Facebook PixelFiltered/tabbed reading by different criteria
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Create newCreate new
EverythingEverything
Sessions onlySessions only
Ideas onlyIdeas only
Guide
TourRulesAbout
Idea

Filtered/tabbed reading by different criteria

Image credit: Sincerely media / unsplash.com

Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic Feb 08, 2021
Imagine having several tabs above any web page. Depending on which tabs you click, the entire content of that page gets truncated to display only parts specific to the filters you apply.

For better context, the parts of interest could be highlighted and shown accompanied by a preceding and following sentence.

Some of the tabs I can think of:
  • high signal, low noise (remove the debates, display only info the reader can work with)
  • research-backed facts only
  • opinions only
  • marketing removed
  • manipulation/agenda removed
  • highlight the writer's biases
  • highlight the writer's logical fallacies
  • etc
On mouseover, the displayed parts could also show the reviewer's rationale - a reason why they were selected.

All the content would continuously be peer reviewed, parts singled out, categorized and and voted upon for approval/rejection. People would have the ability to initiate disputes if they feel something was miscatergorized and needs to be re-reviewed.

This feature would be especially useful for online content where many people can contribute (forums, social media) or news where agenda needs to be removed so that people can see the story for what it is.
sensemaking
0
Creative contributions
Know someone who can contribute to this idea? Share it with them on , , or

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or

or

Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic3 months ago
Here's a similar concept explained from 8:18 onwards https://youtu.be/9M2CZlWq3zM?t=498
Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni3 months ago
Darko Savic The second-last paragraph in the session text describes exactly what brainstorming.com does/ will do. The difference is in the content. The current idea is developing a platform, as big as the internet itself, and then peer-reviewing and extracting useful bits of information. Brainstorming.com on the other hand will be creating/ gathering bits of useful information. Since the infrastructure of both these platforms is similar apart from the display (filtered reading will require highlighting the important text; it may not be necessary for brainstorming.com), it makes sense to use the same back-end tool for both with a few changes.
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic3 months ago
Shubhankar Kulkarni This is how I imagine it: take for example any brainstorming page which has grown quite large https://brainstorming.com/is-our-mean-body-temperature-decreasing-and-why-what-can-we-learn-from-it/203

Whatever tabbed criteria we introduce, someone would have to review every sentence and mark the sections that fit each of the criteria. Then when a reader selects specific tabs, they see only the matching sections on the entire page. This cuts down the reading from 30 minutes to 3. This is useful when the reader is looking for something specific that we also happen to value.
Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni3 months ago
Darko Savic Right. Although not from all the criteria, brainstorming.com might benefit from using the "high signal, low noise" criterion.

Also, on the platform, since all the content will be continuously peer-reviewed and voted upon for approval/rejection, the infrastructure remains quite the same. As you mentioned, people would have the ability to initiate disputes if they feel something was miscategorized and needs to be re-reviewed, which is the same as starting a session. Since most characteristics match, the same platform can be used for a different content type (forums, social media, or news).
Loading...
J
Juran3 months ago
The idea is good because nowadays, on every step, you stumble upon unuseful content. The customization could be done in a similar way that Grammarly uses to define your specific style. It could lead to a user-specific non-ad-driven browsing experience.

What first crosses my mind is the implementation of this and the upscaling.

If it would be used by one site (like Brainstorming) to lower the noise and make the specific signal pop-out, users would have use of it. In that case, it would be a nice feature of the site that could potentially be patented and sold. But if the feature would remove the content that is considered noise, or marketing, then how would you monetize the traffic on the site?

When we talk about the upscaling of this feature, would it be a 3rd-party tool (like AdBlocker or Grammarly) or site-specific feature? If it would be a 3rd party, then the standardization is not a problem, but the accessibility of data. Because it "changes" the content and blocks the main monetizing strategy, AdBlocker is not available on many sites. Would this feature be wanted by the domain owners/site editors, since it would filter and change their content? On the other hand, if it would be site-specific, then the standardization could be the problem and it could result in pages being rated according to the quality of on-demand content-filtering (which is also not bad if you are the best at it).