Helpful Peeks at User-Generated Content Source Verification

Posted on by
2

I am fascinated by the processes journalists employ to verify sources and love getting an insider’s view of the manner in which newspapers and magazines cull through user-generated content to separate genuine reports from dubious claims.

I therefore felt like Christmas came early this morning when I stumbled across an article by The Atlantic in which user-generated photos of Hurricane Sandy are declared real, fake, or unverified.

The article’s author, Alexis Madrigal, along with Chris Heller and Megan Garber, have been updating its content as new photos come in.

Madrigal also encourages readers to check out Is Twitter Wrong?, a Tumblr blog (with an accompanying Twitter feed) by international MSN editor Tom Phillips (aka @flashboy, who is also contributing updates to the article) that debunks questionable news-related Tweets.

Madrigal reveals three common types of fake photos reporters and journalists who draw from user-geneated content regularly have to contend with:

The fakes come in three varieties: 1) Real photos that were taken long ago, but that pranksters reintroduce as images of Sandy, 2) Photoshopped images that are straight up fake, and 3) The combination of the first two: old, Photoshopped pictures being trotted out again.

The photos themselves are particularly fun to look at (especially one in particular, dubbed “Fake (but Awesome)” depicting a cat-hurricane descending on the city of New York. While some of the fakes are obvious, others are surprising, and it by reading Madrigal’s explanation of why a particular fake is a fake, one can sharpen one’s own source verification skills.

I hope more publications share their verification processes like this! As Madrigal’s article demonstrates, these explanations are at once educational and entertaining.

UGC and the Presidential Election

Posted on by
Reply

One factor that distinguishes the 2012 presidential election from those that came before it is that UGC plays a bigger role than ever.

An article by Tamara Littleton on iMedia pointed out that:

  • More than half of US voters get their news online
  • This week’s Presidential debate was (according to Mashable) the most Tweeted event in US political history
  • Campaign coverage is playing out through YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and a wide array of other social media platforms
  • Campaign coverage is getting a lot of attention on UGC platforms- Clint Eastwood’s empty chair speech prompted more than 11,000 posts
  • Obama has 20 million followers on Twitter (Romney has 1 million)
  • 300,000 people are ‘talking about’ Romney on Facebook

Aside from feeling excited for the important role that UGC has come to play in politics, I am pleased to see the way in which UGC is making all aspects of the world- politics included- more open and accessible.

In the iMedia piece for example, Littleton explains that the Republican Party’s YouTube channel, which was the online center of the convention, was created with the idea that “anyone can be a part of it, no matter where they are in the country.”

Accessibility and inclusiveness lies at the heart of what makes UGC so capable of changing the world and our lives. Just as it is changing our elections, it is changing our careers, leisure time, education, and economy. Those who understand these shifts and make the most of them have much to gain.

With regard to media coverage of user-generated content-related political issues, Littleton points out that journalists must be careful to filter out biased staff, beware of extremists, seek balance, offer equal access, watch out for straw men, cut abuse, and be prepared for accusations of bias. Professionals dealing with other forms of UGC will have to discover and meet very different challenges. It is up to each individual to identify important issues and address them accordingly, but the effort required to do this is well worth the payoff. In addition to gaining much-desired attention and engagement, those who leverage user-generated content will be doing their part to make the world more open, innovative, and democratic.

Great Insights from an Innovative Journalism Class

Posted on by
Reply

LightbulbWhile I am happy to have swapped expensive educational institutions for Coursera and other free online courses, there are some structured classes I would really like to audit, such as a rather innovative journalism class taught by Dana Coester and Joel Beeson of the Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism and covered in MediaShift by Susan Currie Sivek.

In this class, students are encouraged to create database narratives “in which tags classify themes and types of content”. Intriguing, no?

Included in the course’s materials is Apple’s user interface guide, and while that might be initially surprising, it makes perfect sense, as each student will ultimately create an interface that “provides what Coester calls a “take me” experience for the user — a “loosely choreographed,” dynamic interaction with elements of a narrative.”

Given the hyper-visual, super-dynamic, multi-dimensional, curation-valuing turn online content is taking, this strikes me as a highly appropriate means of presenting complex news stories to modern audiences.

With journalism courses inspiring students to create such non-traditional stories focused on curation, multiple forms of media, and UI design, one might find oneself asking: What remains that makes them traditional journalists?

It ultimately comes down to this: journalists are some of the few select people online who verify sources and check their facts. Trustworthy sources of information on the Internet are very things indeed, and a reputation for bias-free, consistent, and accurate reporting is what makes true traditional journalists stand apart from their citizen journalist counterparts (at least when they do their jobs right).

This class offers more than a reflection on new directions in journalism; it also reveals a key insight on a mistaken collective undervaluation of user-generated content.

Says Professor Coester:

“I was surprised at how naïve the digital natives are because they actually do use [technology] as a tool, but you have to reteach them the significance of what they’re doing… They don’t understand they’re publishing until you point that out.”

