blog.digg.com — Kevin has posted an explanation of the Digg algorithm on the Digg Blog. They have been monitoring the stories this past week and have made some changed which will go live today. This means no more stories sitting in the queue w/100+ Diggs!
Nov 6, 2006 View in Crawl 4
bremstrongNov 7, 2006
I'd like to see greater transparency in how the total diggs is calculated. Rather than a single sum, if both the + diggs and - diggs were tallied, you could tell the difference between a controversial comment with an equal number of + and - diggs and a comment with just a few diggs in either direction.I think it would also improve the site if you could sort by the total number of diggs, + or -, in addition to sorting by net total diggs.
ivanbNov 7, 2006
@thebloomsThere's no actual way to force people to read the article they are digging. I don't think a time limit will do it.
harbinger67Nov 7, 2006
Why do people even care about being a 'top user' on Digg. Digg is about submitting news that was written by someone else; what is the big draw of having the 'top status'?This place is worse than Counter-Strike. The drive to pwn noobs is the same, it's just done in a different way.
curtissthompsonNov 7, 2006
@digitalgopherI definitely agree with you. I think a lot of top diggers thought unfairly that this was an attack on them, which I never thought it was myself. I just thought it was far too extreme. I knew it was just to try and level the playing field for newer users, or users who don't submit as frequently, which is great and what digg should be for. I think they now are finding a better balance in their algorithm that will suit everyone best.People were too quick to assume this was going to be a permanent change, as the digg team really doesn't have a means of testing their algorithm changes well, without releasing it to the wild, seeing how it plays out on the live site. That's the best way to see how it will work, and make changes accordingly.I do think this is a shift in the "digg economy" per se, and it will certainly be a fundamental change in the algorithm and how digg's economy plays out. Comes down to the difference between socialist (equal) and capitalist (fair/equal opportunity) economies, if you will. A theory and topic I thought of recently and I pointed out to msaleem who recently wrote on it here recently (very good read):<a class="user" href="http://www.blogherald.com/2006/11/06/the-digg-economy-socialist-bookmarking">http://www.blogherald.com/2006/11/06/the-digg-economy-socialist-bookmarking</a>(I'd like to see more posts like this come up on digg....bringing fair and debatable topics about digg algo changes, rather than just the typical jumping to conclusions we see too often)I also agree with digitalgopher's point that their is never a perfect algorithm.....very true. If their were, we wouldn't need the human component/element, which regulates the sites quality of content. Ultimately the digg team can make all the changes to their algorithm they want....but without diggers holding up their end and doing their part in regulating digg's quality of content...then all the changes to the algo the digg team makes are useless and meaningless. The digg team provides us with the tools, it is up to the digg community to use those tools properly.
Closed AccountNov 7, 2006
IvanB,A user may not be FORCED to read an article, but there are ways to determine if he/she has visited the article. In fact, using average speeds of comprehension, it may be possible to determine a time nessicary for a user to read something, based solely on the number of words on the page.
Closed AccountNov 7, 2006
1) Remove the friend system.2) Remove the "top user" list.3) Plant moles at places like spikethevote and kill the accounts of people using it.4) ???5) Profit!
edenbayerNov 9, 2006
Maybe it is not the right place to comment on the subject I want to bring up, but it seems that there is a lack of categories in DIGG - e.g. I would like to see "Travel" as a category. I think it leads a lot of people to a "catch all" - "Offbeat news"