Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's New Meta-Tags For News Story Authors

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the tree-of-attribution dept.

The Media 71

EreIamJH writes "Google News is experimenting with meta-tags in an effort to ensure that the correct news source is credited with an article. The original-source meta-tag will identify the newspaper that breaks a story, while syndication-source is for everyone who repeats the story. Both meta-tags can appear multiple times — for instance an article that sources information from other articles would include an original-source tag for each article used in preparing the new article. While the intention is worthy, I look forward to lots of snarky blogger fights as journalists vent their hurt feelings for having been omitted as an original source."

cancel ×

71 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (5, Insightful)

voidptr (609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355670)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34355720)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?

Then there is the difference between "is credit with" and "is credited with". I wish Slashdot "editors" would call themselves Slashdot "reposters" or Slashdot "janitors", then I'd stop expecting them to grok basic grammar.

Re:Really? I am disappoint, son (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356984)

I can't believe the brakes thing got moderation over "is credit".

I quit reading TFS when I got to "is credit," and I are post to say I am disappoint with "editor," but you beat me to it. :(

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34357854)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?

Then there is the difference between "is credit with" and "is credited with". I wish Slashdot "editors" would call themselves Slashdot "reposters" or Slashdot "janitors", then I'd stop expecting them to grok basic grammar.

Curators?

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34355770)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?

Sure. [youtube.com]

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356208)

suck my dick, faggot.
goatse.cx forever

GOATSE.CX

Re:Really? (3, Funny)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355822)

I break for braking news.

Re:Really? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355906)

I wonder if it's possible to break this branch, braking the grammar stooging components to consider metatagging sources.

Truthy.Indiana.Edu has some fun looking at memes... it'll be fun to see how info/news gets spread around. Leader or follower? Or do we care?

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355912)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?

The summary was correct.
Google has a tag for newspapers that obey UK Defence Advisory Notices [thinq.co.uk] which put the brakes on a story.

Homonyms for the win! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34355968)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

bidule (173941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356090)

English is a spoken language. There's no latin declension or other complications that forces you to think before you talk. Sadly, written English is a different dialect that many natives fail to master.

Whatever they write made sense to them because they read it back aloud. When you truly master reading, you never hear the words but directly capture their meaning from the shape of the letters. The effect of these misspellings are the same as a terrible foreign accent to the literate reader.

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356374)

The effect of these misspellings is the same as a terrible foreign accent to the literate reader.

Re:Really? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356804)

The effects of these misspellings are the same as a terrible foreign accent to the literate reader.

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34357042)

What, you mean trivial to the point of inconsequentiality?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34360232)

What, you mean trivial to the point of inconsequentiality?

I think you missed an adjective. "Terrible" implies that it's the sort where it makes it difficult to listen to.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34357590)

The effect of another discussion about grammar errors on /. stories is the same as a loud vuvuzella to the person who comes here only for raw information.

Re:Really? (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34357874)

who comes here only for raw information

And when was the last time you found any here? The summaries are generally horrifically written to the point of confusion, basic grammar is lacking, and they're generally wildly inaccurate and point to secondary and tertiary sources rather than the readily available primary sources. The comments are generally more people trying to be funny than informative, as the number of knowledgeable people dwindle. That leaves us with people complaining about stuff like grammar, and people complaining about them. Neither help this site. Both would disappear if we could get some actual editors to do some actual work on stories.

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358158)

That's my point : information is usually inside the comments. So when such a discussion occurs in the most moderated comment, it is a really annoying interference.

Re:Really? (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358332)

And my points were that a) there wouldn't be this discussion if there were functional editors, leading to more of the content we're looking for both in the comments and in the summary. b) you aren't helping the signal-to-noise ratio by posting comments complaining. Best you can do is meta-mod.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34360962)

The effect of another discussion about grammar errors on /. stories is the same as a loud vuvuzella to the person who comes here only for raw information.

So, do you find your bitching constructive?

Re:Really? (1)

bidule (173941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34360906)

The effect of these misspellings is the same as a terrible foreign accent to the literate reader.

Lol, thx. This is what happens when you rearrange your sentences a few times.

