Thomson Reuters: Content Slicing and Dicing Chops People
December 6, 2018
A certain database company raked in the dough by pitching XML slicing and dicing as the way to piles of cash, happy customers, and reduced editorial costs. Thomson Reuters was “into” XML inspired slicing and dicing. Now the chopping up has moved from disparate content to staff.
According to a real news organization, the article “Thomson Reuters to cut 3,200 jobs by 2020, offer fewer products” states:
Thomson Reuters said it plans to cut its workforce by 12 percent, or 3,200 positions, by 2020 as part of a push to reduce spending.
Capital outlays as a share of revenue will be down about 30 percent by 2020, Thomson Reuters said Tuesday in a presentation for investors. By that year, Thomson Reuters expects to have about 11 percent fewer products and pare its number of locations by 30 percent. The pullback underscores efforts to exert cost discipline after third-quarter revenue came in 2.3 percent less than analysts had expected.
TR revenues have been less than exciting. Despite management’s heroic efforts, the company has not been able to shake the money tree with the vigor some stakeholders expect.
Thus, slicing and dicing of staff and products is underway. Nothing like a hefty reduction in force or RIF to brighten the individuals who can now look forward to finding their future elsewhere.
The larger question is, “What will TR do if the staff reductions and new points of focus do not generate revenue?” The account, lawyer, and MBA infused senior management may have to look for different sources of inspiration; for example:
- Seeking to pull the company into new markets with must have products and services. Not easy, I know, but TR will have to do more than follow the well worn grooves in the business models which are like the streets of Pompeii
- Selling itself to another large professional publishing outfit. What about a Thomson Elsevier or (perish the thought) an Ebsco Thomson?
- Selling the bits and pieces to investment banks or small companies eager to capitalize on TR’s missed penalty kicks. What would Bloomberg pay for the terminal business and maybe the Palantir inspired services? Perhaps Factset would toss a soccer boot on the pitch?
- Modifying its executive compensation methods so that TR unit managers actually cooperate on certain opportunities and initiatives.
There are, of course, other options, but many of these have been tried before; for instance, new units, new senior managers, new acquisitions, and new technologies.
Net net: TR may have to start thinking about life as a smaller, leaner, less profitable operation. Lord Thomson of Fleet may not be able to return and infuse the company. He’s needed in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2018
SciTech Journals Resist Smart Software
December 1, 2018
The scientific community is in the throes of a battle that might sound familiar even to folks who have nothing to do with science. They are trying to overcome a glut of fake news, and are turning those weapons on themselves to do so. We discovered more in a recent Analytics India article, “How AI is Tackling Fake Academic Research That is Plaguing Scientific Community.”
According to the story:
“A decade ago, researchers Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Max Krohna of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) built a computer science paper generator that could stitch together nonsense papers with impressive graphs and such. The papers drummed up by SCIgen software were accepted at major conferences and even by reputed journals.”
The article purports that that AI technology used to make fake articles is not being utilized in debunking them as well. According to Nature, these tools are running the gamut for academic journals, from choosing which peer reviewers to work with, to verifying statistics, and even summarizing complex articles. This is a neat tool that proves the only way to fight fire is with fire. We can only hope that we are able to keep ahead of the frauds.
Patrick Roland, December 1, 2018
Thomson Reuters on a Privacy International Beat
November 26, 2018
I know that commercial database publishers can be profitable operations. But in order to keep pace with erosion of some traditional revenue streams, some professional publishers have been working to generate new databases which can be licensed to certain government agencies. In most cases, a researcher or librarian will not have these electronic files in their toolkit.
Privacy International published “Who Supplies the Data, Analysis, and Tech Infrastructure to US Immigration Authorities?” The report is available without charge, but I suggest that you download it promptly. Certain reports about some topics can go offline without notice.
I don’t want to dig through the references to references to Palantir. The information about that company is not particularly fresh. However, Privacy International has gathered some useful examples of Thomson Reuters’ products and services to law enforcement and other government agencies.
Privacy International seems unaware that many LE and intel entities routinely outsource work to third part, license a wide range of numeric and factual data, and tap into the talent pools at third party firms.
The Privacy International report does not provide much information about Thomson Reuters’ use of the Palantir technology. That might be an interesting topic for some young researcher to explore. We will do a short item about some of the Privacy International information in the DarkCyber for December 11, 2018.
Stephen E Arnold, November 26, 2018
The Journal Subscription Doomsday Is Upon Us
November 11, 2018
China might have the great firewall when it comes to blocking access, but another infamous digital wall is the great academic paywall a.k.a. subscription paywalls that block access to scientific and academic journals. That could all be changing. Researchers everywhere are shocking and gasping at the thought of have free access to expensive research materials. Could this be the sound of celebration? Nature fills us in on the details in the story, “Radical Open-Access Plan Could Spell End To Journal Subscriptions.”
