Comments on: Viral math http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: click http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-53219 Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:02:51 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-53219 tou kayac set up this car owner becausr that to get oprating technique xp certainly not several can i receive vga motorist to get lg electronics xnote for eye-port xp You should provided me personally vga new driver fof the lg xnot rd400 succeed xp in my email username my very own digital video disc range of motion will be proven while ejectable harddrive what exactly unwell complete? could you assist me to Hey there coming from Carolina! I am uninterested to be able to passing away in the office so I made a decision to look at your internet site in the new iphone 4 through lunch break. I love advantage an individual provide right here and also aren’t hold out to adopt a deeper look once i get home. Now i’m surprised at exactly how quick your website packed in the cell phone.. I am not just utilizing WIFI, just simply 3-G.. Anyways, fantastic blog site!

]]>
By: fut 15 coins http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-52714 Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:34:09 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-52714 stylish, easy and restrained

]]>
By: junkcharts http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49169 Wed, 05 Feb 2014 02:44:24 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49169 AbeB makes a good point. Computing the average for an extremely skewed distribution is next to worthless.
I just want to point one other thing out… the data is not for Facebook shares! If you read the paragraph before the chart, it clearly says they took the number of Facebook Likes divided by the number of articles published. I don’t know how correlated FB Likes and FB Shares are but I presume them different unless otherwise proven.

]]>
By: edwards.ep http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49166 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:30:29 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49166 I agree with the writer that this insincere style choice will eventually be undone by a desire for true, quality content over quick and dirty entertainment pieces.

For now, I hope writers will at least refrain from click-bait headlines when writing about important news. “President Chooses Nuclear Option, and You Won’t Believe Who He Picked as a Target,” should never, ever be a headline. But if UpWorthy needs to write a click-bait headline to circulate your article about the best shoes to take on an Italian vacation, I can let that slide.

]]>
By: QCIC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49163 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:16:54 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49163 Intelligent people still use Facebook? And Upworthy? What is that even?

]]>
By: Alicelewis http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49162 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 12:53:10 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49162 i would also like to add, that I do not see myself in any position to disagree or mess with these people who made the videos as they are after all professors, physicists with their degrees and whatnot, however as the title says these have gone somewhat viral and accordingly many things/opinions have been posted on various channels in various ways so that I lost track and started thinking more about this myself (despite the fact all of this, i.e. the entire field of Math is very appealing to me). Now I am at a point that I want to hear more from people who actually know what they are talking about instead of these rambling and incoherent comment section. We all know Youtube comments are the source of unlimited knowledge and fundamental objective discussion.
http://www.ipracticemath.com/

]]>
By: anecdotalvalue http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49156 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 01:12:16 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49156 I have been working on a related algorithm for some time and am glad to read your piece. http://anecdotalvalue.blogspot.com

]]>
By: lsjewkes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49153 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 19:22:50 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49153 The biggest problem I see, like @AngryInCali, is the sustainability of the model. Upworthy could get blacklisted as spam pretty quickly if the content isn’t quality. Maybe an addition to the formula could look like:

(S·F·FBT·C)/A = SUS

Where:
S = Shareability
FBT = Friends Per User
FBT = Facebook Throttle
C = Clickbaitiness
A = Annoyingness
SUS = Sustainability

Thoughts?

]]>
By: AngryInCali http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49151 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:07:32 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49151 I, for one, have learned not to click on Upworthy shares. It’s headlines are often lies, and the videos take too long to get to the point. Based on comments by friends, I am not alone, though I wouldn’t doubt we’re in a small minority. If we’re not, the site’s traffic will fall even if FB don’t fix the issue.

]]>
By: AbeB http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/02/02/viral-math/comment-page-1/#comment-49149 Sun, 02 Feb 2014 21:09:33 +0000 https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=23070#comment-49149 I think there is a very different explanation for all this that has very little to do with Facebook at all really.

The simple fact is that Upworthy is basically the ONLY publisher that cares if their articles *don’t* go viral. Most all online publishers care that their articles do go viral, but they all take a hits based approach, they are fully willing to publish tons of non-viral articles as long as a handful of hits emerge. The graph is showing the average viral-ness, and with a hits based approach the 80% of failed articles brings down the average dramatically. Upworthy has a very different sniper like publishing model and it gets rewarded in this one graph, not much more too it.

The easiest way to test given access to the dataset would just be to look at the same data but restricted to only the top 100 or 200 articles from each publisher and compare how viral they are. Suspect that they’ll show a far flatter/smoother graph than the one above, and quite likely might show a few pubs actually outperforming Upworthy.

]]>