Lack of practice (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34357082)

English is my second language and while I do a lot of errors, they're different than the ones that natives do. My errors tend to be odd sentences (the structures used in English are very different than those used in my first language), odd expressions (Do I complete a quest or do I make a quest? Do I do an error or do I make an error? Or do I, perhaps, err? In my first language there isn't any difference so it's easy to make[?] those errors in English) and the like. However, I don't do errors such as break/brake, their/there, your/you're, it's/its (I do have some difficulties in remembering wierd/weird, though)... I think that there is a simple reason for this: I've had to study this stuff. I've had to study that You are can be shortened to You're and I am can be shortened to I'm. It would never cross my mind to mix You're and Your any more than I would mix I'm with in. I just don't see why I would ever do that.

If you're a native speaker, your teachers might assume that you know all that already and thus don't need to study the subjects in school. Even so, they could be taught the correct grammar quickly enough (No need to waste time studying sentence structures or vocalbulary... Most of the time could be used to weeding out those common errors) if the society would be interested in doing so. There is simply the question of "Why?". Why do you need to be 100% correct? Isn't it "good enough" to be understood? The answer: Not anymore.

You did compare English and latin. It is a very good comparison because English is the language of the world. People all around the world study English to communicate with each other... and nobody speaks it perfectly. The problem is that everyone makes different errors: The errors I do relate to my first language and I'm sure that everyone who has the same first language as I have can understand me perfectly. I'm also sure that someone who speaks perfect English would understand me quite well. Then, there is some guy in India whose errors relate to his first language. Others from India can understand his English, as can people who speak 100% perfect English... But if I were to discuss with him and we would both be doing different errors, would we understand each other? Maybe, maybe not. That being the case, it is important that everyone in the world does their best to speak 100% correct English. If you aim for "Good enough" you might no longer be able to communicate with someone who also aimed for "Good enough". Native speakers are not an exception here: They tend to make certaint errors due to the fact that english is their first language... And the errors that they make are different than those that everyone else in the world does.

Re:Lack of practice (2, Informative)

rvw (755107) | more than 3 years ago | (#34357606)

English is my second language and while I do a lot of errors, they're different than the ones that natives do. My errors tend to be odd sentences (the structures used in English are very different than those used in my first language), odd expressions (Do I complete a quest or do I make a quest? Do I do an error or do I make an error? Or do I, perhaps, err? In my first language there isn't any difference so it's easy to make[?] those errors in English) and the like. However, I don't do errors such as break/brake, their/there, your/you're, it's/its (I do have some difficulties in remembering wierd/weird, though)... I think that there is a simple reason for this: I've had to study this stuff. I've had to study that You are can be shortened to You're and I am can be shortened to I'm. It would never cross my mind to mix You're and Your any more than I would mix I'm with in. I just don't see why I would ever do that.

I would. I see these errors in my first language (Dutch - e.g. "eens" or "'ns" becomes "is" what you see mostly by younger people), so this could be a universal type of language error. "You're" and "your" are pronounced the same, and many people mess this up. The last ten years I've become more and more aware of this, as I've joined many online forums, where many people don't have the grammar and spelling level that I was used to (from news papers, magazines, books etc). At first I found it very annoying, and then I got Mono/Pfeiffer, and suddenly began to make those errors myself. And it never stopped. So it could happen to you as well, because of some illness that burns you out, or just because you get older and are not that fit anymore. So it's not a matter of choice, it can just happen. (And this text is probably spelled correctly, because I'm very keen on it, but it could have several errors in it that I will only see if I read it later today!)

Re:Lack of practice (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358364)

It's definitely A LOT harder for me (non native english speaker) to understand sentences written with weird grammar. Maybe I write with weird grammar too, my problem is that I have no practice writing and always think about my first language's grammar. Then I make a strange mix of my other language's grammar with english and my sentences become strange... Nevertheless, I agree with the "Lack of practice" post. On a side note, one of my professors went to India once and couldn't understand a word of what indians said in a conference (in english), and she's polish (different first language) so maybe the first poster has a point.

Re:Really? (2, Funny)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34357502)

It always makes my day when a grammar troll gets basic grammar wrong.

Re:Really? (0)

tacarat (696339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356114)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it? The one, for example, that knows the difference between "brakes" and "breaks"?

Actually, no. Google is doing it's utmost to acknowledge publishers that request DMCA takedowns. "Brakes", as in "hitting the car's brakes", was the intended meaning.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356364)

Thanks, but I prefer my diction advice to come from those who know their its from their it's.

Re:Really? (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356306)

Is there also a tag for the news source that properly edits it?