This goes to show that most people creating user-generated content don’t realize the significance that it has; how it shapes media narratives- and much more! I should like to think that content creators (professional and recreational alike) will have a better understanding of the significance of their actions (and therefore their responsibility to publish honest, vetted work) in the future.

At any rate, this sounds like an incredible class, and you can read more about it on MediaShift.

 

Content Marketing and The Authenticity Divide

Posted on by
2

Because user-generated content (and good content in general) has become the primary means by which one establishes a strong online presence, it makes perfect sense that companies need it to boost brand awareness and win new customers. We should therefore not be surprised to see that most marketing and PR agencies offer content generation as one of their many services. That said, content creation managed on behalf of an agency gives me pause.

I view “content marketing” (the way most agencies/consultants frame the act of generating content for promotional purposes) in a negative light because it usually leads to legitimate writers writing about something they don’t care about. Content marketing feeds the growing body of thin, inauthentic media online that lowers the overall reputation of user-generated content.

I agree that companies should leverage content to their advantage, but the best approach does not involve generating content just for the sake of generating content. If a company doesn’t have authentic, compelling content of its own, it should learn how to leverage truly genuine user-generated content created by its customers.

One fantastic example of a user-generated content marketing opportunity can be seen with “Hot Cheetos and Takis” – a piece of authentic, non-induced user-generated content that depicts two brands in a very favorable light.

It is profoundly better to engage with, feature, and bolster the dialogue real people are having about one’s brand than to create thin, uninspired content of one’s own. In addition to saving internal resources, this approach gives more credence to the type of user-generated content that deserves to shine.

Let’s face it. If a company has to pay an agency to create content, chances are it does not have sufficiently interesting stories to share, and any content artificially created would go largely unnoticed. It is far better to seek out stakeholders, engage in a dialogue, and highlight favorable things customers have to say. Doing so strengthens relationships, offers greater value, and creates more opportunities for authentic content to flourish.

Is User-Generated Content on the Cusp of Decline?

Posted on by
Reply

Is UGC ready to retire? Hardly.

No.

Seriously, no.

User-generated content is here to stay.

That said, Helen Edwards recently used Trip Advisor as an example of how user-generated content on the whole is faced by a looming decline. While I absolutely acknowledge the user-generated media issues she brings up, these developments can hardly be seen as the harbinger of doom. Allow me to go through them point by point:

Edwards asserts that UGC sites will “begin to sag under the weight of their own banality” as offhand comments overwhelm what was once useful information. Thankfully, this quality issue facing UGC has already been solved thanks to comment ratings and moderation (for an example, see how YouTube, which is famous for profoundly idiotic comments, floats the highest rated comments to the top based on user ratings)

Edwards also points out that dated content may continue to stick around, making readers less likely to trust it and brands doomed to endure outdated and unfair reviews. Again, many sites have resolved this issue, giving precedence to new content.

Referring to a 2012 academic study indicating that people making purchase decisions look for advice from people they have some reason to value, Edwards suggests that UGC sites lack value because the content is from complete strangers. While Facebook’s social graph and Google+ have actually ameliorated this issue, enabling us to see which of our friends have endorsed something or written a review, I also feel the need to point out that we now live in an age in which we are learning to trust the collective intelligence of the crowd. If you disagree, please say hello to my pal Wikipedia and let me know if you want to stick to your guns.

Edwards sees hotels’ embrace of travel sites like Trip Advisor as a bad thing, suggesting that instead of pandering customers and asking for five star ratings, “smart managers see the looming crisis and disengage with the site, preferring to focus energies on nurturing guest loyalty.”

I see the opposite. Smart managers always have nurtured guest loyalty- by asking for reviews as well, they’re only making themselves accountable and purposefully engaging in a dialogue with content creators instead of burying their heads in the sand and hoping that some day, miraculously, people will stop searching for and posting reviews. It would be a very bad strategic decision to ignore travel ratings sites entirely, especially considering that a visit to TripAdvisor was associated with longer stays, more activities, and bookings worth £1.7 billion in tourism spending in the UK- that’s 2.2% of total tourism spending in 2011.

I agree with Edwards that expertise and editing shall come to be valued more, but to suggest that that takes UGC out of the picture is both elitist and preposterous. We are all experts at something (and does not staying in a hotel make one an expert at… staying at that hotel?). What’s more, the inherent design of UGC sites is moving toward one that encourages peer review and editing. As it happens, you can have your cake and eat it, too. UGC can have incredibly high quality, and in countless cases, it already does.

In short, asserting that these issues indicate that user-generated content is on its way out is like saying in the midst of the Industrial Revolution that trains are never going to catch on because they are fast and dangerous and there are too many different rail gauges, or like saying in the early ‘90s that the Internet is never going to work because there will eventually be too many websites and nobody will be able to separate the good sites from the bad.

Yes, UGC has some issues to overcome. All new developments do. It’s simply a process of evolution. I just want to make sure that we don’t mistake evolution for obliteration.

