Announcing, where we at turn our attention (and our database) to the upcoming election.

The site basically has three different “views” of our data — each candidate’s raw total number of mentions in linktext (the tally was started on February 1st), each candidate’s percent change between today and yesterday’s totals and a “reading list” for each candidate that answers the age-old question “what else are people linking to this candidate linking to.”

It’s a new release, and we’re ironing the bugs out, but any feature requests or other comments would be greatly appreciated..

Very interesting. I wonder what people will make of this. At first blush, it seems to falter precisely where other looks at the agenda do. Bush will remain “on top” in terms of the discussion because he is relevant. It seems some of the existing dictionaries could be employed to see whether these are positive or negative mentions. Nonetheless, this is a very interesting project, and bears watching–especially in terms of the response it garners: the meta-conversation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

One Comment

  1. Posted 2/10/2004 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link Alex. Your dictionary suggestion is actually the direction I’m hoping to go with it, but I’m wondering if there isn’t another way to do it without resorting to word / content analysis. I wonder if we can use the social networks themselves to figure out positive links and negative links.

    For example, look at the Bush reading list. Sure there’s a number of Republican blogs on there, but there’s also the Daily Kos — which certainly doesn’t fall into that category. It seems to me that there’s an intersection of two social networks here that (hopefully) can be pulled apart… so readers of the Daily Kos are probably linking negatively to the Bush site, and visa versa for Blogs for Bush.

    Just a thought, I’m not quite ready to start coding it yet but it’s a second direction I’m considering. And as for the failures of current models of agenda — Bush will stay on top because of his relavance outside of the election. It’s a problem, something I hope the “changes” page will help us deal with. It becomes much more powerful when you compare the changes page to the news for the day. Who’s the newsmaker? Is it helping them gain “talk”?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>