Where have all the true grammar NAZIs gone?

Re:Really? (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356442)

Where have all the true grammar NAZIs gone?

They're hiding out in South America.

Re:Really? (1, Offtopic)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356728)

According to the reliable source "shit I made up", the printing press has to be slowed down periodically to avoid overheating; hence "braking" a story. No idea why this term carried over into digital media. :P

Yes, really. (1, Offtopic)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356952)

I wanted to write the same, but I will make sure you are credit with being first. Also, I look forward to even the most minimal editing on /.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356988)

Hey it passed the spell checker, I think you're expecting a bit much from slashdot editors ;}

I mean at least he linked to the original source [google.com] instead of some blog [blogspot.com] ... oh wait.

Well, at least they didn't attribute credit for the idea to Apple, while claiming Microsoft was granted a patent on it! That's gotta count for something right?

</sarcastic>

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34357014)

Two out of three really is pretty good for Slashdot editing!

Let's keep up the good work!

Breaks, not Brakes (0, Offtopic)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355674)

Used in a sentence: "When Timothy breaks the rules of English, it makes me not want to brake when he is in front of my car."

j/k - I mean you no harm.

Re:Breaks, not Brakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356410)

Seriously, somebody had too much turkey...

Stop the Presses! (0)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355676)

A newspaper "breaks" a story, not "brakes" it. Unless you mean the news comes to a screeching halt.

Re:Stop the Presses! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34355878)

A newspaper "breaks" a story, not "brakes" it. Unless you mean the news comes to a screeching halt.

Brakes verses breaks only causes Slashdot to come to a screeching halt.

Re:Stop the Presses! (3, Funny)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355908)

Braking News is what Rupert Murdoch and his multinational megacorp does, stopping it from being viewed online.

Slow it down (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355684)

"The original-source meta-tag will identify the newspaper that brakes a story"... So they want to slow down the distribution of original source stories?

Where's the RDFa? (2, Interesting)

TwistedPants (847858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355702)

One google team is pushing it; but these guys have missed a chance to implement it properly by only the barest of margins. RDFa would be a perfect solution for this.

RDFa steamrollered by microformats then microdata (3, Informative)

spage (73271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356278)

RDFa is still around, there are a few sites that still use it, but my Firefox add-ons that would pull semantic data .from RDFa statements embedded in HTML are obsolete and gathering dust. Instead a lot of people put microformats [microformats.org] into their HTML, especially hCard, because it's more HTML-like and less verbose. Google's Rich Snippets [blogspot.com] (starred reviews, etc.) will parse either form of structured data markup, but supposedly 94% of the info they parse is in microformat not RDFa. HTML5/WHATWG has a concept called microdata [w3.org] that seems to allow indicating the scope of microformat information, AIUI using new itemscope and itemprop attributes rather than overloading class attributes. But that seems to have no support for RDFa.

Google could parse a lot more structured data so we could tell them what the hell our web pages are about. I'm convinced the reason they don't do this is the most diligent users of ANY and ALL such techniques will be spammers and SEO bastards. This comment is really is about person:Angelina Jolie body_part:breasts last_updated:today!, despite all its links to cheap inkjet cartridges and online betting.

Re:RDFa steamrollered by microformats then microda (2, Informative)

TwistedPants (847858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356504)

I suppose what I'm frustrated by the most here is that an engineer behind the google news aggregation platform hasn't even look at what other ways to solve this problem are out there.

The link/@rel pattern fits this problem much better than a meta tag at the very least.

If you want to go a bit further; there are some fairly core vocabularies out there (DublinCore/PRISM) which describe a lot of what a document is and who authored it without much effort; and undoubtedly "googlenews:syndication-source" and "googlenews:original-source" could be put along side terms such as "owl:sameAs", "rdf:seeAlso", or "dc:source".
It's not like it takes much effort at all to render that; and it sure makes it easier for other platforms to extract useful content.

Re:RDFa steamrollered by microformats then microda (1)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34357808)

I think Google is interested in the meta tag approach because it's a dead simple thing to add to a CMS. RDF and it's microdata cousins are much harder to shoehorn into existing CMSes and require a lot more effort on the part of the copy writer to add to an entry.

Re:RDFa steamrollered by microformats then microda (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34357930)

Yeah, I agree. It's as if people are so eager to invent something, that they won't even bother trying to be compatible with what is already out there. They almost proactively try to avoid using what is already out there.

