I love that bot because I can disagree with their assessment easily in a comment to it. The NYT is medium to low and they list it as high, not sure how that came up with high for them.
Since September 25, 1997, the company has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol NYT. From April 27, 1967, until January 13, 1969, the company’s Class A common stock traded over the counter. From January 14, 1969, until September 24, 1997, the shares were traded on the American Stock Exchange. There are 2 categories of stock, Class A (publicly traded) and Class B (held privately—largely (over 90% through The 1997 Trust) by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, who purchased The New York Times newspaper in 1896.
Arthur Gregg “Dash” Sulzberger (born August 5, 1980) is an American journalist serving as the chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of its flagship newspaper, The New York Times.
Sulzberger is a fourth-generation descendant of Adolph Ochs, who bought the New York Times in 1896. The Times has been managed and published by Adolph Ochs’s family since that date.
Sulzberger attended Ethical Culture Fieldston School and Brown University, graduating in 2003 with a major in political science. At Brown, Sulzberger worked briefly for The Brown Daily Herald as a contributing writer.
◾ Board of directors
As of February 2024:
A. G. Sulzberger, chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times
Amanpal S. Bhutani, CEO of GoDaddy
Manuel Bronstein, CPO of Roblox
Beth Brooke, former global vice chair of public policy for Ernst & Young
Rachel Glaser, CFO of Etsy
Arthur Golden, best-selling author of Memoirs of a Geisha
Hays N. Golden, managing director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab and Education Lab
Meredith Kopit Levien, president and CEO of The New York Times Company
Brian P. McAndrews, former president, CEO, and chairman of Pandora Media
David Perpich, publisher of The Athletic and Wirecutter
World admins rolling out a mbfc not for news and politics comms. They ask for feedback then get angry at the comments about how bad it looks and people again raising points for why mbfc sucks
That was sadly the point why we didnt recognized that as feedback, rather as just being childish because some site said some bad things about their favorite news page.
At least we got some real feedback that were constructive. We will implement those and deploy it.
Please be honest with yourself. Feedback that isn’t complimentary of your closed-source bot has consistently been disregarded, even when it was constructive
Your definition of feedback, as stated in one of your latest posts —“No improvement idea? No… that’s NOT feedback, that’s just crying around”(https://lemmy.ca/post/25936280/10720168)— is clearly out of touch with reality and reflects a biased and distorted view. Feedback includes all types of input, not just suggestions for improvement.
I just reflect how it feels to get such bad feedback without any real feedback in it.
Feedback includes many types of input but not: Disliking it because of personal opinion, because service x rated your favorite news page badly.
My feedback to that emotional feedback was just my emotion back to it.
If we wanted everyones opinion on MBFC yes then we would loved this response from you. But feedback is not just MBFC BAD!!!
What if theoretically give you feedback on your math test: “0 Points Because ITS BAD!!!” Then you would think why was it bad? The formula ? The results? The readability? Or were my books that i read bad?
Normally when faced with simply “its bad!!!” You reflect. If i got a 0 on my math score with no explanation id imagine I did so insanely bad, that I need to rethink how I did it entirely.
Maybe stop removing comments and see about finding better sources, that also happen to reflect what your users want.
I did not remova any comments? Those removed comments are renoved by mods of the community.
But the issue is there is no other alternative that has an ordered and automatable access.
Then the other option was to have a community made “source” but that brings up the issue with “User x is not fit to contribute”, “Remove the bad rating on site xyz.com” etc. tadah back to the start with the “crying” ablut topic x.
We are still working on such an system as this could at least reduce the shitstorm about having no option to alter the rating. But its not final that decision.
The LW mods are relying on a website to verify news, but it barely works outside of U.S. coverage, making it useless for global news (it’s like they think the U.S. is the whole world). They ask for feedback, but let’s be real—they’re too stubborn to accept any criticism
deleted by creator
In 2 days the OP managed to spam every instance with lots and lots of comments about how they think some press-credibility indicator is unfair.
I love that bot because I can disagree with their assessment easily in a comment to it. The NYT is medium to low and they list it as high, not sure how that came up with high for them.
From my look at media publications:
🔺💲 New York Times
◾ Owned by The New York Times Company
It’s a publicly traded company with most of it being privately held, that owns a multitude of media types:
◾ CEO and publisher is A.G. Slzberger
A.G. Slzberger
◾ Board of directors
As of February 2024:
Source
This is their official page for the board of directors: https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/
World admins rolling out a mbfc not for news and politics comms. They ask for feedback then get angry at the comments about how bad it looks and people again raising points for why mbfc sucks
That was sadly the point why we didnt recognized that as feedback, rather as just being childish because some site said some bad things about their favorite news page.
At least we got some real feedback that were constructive. We will implement those and deploy it.
Ignoring the vaild criticisms of mbfc also isn’t a good look.
“MBFC BAD DESTROY IT” isnt valid. Its just personal opinion. We responded to the real feedback accordingly and will implement them soon.
Ah yes, I’m sure that was exactly how every piece of feedback against mbfc was.
No of course not, some were constructive and gave an alternative site or adjusted format how they expect it to look.
Yes. Yes. I’m being facetious but… Like only accepting nice things that maybe fix appearance as feedback? Pshh.
Please be honest with yourself. Feedback that isn’t complimentary of your closed-source bot has consistently been disregarded, even when it was constructive
No, there was some good. Feedback, those “I HATE MBFC DESTROY IT” Feedback was not constructive.
Your definition of feedback, as stated in one of your latest posts —“No improvement idea? No… that’s NOT feedback, that’s just crying around”(https://lemmy.ca/post/25936280/10720168)— is clearly out of touch with reality and reflects a biased and distorted view. Feedback includes all types of input, not just suggestions for improvement.
I just reflect how it feels to get such bad feedback without any real feedback in it.
Feedback includes many types of input but not: Disliking it because of personal opinion, because service x rated your favorite news page badly.
My feedback to that emotional feedback was just my emotion back to it.
If we wanted everyones opinion on MBFC yes then we would loved this response from you. But feedback is not just MBFC BAD!!!
What if theoretically give you feedback on your math test: “0 Points Because ITS BAD!!!” Then you would think why was it bad? The formula ? The results? The readability? Or were my books that i read bad?
Normally when faced with simply “its bad!!!” You reflect. If i got a 0 on my math score with no explanation id imagine I did so insanely bad, that I need to rethink how I did it entirely.
Maybe stop removing comments and see about finding better sources, that also happen to reflect what your users want.
I did not remova any comments? Those removed comments are renoved by mods of the community.
But the issue is there is no other alternative that has an ordered and automatable access.
Then the other option was to have a community made “source” but that brings up the issue with “User x is not fit to contribute”, “Remove the bad rating on site xyz.com” etc. tadah back to the start with the “crying” ablut topic x.
We are still working on such an system as this could at least reduce the shitstorm about having no option to alter the rating. But its not final that decision.
Pawn Stars is a show where people pawn stuff to a bald guy.
The LW mods are relying on a website to verify news, but it barely works outside of U.S. coverage, making it useless for global news (it’s like they think the U.S. is the whole world). They ask for feedback, but let’s be real—they’re too stubborn to accept any criticism