Why User-Generated Content is Not Ubiquitous in the Gaming World

Posted on by
Reply

I just read an interesting article on OXCGN by Nicholas Laborde on how user-generated content can save Nintendo. Laborde marvels at the potential that user-generated content has just for Mario Kart alone:

Imagine the potential of user-created Mario Kart tracks. What normally would have been 50CC may now be 500CC because someone thinks the game isn’t hard enough.
Some very demented creator may create a Rainbow Road that’s dozens of times longer and more difficult than the already daunting one that we all know and hate.

Given this potential, Laborde questions why Nintendo has not implemented features such as this already.

Simply put, the gaming industry- up to this point at least- has not needed user-generated content. As other industries (media, education, journalism) have struggled to stay afloat in the face of evolving technology and communications, the gaming industry has thrived by leveraging improved sound cards, graphics cards, 3D graphics accelerators, internet speeds, smartphones, cultural shifts, and countless other developments.

As a result, gaming has experienced breathtaking growth. In 2011, the gaming industry took in approximately $24.75 billion dollars in the US (that’s after just 9.5 billion dollars in 2007). Compare that to the movie industry, which took in $10.20 billion dollars in box office revenue in 2011, or the television industry, which saw revenue drop to $15.6 billion in 2009 and only expected to grow around $500 million in 2010. Other industries have depended on user-generated content as a cheap and easy means of staying competitive, but since basic technological change gave the gaming industry so much room to grow, they simply didn’t need user-generated content to aid growth.

Now, a shift is taking place. Laborde refers to Nintendo’s difficulty keeping current, as well as the general case of sequel-itis faced by the entire industry. These, among other problems, are pushing game developers to turn to user-generated content as a new source of innovation and customer engagement (as indicated in my previous post), hence gamers as content generators will play a bigger role in the months and years to come.

This instance of a thriving industry only just now turning to UGC makes me wonder what other industries will soon need to utilize the resource just to maintain a functional, competitive edge. Quick examples that come to mind include the legal world, the retail industry, the legislative world, politics, and law enforcement. What industries pop into your head?

The Heat Behind Steam’s Community Update

Posted on by
Reply

Steam (a digital distribution platform owned by Valve, a video game development company) recently announced a major community update involving, in part, the release of Game Hubs- game-specific pages utilizing the best of over 89 million screenshots, videos, levels, maps, mods, and items created by the community’s users.

Though shiny and fun on its own, this update is an interesting indication of where the gaming industry presently is with user-generated content. While older industries (news, publishing, entertainment) have been profoundly shaped and influenced by user-generated content for years now, the gaming industry is only just beginning to make full use of community media. Steam’s latest update makes for a good example, but you might also keep in mind that significant gaming features leveraging user-generated content are only just starting to roll out.

Valve’s Source Filmmaker, which allows gamers to record gaming footage using the same tools Valve uses when assembling game trailers, was only made available a couple of months ago, and other cool user-directed and generated game features, such as Hitman: Absolution’s user-generated content multiplayer mode, are still relatively new to the field.

Considering how big, influential, innovative, and lucrative the gaming industry is, it will be very interesting to see how user-generated content ends up being utilized. Already, the manner in which the industry is leveraging fan-made media is fresh and (in most cases) enlightened, so here’s hoping other industries can take a leaf from the gaming book and approach UGC with an equally open and inventive mind.

User-Generated Content Sites and Google Algorithm Updates

Posted on by
Reply

Anyone who follows the user-generated content field will be painfully aware of the fact that Google will be releasing an algorithm update this week. Every time this happens, commentators and content producers have a bit of a headless chicken moment, complete with a great deal of running around and flapping (and sometimes a bit of blood).

The primary tizzy into which most of us were sent with this particular algorithm update, which is designed to penalize sites that get a lot of takedown notices, was that YouTube would be given special treatment due to a different manner in which takedown notices are handled through the site. Search Engine Land, CNET, The Verge, Gizmodo, Mobile & Apps, TechRadar, PC Mag, and morel covered the issue and most have posted subsequent corrections after Google set everyone straight (YouTube’s takedown notices will be taken into account; popular UGC sites should not be harmed).

I am afraid that this update’s drama session, along with most other short flustered post clusters that accompany Google algorithm updates, miss a very important point: user-generated content sites succeed and fail at the whim of an independent third party.

This honestly makes UGC a pretty shaky business to work in- that is, If one must depend entirely on search traffic for readership.

The takeaway for content generators and user-generated content site owners alike should be this: we must figure out how to better diversify. It is not enough to depend solely on search results- something that is often out of our control regardless of how high quality our content may be. We must also garner readers via social media sites- and discover how to become destinations.

Some larger sites have attempted to do this through apps, while many individual content generators have focused on building a loyal following. I am sure that many more strategies are being experimented with and I don’t have any one tactic to recommend.

All I’m saying is that we might consider spending less time complaining so much about align updates and more time figuring out how not to depend on search for success.