Statto
Registered User
- May 9, 2014
- 4,966
- 8,430
Hey for your own interest use, skillset development etc crack on; don’t let grumpy arses like me put you off. My points are much wider ones about AI and its direction.Oh man, I really touched a nerve here. I originally created for my own edification, but the output was so ... comprehensive, that I thought others might be interested.
My goal was to compile a summary of the themes mentioned across all media, identify them, and state the variations on those themes. I wanted the sources to be bulleted for each theme in the report (you can see that in the template I provided) so I could click through and read them directly, but it didn't come out that way.
I omitted the game summary from the post.
I counted a grand total of 1 yes, 1 do it and I'll skip it if I don't want to read it, and the rest no. So ... I'll refrain.
Happy to be transparent about the background:
The tool I used is Google Deep Research with the Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental model.
The prompt:
Markdown (GitHub flavored):# Edmonton Oilers vs. Los Angeles Kings on April 21, 2025 You are an expert research assistant. Your task is to compile a comprehensive report on the online media and opinion coverage of the specified hockey game. 1. **Gather data** from a variety of online sources, including: * News articles (local news sources, national news sources, nytimes.com/athletic , mayorsmanor.com, hockeyroyalty.com, nhl.com, www.dailynews.com/author/andrew-knoll/ , www.naturalstattrick.com/games.php , espn.com/nhl , prohockeyrumors.com, laxsportsnation.com/category/kings, hockeyfeed.com, sportsnet.ca/hockey, tsn.ca/nhl, thehockeywriters.com, thehockeynews.com, thefourthperiod.com) * Blog posts * Social media discussions (X, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, forums.hfboards.com * YouTube channels (@NHL, @TSN_Sports, @ESPNNHL, @lakings, @lakingsinsider4112, @laroyalty, @HockeyRoyalty, @TheHockeyGuy, @thefourthperiod, @thehockeypdocast, @LockedOnKingsNHL, @sdpn, @TopShelfHockey, @daily_faceoff, @legorocks99, @nextmanupNMU, @WhatChaosShow, @donnieanddhali) 2. **Identify and analyze** the different points of view expressed in the coverage. 3. **Aggregate** these viewpoints into distinct themes. 4. **Ensure** that the themes cover the following aspects of the game: * Analysis of game strategies * Player performances (positive impact, negative impact, lack of significance) * Controversial calls by referees (if consensus indicates significance) * Injuries sustained during the game and their impact (present and future) 5. **Present** the output as a structured report, adhering to the template provided above. 6. **Organize** the report into the following structure: * **Game Overview:** \[Final score, game summary by period, and key statistics] * **Game Strategies:** \[Analysis of strategies employed by both teams, including any tactical adjustments made during the game.] * **Player Performances:**[Identify players with significant positive impacts (e.g., goals, key plays), negative impacts (e.g., errors, penalties), or lack of significance.] * **Controversial Calls:** Discuss any significant controversial referee decisions, focusing on those widely considered impactful. * **Injuries:** Detail any injuries sustained during the game, the players involved, and their potential impact. * **Other Key Themes:** * **Theme 1:** \[Name of Theme] * Description: \[Detailed description of the theme] * Sources: \[List of sources supporting this theme, ranked by credibility, then prominence, then uniqueness of viewpoint] * Variations: \[Subsections detailing variations within the theme, with supporting sources] * **Theme 2:** \[Name of Theme] * Description: \[Detailed description of the theme] * Sources: \[List of sources supporting this theme, ranked by credibility, then prominence, then uniqueness of viewpoint] * Variations: \[Subsections detailing variations within the theme, with supporting sources] * \[Continue with additional themes as needed] * **Unique Points of View:** * **Viewpoint 1:** \[Description of the unique perspective] * Source: \[Source expressing this unique viewpoint] * Significance: \[Explanation of why this viewpoint is noteworthy] * **Viewpoint 2:** \[Description of the unique perspective] * Source: \[Source expressing this unique viewpoint] * Significance: \[Explanation of why this viewpoint is noteworthy] * \[Continue with additional unique viewpoints as needed]
If you share though, I personally think crediting sources would be good.
Also, are you real or an AI not? If so I take it all back

