight that you can be accommodated on. It's not "standing in the aisle and holding up the flight for 15 minutes". That person's religious convictions just ended up aggravating every passenger of that flight.
He's not really asking you to adhere to his faith. He's personally trying to adhere to his faith and he's asking you for a favor that will help him. Similarly, when somebody asks you the time, they are not attempting to turn you into a watch, they're just looking for some help from a fellow human being. I'm not saying someone is necessarily wrong to consider the request unreasonable, but I think it's unfair to accuse him of shoving his faith on other people.
> Similarly, when somebody asks you the time, they are not attempting to turn you into a watch, they're just looking for some help from a fellow human being.
First, that's not at all the same amount of effort, they chose theses seats, they made effort to get theses specific seats.
Second, you are still free to refuse to give time, if you don't feel like it. I already did when it was late, I didn't want to get my phone out for safety.
A better example would be that you wear a blue shirt because you liked that color, and then someone asked you to change it to red because he don't like blue. He even have the red shirt with him, ready to exchange it. You really like blue but not so much red. Would you?
Where did I say you aren't free to refuse? I just said he's not asking you to adhere to his faith. That's an uncharitable and unreasonable description of somebody making a simple request for a favor. Trying to demonize people who live differently from us with alarmist exaggerations like "He's asking me to adhere to his faith" is toxic to conversation.
I've swapped seats with people tons of times. Never for this reason, but maybe they wanted to sit next to their friend or whatever, and it didn't negatively affect me. It's much more common than having to change your shirt in public. But if you don't want to, that's OK too. My point is just that this guy wasn't exactly starting a new Crusade.
We are used to some measure of equality these days, and are surprised when the burden of "doing someone a favor" falls so explicitly on random women.
As we go through life we end up finding the lines at which each of us will stop. "Will you babysit my three children for five hours for free with no notice?" "Will you move so I don't have to touch your tempting elbow by accident?" "Will you let me blow through this deadline at work so I can.... get an emergency consult about my new leukemia diagnosis? go to Disneyland? take a mental health week? hang out with my new girlfriend?" I'm sure you'd say yes to some of these requests and no to others.
As so many office folks have said, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." We all have the right to decline performing such "favors" for others.
> A fellow human being is someone who doesn't hate/fear women.
Listen to yourself. You are literally dehumanizing Hasidic Jews here. I don't agree with this guy's religion, but responding to insensitivity with outright bigotry is not making things better.
I never said anyone is obligated to comply — I might not either in these people's shoes. But accusing him of forcing his religion on others or being subhuman or hating women or what-have-you is toxic to conversation and not helpful.
That is exactly what happened. In the source tweets it does not look as if any of the original by standards were asked to move. If I am wrong, please let me know.
The men were not asking for the women to be moved, they were asking to be moved.
You are wrong. These are quotes from sources 1,2 and 3.
"Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move." (not "he")
"when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions" (i.e. asking the woman to move - admittedly only one seat over)
"before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’" (not "before they found a spare seat next to a man"). In this one, it doesn't exactly say she was asked to move, but the fact that she eventually "acquiesced" does seem to imply it.
In Sources 4 and 5, it appears that the Hasidic man moved.
In none of the sources does it say anything about who did the asking and why. There's a difference between the Hasid demanding that a woman be moved, and the staff attempting to relocate the woman as an expedient way to satisfy a polite request to find a seat without an adjacent woman.
People have different standards of behaviour according to their social background. I think the average American or European would be unhappy if someone said "I won't sit next to this person because they're black" for whatever reason, personal, religious etc.
The same people consider gender discrimination to be approximately as bad as race discrimination.
The Hisidic person in question has some kind of problem with women because of their own background.
Would it be fair to say that since I am from America that I should get upset at anyone who wears a hijab for their own religious purposes? Covering women is very anti-American, specifically being prominent in the most recent generations. Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them to live their lives in a way that makes me happy.
