We’ve had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.

We’re now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.

In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.

So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
    410·
    2 个月前

    I can’t ignore suggestions nobody is making. Have a better service in mind? Feel free to present it.

    We looked at AllSides, which is good for bias, but has no scoring for credibility.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      25·
      2 个月前

      “We have to keep using the ratings website made by a random dude with no background in journalism who makes it available for free because real fact checking services cost money” is perhaps not the argument I would use for why the bot is both accurate and useful.

      You don’t have to have a bot at all, especially to replace something like blacklisting Breitbart URLs, but someone thought the idea sounds cool. So “don’t have the bot” has been unnecessarily eliminated as an option. Even though sometimes the best option really is to just not have a bot.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        71·
        2 个月前

        I mean, it’s a great argument for not going with actual fact checkers, unless you’re volunteering to pay.

        Not having one is also an option, but for my 2 cents the bot seems accurate enough so far, and it’s easy enough to ignore if you really don’t like it.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          11·
          2 个月前

          I’m definitely not paying to have a “think for me” bot on an instance I’m not part of. You can’t automod your way out of media illiteracy.

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      2 个月前

      Stop pretending that “get rid of the bot” doesn’t count as a suggestion. That’s dishonest.

      I don’t even care about the bot itself, but at this point I’m just getting pissed off by all the constant bickering about it.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
        311·
        2 个月前

        When the question is “how do we improve it?” the answer “get rid of it” is not a genuine suggestion.

        The GOOD news is, we DO have a genuinely good suggestion here and the bot creator will be reaching out.

        • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 个月前

          It is a genuine suggestion. If something is a net negative, you don’t go for the sunken cost fallacy and jam it down users throats even harder. If that’s the only question you are willing to ask, then that means you don’t listen to suggestions - you just want to seem like you do.

        • Dumnorix@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          2 个月前

          Honest question,

          If I understand the comment thread correctly, this means you’ll integrate the Wikipedia/Wikidata info in the existing bot, correct? Will an announcement be posted when or if this happens, so that people like me who blocked the bot can unblock it? I do like the concept of the bot, but I prefer an open source collaborative effort compared to a one man, rightwing aligned website.

          Thanks for your openness to improve the service.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
            22·
            2 个月前

            Dunno yet, that’s something Rooki and the other user will have to sort out, but I’m all for improvements!