DISQUS

Hello! Mathew's comments is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

www.mathewingram.com/work Jump to website »

Subscribe
- New Comments
Community
Top Commenters
- mathewi
  1560 comments · 37 points
- ianbetteridge
  75 comments · 8 points
- JoeDuck
  57 comments · 1 points
- leigh
  46 comments · 6 points
- howardlindzon
  46 comments · 66 points
Popular Threads
- Was the NYT wrong to keep quiet? Yes
  2 days ago · 1 comment
- Crowdsourcing: Top iPhone apps
  3 weeks ago · 14 comments
Recent Comments
- Thanks a lot for sharing
  17 hours ago by kongrit
  
  in My verdict on Disqus: Two thumbs up
- I think this is the dangerous trend we are on that the media only tells people what it wants and attempts to manipulate than allow people to make up their own mines
  1 day ago by authorityseo
  
  in Was the NYT wrong to keep quiet? Yes
- It would be nice if we all made our own clothes out of hemp fiber, and used wind power to generate all of our energy, and so on. But that probably isn’t going to happen any time soon either.
  1 day ago by windows 7 news
  
  in Hey hey, you you — get off of my cloud
- dsfasdfsf
  2 days ago by dofus
  
  in Print may be dying, but the news is not
- That said, my health is fine, and I'm sure I would be replaced if incapable of writing the blogs. That's business, not sentiment. With Steve ...
  2 days ago by liposuction
  
  in Wrong — Steve’s health is my business

Mathew's comments

Jump to original thread »

Digg: A social media Petri dish

Started by mathewi · 1 year ago

Now that the sturm und drang over the latest changes to Digg’s algorithm has died down somewhat — after the villagers made it all the way to the castle with pitchforks and lighted torches in their hands, only to relent and make peace with the lords of the manor, after Kev ... Continue reading »

20 comments

gregory
1 year ago

not that fascinating, and my s**t detector goes off sometimes around digg, like big brother has a hand in there somewhere

reply

mathewi
1 year ago

It's all part of the show, Greg :-)

reply

digidave
1 year ago

It is an interesting thing to watch isn't it.

My involvement in all this is just to make sure that Digg become more transparent. For me - and I think everyone - the algo change is a distant second.

reply

mathewi
1 year ago

I would have to agree, Dave. But the algorithm changes are what often stir
the pot and enrage the masses :-)

reply

Karl
1 year ago

Question - Why doesn't Slashdot count anymore? Please don't say it is the quality of the commenting or posters. Or that having a group of editors intercede in what gets promoted is somehow antiquated and wrong (because umm... Digg is now doing just that - except non-transparently).

reply

mathewi
1 year ago

It's not that Slashdot doesn't count, Karl -- I just think for whatever
reason Digg is the hotspot, and so a lot of the issues that are coming up
have to do with them. Digg is the new black :-)

reply

Mike
1 year ago

I dunno, I think it's more like Digg *was* the new black. Most of my digg "friends" are no longer active and neither am I. I think the whole "open" vs. "editor" thing is overweighted. What you end up with on digg is "management by clique" which is basically the same as Slashdot only less organized and (IMO) lower quality. I guess it's like reading a newspaper or news magazine: you have to find one whose editorial policy you like and go with it. When you don't like what you see, you move on...

reply

mathewi
1 year ago

You might be right, Mike -- and I certainly wouldn't say that Digg is the
be-all and end-all of social media or news aggregators or whatever you want
to call them. But it still seems like where a lot of action is when it
comes to the issues of user vs. editor and how you manage those conflicts.

reply

Tish Grier
1 year ago

Great post, Matt! I was watching this from the sidelines between working on three different projects--and a lot of what I saw and read echoed what I saw happen on newsgroups back about 10 years ago. There are ways in which social groups de-volve from the good intentions of the original builders has been documented in many places (notably some great essays by Clay Shirky--which echo many of my experiences in the things...)

Think about it: newsgroups were always *open* to whomever wanted to join. But they only became "social" to you if you were accepted by the group. The groups always had overlords--moderators who were involved with the group depending on the level of love for the topic--and would sometimes outright ban others or "douche" various members from the system for "infractions" that were sometimes never explained.

Now, these things are automated. Rather than a human hand sending a popular person into the Internet ether, we have bots. And algorithms. Don't blame the site administrators for maybe having big egos--it's just the impartial algorithm that's making things happen ;-)

Digg always seemed to me to be more of a community than a news source--and perhaps that's also a huge error on the part of those observing the phenomenon, who may know very little about older forms of social media and have no reference points to understand communities like Digg, who saw Digg as a news service rather than a community. As for the idea of "collaborative news filtering"--well, that used to go on in newsgroups, too. And it's going on in other places than Digg. Only just not with the same hipster cachet as Digg. And while you're right about Digg being a big social media petri dish, we shouldn't forget about the petri dishes that came before....

reply

mathewi
1 year ago

You're quite right, Tish. Those of us who are old enough (cough, cough) to
remember the early days of Usenet and even IRC and other forums have seen
these types of behaviour before -- in many ways the same themes keep
repeating themselves. But I think each time it happens there are more
people exposed to it, and more people involved, and perhaps we learn a
little more (hopefully). Someday maybe people will put some of those
lessons to use :-)

reply

Aidan Henry
1 year ago

I think the people that are pissed off are the people who "used to" regularly make the front page. I saw to heck with them. In theory, nobody should be making the front page on a consistent basis if the system is true. Only the best content should rise to the top, and I doubt a few given individuals are submitting all the best content. Therefore I'm totally FOR algorithm changes that level the playing field and only allow for the best content to reach the top.

These little groups and cliques that have prospered for so long are now in turmoil and they're in a pissy mood. Do you really think that a few top blogs and news sites produce the best content all the time? Think again. I'm not a conspiracy theorist here, but there Digg "rings" and "circles" out there. These groups pledge together and vote items to the top. My guess is the new algorithm recognizes voting patterns and a LACK of voting diversity, hence the reason some submissions aren't making the front page...

Just my two bits on a lovely Friday :)

Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com

reply

mathewi
1 year ago

I agree completely, Aidan.

reply

Mark Dykeman
1 year ago

Mathew, my belief is that the algorithm change was just part of the problem. The lack of feedback from Digg about user bannings, the lack of feedback from Digg management and support in general, the unusual bury activity AND the unannounced algorithm change were all contributing factors.

I've had some minor interaction with three of the four top Diggers who were part of the protest letter and they seem like decent people. I think they got frustrated because, once again, the rules were changed without warning, adding another log on the fire of frustration. After all, they're just people like the rest of us - they want to be heard when they have a complaint.

reply

supaswag
1 year ago

The shocking reality: What REALLY goes on behind the curtains at digg.com >> http://supaswag.blogspot.com/2008/02/can-you-di...

reply