The celebrating would only take place in Europe, however, as European research funders have banded together for a radical open access initiative that could revolutionize science publishing. The publishers are already angry over this. The European funders are eleven agencies that spend over $8.8 billion annually in research grants. From 2020 and onward, they want all research papers resulting from their grants to be available under a liberal publishing license. The idea is that science should not be kept behind paywalls. The endeavor is called Plan S.
Plan S would change the current publishing model:
“As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science. According to a December 2017 analysis, only around 15% of journals publish work immediately as open access (see ‘Publishing models’) — financed by charging per-article fees to authors or their funders, negotiating general open-publishing contracts with funders, or through other means. More than one-third of journals still publish papers behind a paywall, and typically permit online release of free-to-read versions only after a delay of at least six months — in compliance with the policies of influential funders such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).
We also noted:
And just less than half have adopted a ‘hybrid’ model of publishing, whereby they make papers immediately free to read for a fee if a scientist wishes, but keep most studies behind paywalls. Under Plan S, however, scientists wouldn’t be allowed to publish in these hybrid journals, except during a “transition period that should be as short as possible,” the preamble says.”
While eleven scientific organizations support Plan S, other European science organizations are still on the fence. These organizations are unsure of how the open access would alter their funding measures and affect their research. The publishers are even more concerned, because it disrupts their entire business model. While they support increasing access to journals, they do not want to get rid of hybrid journals. The publishers think it is better if they all act as one large conglomerate, instead of smaller groups so their goals align. Moving to entirely open access would diminish the quality, peer review, and research of papers.
Plan S would mean the end to subscription paywalls and allow more access to scientific research. The bigger question is who will pay the bill and will research suffer in quality if it becomes “free”?
Whitney Grace, November 11, 2018
Sensational Development from Real Publishers
October 5, 2018
You thought I was going to offer a comment about the Bloomberg report about Supermicro motherboards. Wrong. Frankly when one purchases hardware from sources which operate in far off lands, one often may not know exactly what functions and features those semi magical devices harbor. That is one reason why some law enforcement and intelligence organizations use Faraday cages and approach hardware with a bit of skepticism. How true are the Bloomberg allegation and the subsequent verbal arabesques like this one?
The hair on fire reaction to the allegedly accurate and then allegedly accurate information suggests that some people are concerned.
Nope, the big news from the world of real publishers and real publishing is different. Navigate to this Chicago Tribune report. The write up explains that the Tronc organization is changing its name back to Tribune Publishing.
Personally I liked the word Tronc. The judgment of the real publishing management professionals was on display.
Sadly Tronc has been retired. The article reported (accurately, I assume):
“We are excited about the company rebranding to Tribune Publishing,” spokeswoman Marisa Kollias said in a statement. “It’s a nod to our roots, and a reinforcement of the journalistic foundation on which all of our news brands stand.”
Yep, a journalistic foundation which Tronc did not suggest.
Stephen E Arnold, October 5, 2018
Manipulating the Google: A Reputation Management Method Revealed
October 1, 2018
I don’t want to go through the procedure described in “Data from the Lumen Database Highlights How Companies Use Fake Websites and Backdated Articles to Censor Google’s Search Results.” The article does a good job of explaining how Google’s weak time and date function makes it possible to neutralize certain content objects. The lever is the DMCA takedown notice.
Works most of the time in our experience with Augmentext and some related methods.
I thought it would be useful to highlight what Lumen is.
Straightaway it is a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. The group, however, is an independent third party research “project.” The third parties collect and analyze requests to remove material from the Web.
These data are gathered in a database and analyzed.
Who works on these objective investigations?
There is the EFF and law school clinics. Help for the unit was provided by Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law.
What’s interesting is that Lumen is supported by “gifts from Google.” Others kick in, of course. There are no promised deliverables. The pursuit of knowledge is the goal.
More info is here.
How surprised will Google, reputation management firms, and those who want certain content objects disassociated from their name?
Pretty surprised was the consensus around the cast iron stove here in Harrod’s Creek. We just burn magazines, books, and journals hereabouts.
Stephen E Arnold, October 1, 2018
Tracking Facebook: The Job of a Real Journalist Is Stressful, Alarming
September 30, 2018
Want to know what the life of a “real” journalist is like? Navigate to “Exposing Cambridge Analytica: ‘It’s Been Exhausting, Exhilarating, and Slightly Terrifying.” Here in Harrod’s Creek we believe everything we read online, whether from Facebook, the GOOG, or the Guardian.
The write up is unusual because on one hand, the virtues of being curious and asking questions leads to “terrifying” experiences. On the other hand, the Guardian is just a tiny bit proud that it made the information available.