Oddly, almost this exact issue was a major issue in the recent Canadian federal election. The Conservative government attempted to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. They went so far as to appeal lower court rulings that doing so was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They lost the election and the new Liberal government ended the attempt to ban the Niqab.
Interestingly, as the Conservative government kept falling in the polls, they even said that they would consider banning Niqabs for public servants!! It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing, but the 2015 federal election was a first class, direct flight to bizarro world.
This is the best article that I can find on this issue. It isn't great, but if I have more time later, I'll replace it with a better citation.
On a style note, I have no idea if the word niqab should be capitalized. My iPhone autocorrects it to be capitalized, but it doesn't look correct. Can anyone help?
Checked Wikipedia, doesn't look like it's usually capitalized mid-sentence in English. Users on the talk page appear inconsistent, but I don't think it would be grammatically correct to capitalize it mid-sentence as it's not a proper noun.
>> It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing
I, and many others who didn't vote Conservative, still supported their efforts to enforce a ban on such a regressive mode of dress during citizenship ceremonies. I don't think it's bizarre at all to address these sorts of things at a federal level. Citizenship is important and people who refuse to show their faces don't deserve it. I'm sorry if this doesn't match your ideal of an "inclusive" society or whatever.
So do I - which is why I think the only appropriate citizenship dress that properly demonstrates Canada's commitment to diversity is blue boot-cut jeans.
First, keep in mind that the sentence you quoted was related to a possible ban on public servants wearing the niqab.
I found it bizarre that the Conservative government would double down on the niqab issue by suggesting that they may ban public servants from wearing it. Doubling down on an issue that Justin Trudeau was gaining so many points on struck me as an admission that either they were running out of money, or they were competing against the NDP to be official opposition. It didn't make much strategic sense, especially considering former-PM Harper's 'old-stock' Canadian quote.
But, nothing about the last years of Conservative rule - from his fight against the public service, to his fight against science, to the Mike Duffy kerfuffle - made a lick of sense. It shouldn't have felt so bizarre that Harper would run a disjointed campaign, but he was otherwise an amazing campaigner.
As for the niqab during citizenship, I likely can't convince you because you'll mention that niqab's aren't even necessarily part of Islam. And, you'll mention that there is a possibility that their use is coerced.
All of those arguments are true and, for the record, I'm not a huge fan of the niqab, but I'm Catholic and I was born in Canada, so my views aren't particularly informed.
Rather, my only argument is that the Supreme Court gave some very stringent requirements for making a witness remove a niqab during trial.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that an outright ban on niqabs during testimony was wrong as, "rights should be limited only to the extent that the limits are shown to be justifiable."
I don't believe that we should have a lower standard during citizenship ceremonies. So ultimately, I think that we need strong justification to make it okay to violate someone's freedom to get dressed as they see fit.
I'm not convinced that we need to see someone's lips move as there are other ways we can determine whether they are actually reciting the vow. If the Supreme Court argues that a witness whose face is covered does not always violate an accused person's right to a fair trial, I don't think we can argue that a person whose face is covered violates the sanctity of citizenship. Those arguments aside, I can't think of any other strong arguments against the niqab in citizenship ceremonies.
> Interestingly, as the Conservative government kept falling in the polls, they even said that they would consider banning Niqabs for public servants!! It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing, but the 2015 federal election was a first class, direct flight to bizarro world.
Imagine how it feels for those who find the idea of Canadian civil servants clad in hijabs to be bizarro world.
In Regina, Sask., Germantown (an area full of Eastern European immigrants) was the last area in town to get indoor plumbing. It was a highly controversial decision which eventually swung on the fear that Germantown's residents would side with Austria-Hungary during WW1.
'Bohunks' weren't treated particularly well in Canada at the time. Some Ukrainians were even put into internment camps during WW1!
Not even 80 years later, Roy Romanow (whose parents were Ukrainian immigrants) was sworn in as Premier of Saskatchewan. Some argue that he saved Saskatchewan from bankruptcy.