Re:RDFa steamrollered by microformats then microda (1)

sempir (1916194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356736)

I RDFa (read da fuckin article) but could find no microdata to microformat. Did i miss sumpin?

When news brakes (0, Offtopic)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355798)

we get it going again.

I hate slow news!

You guys can... (3, Insightful)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34355832)

You guys can argue about "brake" and "break", I'm just trying to figure out WTF "snarky" means, and why anyone wanting to sound credible would even use it.

Re:You guys can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34355922)

dictionary.com says snarky is about 100 years old, so that seems credible enough....

Re:You guys can... (2, Informative)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356054)

Age isn't everything. The word cunt has been around for over half a millennium, that doesn't make it any more credible for use. "Snarky" is like the word "cute" - you may find it in an Op-Ed, but the front page article sure as hell won't be using it.

Re:You guys can... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356064)

Snarky [wiktionary.org]

snark + -y; 1906, as “irritable”, from 1866 snark (“to snort”)

fa6o8z (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34355880)

Re:fa6o8z (0, Offtopic)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356112)

Maybe you should check the link your trolling with still works before you use it.

slow news day (1)

epine (68316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356104)

If even a small subset of the replica posts link upstream, there's a good chance Google can put Humpty back together again. It'll be hugely abused, but it won't matter a whit.

Worked great for Alta Vista (5, Informative)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356212)

Recall that Google rose to power by not using the meta-tags to determine content, or importance, or any attributes. Alta Vista did do this, and fell because it was easy to spoof a meta-tag. By using graph theory they were able to make a search engine that was much more resilient to attacks.

I am not saying that there is clear case for profit via spoofing these tags, just that if there ever is profit to gain by rigging the tags, Google will be in no position to stop it. Therefore this move can be seen only as a method for Google to defend against those that says it profits from serving copyrighted content with a license. I do not see this as a problem other, except that it seem to a lot of work implementing something that probably solves nothing.

Re:Worked great for Alta Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356754)

You don't think Google can write an algorithm to estimate the credibility of the meta tags from each source? It might also be that there is some kind of legal reasoning behind it. If Google presents information about who is the original source for their results, and the actual original source wants to sue about this being incorrect, it may help Google if they received that information in a structured way. Under those circumstances I guess Google could simply remove that page from their results and tell the original source to go sue the other guy. (In case it wasn't obvious from my wording, I am not a lawyer)

Re:Worked great for Alta Vista (2, Insightful)

mrxak (727974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356920)

While I don't entirely agree with you that Alta Vista fell because of meta tags (at least, not alone), meta tags are indeed fairly easy to spoof. Obviously anybody can claim they are the original source. Obviously anybody can just ignore these tags entirely.

One can hope that Google will do at least some extra checking as well. As they say in TFA, Google will be looking at how these are used in the wild before they make any big changes in how they display their news.

Re:Worked great for Alta Vista (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358426)

I am not saying that there is clear case for profit via spoofing these tags, just that if there ever is profit to gain by rigging the tags, Google will be in no position to stop it. Therefore this move can be seen only as a method for Google to defend against those that says it profits from serving copyrighted content with a license.

You say "if" and you proceed without demonstration to your conclusion. Please demonstrate that there is a profit to be made in spoofing the tag, and I will then consider the validity of your conclusion that Google is doing this just for the show.

Re:Worked great for Alta Vista (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34359614)

The original source will get more hits, the syndicates less.

It will totally fail.

not hurt feelings, but pay check (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356260)

The publisher pays the author for his work written, not by "street cred" of how many times his article is copied. Personally, I don't care if bloggers reference, "analyze," or dissect it for inaccuracies or bias, but when a blogger paste the whole article verbatim without *compensation* (or worse, gets paid through ad revenue), that's what get writers pissed off. It's simply theft; knock-off; copyright infringement.

We're not crying because our name is not being attributed. We're crying for the same reason a few /. articles ago, a coder was calling foul on IBM patenting his creation [slashdot.org] and IBM is making a profit out of it, or at least holding it as a bargaining chip in their patent portfolio battle chest.

Or the company that trolls the x286 changelogs [slashdot.org] and patents their ideas.

We're crying because somebody is stealing our shit.