I learned:
Cadwalladr’s reporting led to the downfall of Cambridge Analytica and a public apology from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who was forced to testify before congress. Facebook has since lost $120 billion from its share price.
That’s nosing into Elon Musk Tweet territory.
I knew social media was a force, but these are big numbers. Perhaps newspaper advertising will reach these heights with “stressful, alarming” assignments for the “real” journalists?
I learned:
It’s got easier every time I’ve published – sunlight is the best disinfectant etc.
Interesting idea in a world which seems to be emulating the fiction of 1984.
I learned what lubricant allowed the “real” journalist to move forward:
I have to say that the support of readers was absolutely crucial and was one of the things that enabled me to carry on. Not just because it helped give me the confidence to keep going, but also because it helped give the organization confidence. It takes a huge amount of resources and resolve for a news organization to keep publishing in the face of the kind of threats we were facing, and the support of the readers for the story and what we were trying to do really did help give my editors confidence, I think. And I’m really grateful for that.
Does this mean that the “real” newspaper was the motive force?
If so, then “real” newspapers are positive forces in today’s world and not conduits for popular culture, sports, and informed opinion.
My thought was, “I wonder if the Babylonian clay tablet brigade voiced similar sentiments when writing on sheepskin became the rage.”
Probably not.
Rah rah for the “real” journalist. Rah rah for the newspaper.
Any rah rahs for Facebook? Nah. Bro culture. Security laughing stock. Sillycon Valley.
But Cambridge Analytica? Yeah, British with a lifeline from some interesting Americans.
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2018
The European Commission: On the Job with Fake News
September 28, 2018
Yes, I wondered if the giant Thomson Reuters was a victim of fake news when I read “Tech Companies Agree to Take Measures to Tackle Fake News.” Of course, TR would not fall victim to fake news; therefore, the information in the write up is spot on.
I noted this statement:
Tech companies have agreed to measures to tackle fake news and concerns that it can influence elections, the European Commission said on Wednesday.
Okay, but what “tech companies.” The TR article pointed to this story titled “Tech Companies Agree to Measures to Tackle Fake News.” Is there a list of tech companies at the link destination? Nope, it’s the same story.
So the report about fake news refers to itself.
Not fake news, but it does raise these questions:
- What companies agreed to fight fake news?
- How will the companies fight fake news?
- What is fake news?
Obviously self referential information is not fake, right. What’s good for traffic is definitely “real” and countable.
Stephen E Arnold, September 28, 2018
Modern Journalism: Fact or Fiction or Something Quite New
September 21, 2018
I read the information on this New York Times’ Web page. The intent is to explain how the NYT can learn a “secret” from a helpful reader. I noted this statement:
Each tip, be it from a submission or from a source, is rigorously vetted and probed.”
I find that interesting. I wonder how the anonymous editorial about the “soft” revolt within President Donald Trump’s staff was verified.
Probably not important. “Real” journalists do not have to reveal sources when a secret tip is rigorously vetted and probed.
From my vantage point in Harrod’s Creek, where real journalism is embodied in the local newspaper, the difference between reality and fiction is blurred. It is not thinking here; it is bourbon that does the trick.
Stephen E Arnold, September 21, 2018
Tips for Dealing with Content Stealers
September 17, 2018
Content on the Internet gets stolen. It is a Reddit trademark, i,e, memes. If you inhabit any part of the fandom community (visit 4chan if you want to have nightmares), then copyright content is plagiarized in fanfiction, fanart, and fan videos. Some cases of fan content have become Internet legends. What do you do, however, if you do not want your content to be stolen and how do you prevent it?
Hacker News Hosted at Y Combinator has a post about, “Dealing with a Competitor Who Is Scraping My Content and Ranking Higher.” Here is the situation:
“One of my competitors has been scrapping my site and providing service to their users without paying anything. And now they surpassed me on Google ranking. I’ve created a website which gets around 5K unique hits every day. It’s a free service for users but I’ve to pay a monthly fee to a third party service provider. Because my site is free for users and doesn’t require users to register it’s been very hard to keep up with this guy. If I change certain things, they counter it immediately and make it work. And they use several proxies to send the request, it’s virtually impossible to block based on IP. Please suggest, if there is anything I’m missing that can be done.”
There are some suggestions such as trap sheets, which is similar to paper towns, where mapmakers include fake streets and towns to identify if any steals their work. Google used something similar when they suspected that Bing was stealing its search results. The proof was in the search results pudding, Bing did scrap the results.
Google also might be helpful in getting them delisted, because the competitor is stealing the content which is illegal. Another suggestion is that the original content writer have the competitor license the original content as an extra revenue stream. Will any of these work?
Whitney Grace, September 17, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