Perhaps the greatest joy of being Canadian is the knowledge that former outsiders have a sneaky habit of becoming among our greatest leaders! Therefore, I say wear hijabs. But when you lead, always fight to uphold the same freedom that gave you the chance to dress as you choose. :)
I think the closer analogy would be being asked to wear a hijab to satisfy someone else's religious beliefs. I don't think that's the same as being asked not to be seated next to a woman because it's looked down upon in your religion, but I can understand how people might be offended by it.
If anything, I think it's more likely that the annoyance was caused mostly by the delay itself rather than what was causing it.
> Would it be fair to say that since I am from America that I should get upset at anyone who wears a hijab for their own religious purposes?
No. Nor, even if by "American" you mean "person other than a Muslim who believes that woman should where the hijab", but the former is neither equivalent to nor does it imply the latter -- there are Americans who were the hijab for their own religious reasons -- is that really parallel to the issue at hand.
Now, if you were such a person -- and a woman -- and someone asked you to wear a hijab to accommodate their religion's prohibition for women being uncovered in the presence of non-related men, then that would be more parallel to (though arguably somewhat more extreme than) the situation at issue.
OTOH, an
Being asked to do something based on someone else religion, that's what wrong.
> Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them to live their lives in a way that makes me happy.
Which is exactly what's wrong in that situation, they had theses seats but because they are female, they were expected to move.
I haven't personally experienced something like this, but I can come up with a few reasons.
1) maybe I just don't want to switch seats. Maybe I'm already settled in, maybe I like the fact that it's a window/middle/isle seat, etc.
2) imagine someone refuses to sit next to you, stating the reason as "that person is ugly" or "that person's choice of wardrobe disturbs me". If that happened to me, I'd certainly be offended and might refuse to move out of principle (though personally, I'd rather the flight was on time than make a statement). Those reasons are different from "I can't sit next to a woman", but they also refer to superficial, and frankly, childish, things.
For point 1, that does not seem evident in these tweets. They seem to move the man and woman to different seats, not the bystander passenger. One even noted that their seat was left empty.
For point 2, that may have been the case for some of these tweets but I don't think that holds true for all of them. Some of these people understood that this person came from a different culture. One even said "the chasidic Jew." [sic]
> Personally, I don't understand why the people in the first article, that this one is about, were upset that someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith.
As I see it, they weren't upset that "someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith", they were upset that someone of another religion wanted them to take action to adhere to a prohibition of that other person's religion.
> It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?
There's a substantial difference between encountering another culture and being asked to conform to that culture's taboos.
I don't really find it "reasonable", whatsoever, that someone can't sit beside another human being on a plane because SupremeBeingX doesn't want them to. In fact, "reasonable" may be the exact opposite description of the situation.
Possibly because it inconvenienced them: by delaying their flight, or by making them feel social anxiety if they were asked to move or moved away from.
Or they may have felt sympathy with others inconvenienced, like the flight crew and passengers.
It seems like a pretty natural, human thing to dislike being inconvenienced. I dislike it myself, in fact -- don't you?
I've been on a few planes in my life and I can tell you that none of them departed on time. Delays are a thing that go hand and hand with operations as complex as aircraft control and maintenance.
> It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?
Isn't that what's going on? If a person can't sit next to another person because of their goofy religious beliefs, then it's their own responsibility. It's unreasonable to throw a tantrum and insist everybody else move around.
They should expect that on an airplane they may encounter other people that may seem strange to them or make them uncomfortable.
I think in some of these cases the man wanted the woman to move from her original seat.
In other cases, there was an unwanted delay to travel.
In all cases, one must weigh the perceived harm (delay to 200+ passengers, versus harm to one passenger) against each other. Although to the man, the perceived harm to the man is high, to others, the perceived harm to the man is low. So any alarm over the situation can just be a matter of differing perceptions.
Then there's the question of were the people in the article even upset, or is that just your assumption? I'm not sure all of them were. They certainly thought the situation was remarkable, and they did remark on it, on twitter. That doesn't mean that every one of them was upset. But for those that were, see the reasons above.