Re:not hurt feelings, but pay check (2, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356402)

I don't think google is looking to give authors credit per se. Who the actual author is and whether he gets famous or receives money from being quoted/copied is frankly irrelevant.

What matters to search engines is if a particular story is "popular", because popularity means that a random web surfer is statistically likely to want to hear about it.

The technical problem is how to compare two stories which have obviously similar content, because otherwise the popularity counts could be off. That's not trivial to get 100% right, for example if in two texts, a single sentence is changed, does that mean that the second text is a modification of the first (and should be considered the same popularitywise) or is the second a completely new story because the extra sentence is important breaking news?

If you can point to the "sources", then you have that much more information to group stories by topic, and measure popularity. You can also do lots of other datamining for things like bias etc.

Of course, that's only in theory. In practice, it's certainly a new toy for spammers.

Re:not hurt feelings, but pay check (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356942)

My first thought of course was this would simply stop duplicate stories from being at the top of the page, but I think you're right, this won't just bring different articles towards the first page of results, it will ensure that "better" articles are in their rightful place, by pooling together the popularity of identical articles, and using that as the basis for page rank (presumably for whichever was the original source).

I'm sure a lot of news companies who want to share articles because it's a cheap way of doing business will simply not use these tags though, so they can still get ad revenue from dupes. Hopefully Google's new emphasis on the news will yield new formulas to both fact-check whether or not an article is an original source, and to prevent dupes regardless of people using the new meta tags or not.

This is necessary why? (3, Insightful)

notsoclever (748131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356336)

Whatever happened to the already-existing "cite" element and attribute that have been a standard part of HTML for years?

Re:This is necessary why? (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356480)

Citations are references to other sources. These elements suggest to others how the work itself should be cited.

Re:This is necessary why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34356948)

Citations are references to other sources. These elements suggest to others how the work itself should be cited.

Then ...

CITE: Contains a citation or a reference to other sources

... and ...

cite = uri [CT]: The value of this attribute is a URI that designates a source document or message. This attribute is intended to give information about the source from which the quotation was borrowed

... translate to exactly what in your personal interpretation of the HTML 4.01 spec?

And please confer the meaning of the q and blockquote elements, too, which mark the quote itself.

What's the incentive? (4, Interesting)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356500)

News sites are suddenly going to get really diligent about citing sources? What would motivate them to do that, when they can't get basic facts straight or use a fucking grammar checker? I thought Cory Doctorow laid it out pretty clearly in Metacrap [well.com] .

  -- 77IM

Re:What's the incentive? (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356958)

Hehe, your link is funny. It's about metadata being bad, but then it clearly says Google does metadata right towards the bottom.

Clearly there's little incentive for news sites to actually use this meta tag. I think it's obvious why a lot of sites will quietly ignore it and of course others will try to exploit it. Still, Google is usually pretty smart about figuring out how to use metadata. I'm going to wait and see what they do with it before I condemn it.

Re:What's the incentive? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34359636)

Google could lower ranks of pages that do not conform to their standards. And they could penalize people that get the citations wrong.

Implicitly allows inclusion (3, Insightful)

mattr (78516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356514)

By tagging as first source, the publisher implicitly allows inclusion in a news search application. Using Google's tag means allowing specificially Google. Other news companies may not be in as good a position.
Google is also then free to copy text from any other source running the same story since the first source allows it.
Google no longer needs to try figure out which source was first.
And, Google now becomes non-evil and a champion for being precise about authorship, which reflects on its academic search application.
And, it makes it easy for Google to target independent journalists to hire in some way in the future. Perhaps it will start that project in Australia if Murdoch really gets them steamed.

All your Brakes are belong to us... (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356686)

"Google News is experimenting with meta-tags in an effort to ensure that the correct news source is credit with an article."
Someone set us up the Googlebomb?

Google and understanding HTML (0)

jreschke (1948512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34356894)

It's kind of sad that Google apparently doesn't understand the difference between and , and also doesn't seem to interested to propose these things where they could get expert feedback (the W3C HTML WG comes to mind).

Don't forget the pub. date in the metatag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34357916)

One of the most annoying aspects of net searching is the random order, with respect to original posting date, of Internet articles. For example, if you're trying to find reviews of a software product, you're faced with plowing through irrelevant, old reviews for a revised product. This is no less true for news. Including the publication/posting date of the article in the metatag would give you the opportunity to sort by date.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>