Media points difference



  • How are media points calculated? Bellingham has 1 mention = 40 points yet Ramsy has 1 mention = 100 points... I'm confused?





  • Thank you for the quick response.



  • @Spudfingers no worries mate, MB is pretty mad to be honest, its also worth noting that it is currently in review so will (hopefully) change after the review has finished whenever that is.



  • It’s best not to look into it too much as it beggars belief that anybody could have ever thought it was an effective mechanism



  • @NewUser5849 said in Media points difference:

    It’s best not to look into it too much as it beggars belief that anybody could have ever thought it was an effective mechanism

    I've no issue with how articles are scored, it's the most transparent element of MB.

    For me, the real issues are:

    • How FI moderate which articles count
    • How some footballers have adjustments to pick up slight differences in their name
    • How a handful of publications (Mirror, Express, Star etc) are responsible for a significant amount of stories


  • @Yellow really? Have you seen the keywords table they use? And how negative points are flipped and turned positive. Meaning that a story about someone having a “sensational” “haircut” from “United” “teammate” can score more points than a player signing a 3 year contract for Liverpool?



  • @NewUser5849 said in Media points difference:

    @Yellow really? Have you seen the keywords table they use? And how negative points are flipped and turned positive. Meaning that a story about someone having a “sensational” “haircut” from “United” “teammate” can score more points than a player signing a 3 year contract for Liverpool?

    Yep, I'm very familiar with the keywords and as I say, no issue with it. I know most of the players that will score well because of their names having a keyword, likewise I know which teams it's good for a player to be linked with. The same opportunity exists for everyone in that regard.

    How would you like it weighted?



  • @Yellow I’d like it so that stories about an unknown Nigerian playing in turkey discussing his love of music (120pts 3 days ago) don’t outweigh stories about players signing new contracts for top of the league teams. For a football related site the keywords don’t even include the word “contract” but does mysteriously and inexplicably score the word “cocksucker”! If that’s not a sign that it’s not fit for purpose then there’s no hope.
    Or even worse outscore links to United because the journalist decided (with no personal bias I’m sure) not to include the players surname /Christian name.



  • @NewUser5849 said in Media points difference:

    @Yellow I’d like it so that stories about an unknown Nigerian playing in turkey discussing his love of music (120pts 3 days ago) don’t outweigh stories about players signing new contracts for top of the league teams. For a football related site the keywords don’t even include the word “contract” but does mysteriously and inexplicably score the word “cocksucker”! If that’s not a sign that it’s not fit for purpose then there’s no hope.
    Or even worse outscore links to United because the journalist decided (with no personal bias I’m sure) not to include the players surname /Christian name.

    So how do you programme it to take all those things into account?



  • Do it manually. Approve manually at least. Let the system pick up all the stories, then clearly someone has to read the content and actually apply human common sense to this process. As stated above, the keyword weighting is ridden with problems and some stories clearly shouldnt count but do and some count but shouldn't.

    I know its literally the whole reason for FI right now, but I think they do need to consider binning MB off completely (in it's current guise at least). More trouble than it's worth.



  • @Leighton said in Media points difference:

    Do it manually. Approve manually at least. Let the system pick up all the stories, then clearly someone has to read the content and actually apply human common sense to this process. As stated above, the keyword weighting is ridden with problems and some stories clearly shouldnt count but do and some count but shouldn't.

    I know its literally the whole reason for FI right now, but I think they do need to consider binning MB off completely (in it's current guise at least). More trouble than it's worth.

    I agree MB needs an overhaul but the keywords are pretty much the only transparent thing.

    So what would you have the human checking, and what sort of stories should they be removing?



  • Loads....

    Remove duplicate stories and multiple articles that are basically the same all within minutes of each other (Looks at the express!), remove the names issue when a story is clearly about Mr A but FI says it's about Mr Z, remove the "Pogba does something non football related" ones that stand, keep the coronavirus ones that got removed for just mentioning it in an unrelated way.

    Basically, my point is let's just use common sense. The gist of MB is sound, but it needs human oversight - It cant be done by algorithm alone. We all have eyes and can see the stories, but FI just leave it to the tech, which isnt working as it should.



  • @Yellow a manual scoring system would be more consistent than a computer picking up certain words and not even judging what a story is about. Simple scoring such as, column inches, is the story contract related, transfer related or actually not even worthy of inclusion. Ultimately its for FI to make the scoring system more credible but as the keyword list shows this is far from that. It makes it even more absurd that in the current climate they are piling everything into the broken media buzz system. It makes the product an embarrassment


Log in to reply