No, it's absolutely not. It's a case of someone engaging in deep sexism under the cover of their religion, and it should trouble anyone with a daughter or sister or wife.
Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beliefs for putting together a civil society that treats all people with equal rights.
It is doubly objectionable because he is putting the onus on the woman who does not share his perspective to solve his problem. He could have traveled using another conveyance, or purchased seats around him if he had preferred a different seating setup.
> I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.
So rubbing elbows with men on a flight is fine, but rubbing elbows with women is some sort of unfaithfulness? Oh, please. I don't wish to touch anyone on a flight, but hey, we're crammed in there like sardines, shit happens. The gender of the sardine next to you has exactly what effect on the elbow-sized contact patch you share with them?
You're also reading this situation as being solely confined to the event of the flight, rather than the overall social movement. Any single action can be stripped of context and sterilised that way. Take a racist who is always rude to blacks and no other: every single incidence of rudeness could be explained away with "oh, maybe that guy deserved it", but when you look at the overall pattern, it's clear what's going on.
I respect your conviction. I do feel it has elements of sexism in it, but that doesn't mean I think you can't have it, or even that you shouldn't hold on to that conviction.
What I think you're conflating or ignoring is who should be responsible for respecting it. You are responsible for respecting it; businesses like airlines are not, and members of society who conform to our general norms are not.
In a free and open social engagement, like meeting at a party, it would be respectful for you to courteously ask an overly 'touchy' woman to stop, and I don't think very many people would find that sexist. (Although consider if you didn't want to touch black people because of your religion..).
In this case though, a member of society is participating in not only a normalized way (sitting in an assigned seat), but in a restricted way (she is not allowed to move without airline consent, and similarly she is not required to move without an airline directive).
I don't think it should ever cross someone's mind that the onus would be on the woman to 'fix' this situation. It's just not; there is an outside party trying to impose his beliefs on her.
That's why there's such a strong 'liberal' societal response to situations like this -- much of liberalism has been concerned with removing these impositions on members of society with less personal power. It feels like a regression to have educated people argue otherwise.
Actually, it seems to be an external blaming behavior in that at least one of the people involved said he didn't want to be tempted when his wife wasn’t there. That would imply that, by either touching or being near the woman, that she would become desirable to him by some behavior. It's that behavior that is being judged (and frequently pre-judged) by these people based on their beliefs, which is at the root of the problem.
Do you mean blaming someone else's behaviour? If so, I disagree.
If there was porn on the back of the seat, I think the guy could reasonably say "I don't want to look at that, I don't want to be tempted". That's not blaming some behaviour by the porn, he's just saying "in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to".
(I don't like the way they're acting, but I don't think "they're blaming other people" is what's wrong with it.)
> in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to
If the "situation" involves another person, then that person has a right to participate (or not) in whatever emotional response that is happening. If I'm attractive to you and you don't mind sitting next to me, I'm not required to show interest in you. If you continue with unwanted advances, you are liable for sexual harassment. Conversely, if I'm attractive to you and you do mind sitting next to me because I am attractive to you, I'm not required to help solve it because you are attracted to me yet are unable to manage your emotional responses. It still involves me, so I get a say in whether you can show that attraction in a specific way, including discriminating on me. So is anyone else, for that matter, given it's cognitive dissonance believing it's someone else's problem to deal with your inability to contain and manage your own "purity", which is really a fear of attraction to someone else.
I've always found it amusing that strongly religiose people seem to think temptation is so easy. I think it speaks to the lack of effect of their religion that they have to go to these extreme lengths to "avoid temptation", rather than just being mature and dealing with temptation appropriately like most adults do.
In short, if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths, then the religion isn't really giving you the internal strength to behave maturely. Time to look for a new moral code.
In that case, then he should follow his convictions and move, not request that the woman be moved, which is what has happened in many of these situations.
> the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move.
Second example:
> She was in a middle seat — her husband had the aisle — when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions. Ms. Heywood, offended by the notion that her sex made her an unacceptable seatmate, refused.
