BP gulf spill Fonz-smacks the auto-sentiment jukebox

06/09/10

Permalink 09:59:12 am, by jfiore English (CA)
Categories: Opinion

BP gulf spill Fonz-smacks the auto-sentiment jukebox

It's day 51 according to CNN and with all the coverage on the BP gulf-spill it has become impossible to not consider the magnitude of this catastrophe. I struggled with the idea of posting on a topic which is taking a significant environmental and emotional toll, but it's one that had me thinking about sharing two hot button topics - online reputations and auto-sentiment.

This discovery started back in April when I tweeted about auto-sentiment, and joked how saying sorry seemed to imply a degree of reputational liability:

Reputational Liability

The link in the tweet was referencing how a number of tweets which included the word "sorry" were automatically flagged negative using Twitter Sentiment's search tool.

I referred to it in a joking manner then, and in the past I have certainly made my views and opinions known on the role of forgiveness in social media. No doubt that there certainly has been enough coverage on the accuracy of auto-sentiment or lack of the same - with the more extreme views calling for a complete overhaul.

But the question then still rings true now: isn't auto-sentiment human assisted and directed algorithmic reputational scoring anyway?

Sadly, it seems to have taken a "BP gulf spill" to Fonz-smack the auto-sentiment jukebox:

BP gulf spill

I've always believed silence being far more damaging than openly admitting you made a mistake. With BP's "media management" or lack of accepting blame in this catastrophic event, perhaps we find the previously sinking accuracy of auto-sentiment turning the tide with spot-on timeliness.

Post on Twitter


Site Meter

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: autom [Visitor] Email · http://autom.x.iabc.com
oops - didnt; finish my train of thought there..was on iPhone that was close to juicing out haha

so to continue: but even then, without the human voice to validate intent m meaning, i would question the accuracy n authenticity of the automated sentiment
PermalinkPermalink 06/09/10 @ 14:14
Comment from: jfiore [Member] Email
Thanks Autom! Totally agree - human involvement and response is the only way to approach content analysis.
PermalinkPermalink 06/09/10 @ 14:19

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

RepuTrack™

RepuTrack™ monitors online media from Web sites, blogs, message boards, forums, chatrooms, microblogs, social networking sites, video and images worldwide.

To schedule a free online-demonstration of RepuTrack™, click here.

RepuTrack™ - Online Reputation Monitoring

February 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29      

Search

Categories

Misc

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 4