CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 535Gender, Feminism, and MediaMedia and Digital CommunicationDigital Economy and Work Transformation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip

Open access
Bishop, Sophie·2019·New Media & Society
DOI 10.1177/1461444819854731
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Beauty vloggers’ feminised outputs often position them outside of traditional spheres of technical expertise, however, their strategic management of algorithmic visibility makes them an illuminating source of algorithmic knowledge. I draw from an ethnography of beauty vloggers and industry stakeholders to study the collaborative and directive processes used to formulate and sustain algorithmic expertise – algorithmic gossip. Algorithmic gossip is defined as communally and socially informed theories and strategies pertaining to recommender algorithms, shared and implemented to engender financial consistency and visibility on algorithmically structured social media platforms. Gossip is productive: community communication and talk informs and supports practices such as uploading frequently and producing feminised beauty content to perform more effectively on YouTube. Taking gossip seriously can present a valuable resource for revealing information about how algorithms work and have worked, in addition to revealing how perceptions of algorithms inform content production.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1461444819854731

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Abelove H, 2003, Deep Gossip
  2. Abidin C, 2017, Social Media+ Society, 3, 707191
  3. Andrejevic M (2009) Exploiting YouTube: contradictions of user-generated labor. In: Snickars P, Vonderau P (eds.) The YouTube Reader (Vol. 413). Available at: http://forskning.blogg.kb.se/files/2012/09/YouTube_Reader.pdf#page=204
  4. 10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001 · DOI
  5. Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, et al. (2014) Auditing Algorithms: research Methods for Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms. In: Proceedings of the ‘Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry’, a preconference at the 64th annual meeting of the international communication association, Seattle, WA, 22 May 2014. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b722/7cbd34766655dea10d0437ab10df3a127396.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–532 of 532

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bishop, S.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Bishop, Sophie
ORCID
Bishop, Sophie
Venue
New Media & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-06-15
Volume
21
Issue
11-12
Pages
2589-2606
ISSN
  • 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7315
DOI
10.1177/1461444819854731
OpenAlex
W2951551356
Cited by
535
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 131 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 2
FWCI
54.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Keywords
beauty vloggers, YouTube, algorithmic visibility, recommendation algorithms, social networking sites, algorithmic knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review