Third example:
> “But this Hasid came on, looking very uncomfortable, and wouldn’t even talk to the woman, and there was five to eight minutes of ‘What’s going to happen?’ before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’ It felt like he was being a yutz,” Mr. Newberger added, using a Yiddish word for fool.
The forth example is one where the man moves; the fifth example is ambiguous.
Well, you appear to have a point. I was thinking that since, you know, planes tend not to have a bunch of unused seats lying around, the situation may just have not reached that point, but that's definitely not true.
Defining 'fondling' as 'contact with a person' is pretty extreme. It'll be interesting to see what you think of businesspeople shaking hands, police handcuffing suspects, parents hugging their children, or politicians kissing babies...
Why? Twitter is a fantastic way to find leads and potential sources. You can't and shouldn't cite a tweet from a random person, but you can cite reporting done after finding a source on Twitter.
You have a point, but it's explicitly not what the author did. His screenshots show him replying to each of the tweets, asking to talk to their authors, and he goes on to tell their stories in the article. If anything, this shows how valuable a research tool Twitter can be when used properly.
Is there any documentation on what a clickbait title? HN has guidelines on what to do when the title starts with a number, but the only line about clickbaiting is kind of generic.[1] Personally, I'm not sure if "I'll know it when I see it" is the best policy for this, as different people have different opinions on what clickbait is.
And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the title, and not the actually content. That's hypocritical of me to complain about, though.
[1] "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
> different people have different opinions on what clickbait is.
Not really, there are just people who haven't seen a specific type of trick not used ad nauseam, while others have seen it a thousand times already.
"I'll know it when I see it" is sufficient here, since there's a wide variety of them and with enough experience they can be easily recognized.
In case you would like to have an easier way to learn it though:
Typically clickbait is when the article communicates something (anything, really) that could easily fit in the title itself, but refuses to do so. Advanced users compose titles that specifically pique curiosity in the average person.
I agree that it tends to be a "I'll know it when I see it" type thing, but if the title is as long or longer than it would be by "spoiling the surprise", then it's a good sign that it's clickbait. In this case, the article's title could have included "Me(/my)" and avoided dancing around the issue, so I think it definitely qualifies.
It's along similar lines to "Blah blah blah, and you won't believe what happens next."
It by definition is a slippery concept, since the whole concept of "bait" requires an element of deception.
Two quick rules of thumb will take you a long way though.
1) Titles where the reader is referred to in the second person, meaning they have the word "You" in them.
2) Titles that use imprecise emotional/colloquial phrases and speculation instead of the factual crux of the article. Doubly so when the title describes the feeling or consequence that the unstated subject will theoretically inspire.
If the title asks a question that can be answered in the title, then it is probably a clickbait title. It is generally accompanied by a title with the pronoun "you" (e.g. "you wouldn't guess") or exclamation of surprise at the contents of the article.
Here we see a fine example: "The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches that you probably haven’t considered". We have a one word answer "Me" and 'you' in the phrase 'you probably have considered'. The poster did a nice change to get the question answered before you need to read the article.
I'm not sure I understand all the rage here against "clickbait" titles. I generally reserve a few down votes for folks that come in simply to comment on whether or not the title qualifies as "clickbait" -- comments like these truly add nothing to the conversation.
One of the purposes of a title on the web is to convince you to click on it. Good titles drive traffic. I don't get why we all get so hung up on how titles are written. If you don't like how something is worded, don't click on it.
This is a technique I used to use a lot more in the days before Google became the dominant search engine, when I was using Lycos, Alta Vista and Yahoo. In those more primitive search engines that were doing something closer to a full-text search, it was important to use the words and verb tenses that were likely to appear in the answer (or target page/tweet), not in the question.
So for example, instead of querying "Which museum is the Mona Lisa in?" it was best to query "collection includes the mona lisa" and similar phrases.
Needless to say, third generation search engines like Google made this all unnecessary, and hopefully, Twitter will get there too, eventually.