We’ve had some trouble recently with posts from aggregator links like Google Amp, MSN, and Yahoo.

We’re now requiring links go to the OG source, and not a conduit.

In an example like this, it can give the wrong attribution to the MBFC bot, and can give a more or less reliable rating than the original source, but it also makes it harder to run down duplicates.

So anything not linked to the original source, but is stuck on Google Amp, MSN, Yahoo, etc. will be removed.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
        1115·
        2 months ago

        Not seeing any suggestions there to improve the bot, but lots of bannable attacks on other users, mods and admins.

        So I’ll say it again, as I’ve told other people complaining, I’m open to making the bot better. If you have suggestions, I’d love to hear them.

        1. It has to be automated, which means accessible through an API.

        2. It has to be no/low cost. Lemmy.World doesn’t have a budget for this. We met with an MBFC alternative, they wanted 6 figures. HARD no.

        • Docus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          16·
          2 months ago

          Ok, i’ll bite. I don’t value the bot (in part because it rates sites/newspapers and not authors or articles. Good news sites have the occasional shit article and vice versa), so please reduce the precious space it takes up on my mobile device. A one liner with a link would be enough.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
            41·
            2 months ago

            I feel your pain. Some readers, like mine (Boost) don’t handle the spoiler tag markup correctly and it ends up bigger than designed.

        • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
          15·
          2 months ago

          You could get rid of it. No automation, API, or cost whatsoever.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
            39·
            2 months ago

            I can’t ignore suggestions nobody is making. Have a better service in mind? Feel free to present it.

            We looked at AllSides, which is good for bias, but has no scoring for credibility.

            • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
              15·
              2 months ago

              Stop pretending that “get rid of the bot” doesn’t count as a suggestion. That’s dishonest.

              I don’t even care about the bot itself, but at this point I’m just getting pissed off by all the constant distracting bickering about it.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
                310·
                2 months ago

                When the question is “how do we improve it?” the answer “get rid of it” is not a genuine suggestion.

                The GOOD news is, we DO have a genuinely good suggestion here and the bot creator will be reaching out.

                • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  7·
                  2 months ago

                  It is a genuine suggestion. If something is a net negative, you don’t go for the sunken cost fallacy and jam it down users throats even harder. If that’s the only question you are willing to ask, then that means you don’t listen to suggestions - you just want to seem like you do.

                • Dumnorix@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  5·
                  2 months ago

                  Honest question,

                  If I understand the comment thread correctly, this means you’ll integrate the Wikipedia/Wikidata info in the existing bot, correct? Will an announcement be posted when or if this happens, so that people like me who blocked the bot can unblock it? I do like the concept of the bot, but I prefer an open source collaborative effort compared to a one man, rightwing aligned website.

                  Thanks for your openness to improve the service.

                  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
                    11·
                    2 months ago

                    Dunno yet, that’s something Rooki and the other user will have to sort out, but I’m all for improvements!