avanoo.com— A pretty amazing article that analyzes structural and cultural problems in the Digg community and makes suggestions for the company going forward. Important read for all Diggers.
Dec 15, 2006View in Crawl 4
Excellent analysis. You’re exactly right — digg is corrupted by personal popularity. The user ranking system is itself a problem, making users want to earn higher numbers. Get rid of user ranks. For that matter, make all diggs anonymous so that the playing field truly is equal, and the quest for popularity factors out.
The "clique" votes have already been diminshed in value. In fact, I think they are worth almost nothing. That is why sometimes submissions with lots of friends digging take over 50 diggs to reach the front page (sometimes even 75 or more), whereas a story might only take 20 diggs if it was dugg by 20 independent users.
Maybe digg should do something with the comment system. Right now a user can make a comment, and then digg down any opposing views regarding their comment.I think that a user should be able to comment on a story on digg, or digg comments made on a story, but not both. I think that this would help stop, the digging comments that people don't agree with into oblivion. It would also allow more freedom of ideas, and more people will be able to see multiple sides of a story.
@stonr:No, you got the definition for +/- reinforcement wrong.The concept of Negative Reinforcement is difficult to teach and learn because of the word negative. Negative Reinforcement is often confused with Punishment. They are very different, however. Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior. So digg comments up is positive reinforcement and digg down is negative reinforcement, both are strengthening the desired comments. Lack of action is not any kind of reinforcement.
a very good point! same people vote on technology vote on politics! no wonder the voting system is so bad, because a technology expert can be a moron in literature and idiot in politics...
All digg submissions should be labeled as from anonymous users until they reach the front page. That should discourage people from digging "friend's" articles.
"click the button to digg people's comments up as fast as possible."Wow that's a stupid bug right there but it's there, I just added 2 diggs to you doing that.
Digg has stumbled upon a brilliant formula. Digg has the most advance end-user driven comment moderation system on the Internet today. Just bury a users comments because of inferior content until they redeem themselves, why don't you. Having any working marbles will tell you, Digg is about having social democracy prevail. Moderators/higher User-classes do not represent a true social Democracy voting atmosphere. Period.Where most web sites struggle with worthless or offensive comments/questions on blogs, Digg's thumbs up/down rating system encourages meaningful responses. Many users find themselves going back to stories they commented on to see whether other users found their comments/questions worthwhile, using the rating system. Digg a free social network bookmarking site which gives the editorial power to the people, including the morons. The Digg Nation is the product of Kevin Rose a technology Enthusiast/ Techtv technical personality. Now, people are able to solve all sorts of massive problems by sharing information. Thank you, Kevin and Jay for simulating heaven.Now, each digg user has the ability to rate their favorite comments by digging them. If you see an off-topic, worthless, flame war starting, lame comment, simply click the bury icon to shrink and remove the comment from view. Other new features include: threading, editing, and friend flags.
insomniacalDec 15, 2006
Excellent analysis. You’re exactly right — digg is corrupted by personal popularity. The user ranking system is itself a problem, making users want to earn higher numbers. Get rid of user ranks. For that matter, make all diggs anonymous so that the playing field truly is equal, and the quest for popularity factors out.
madddogDec 15, 2006
The "clique" votes have already been diminshed in value. In fact, I think they are worth almost nothing. That is why sometimes submissions with lots of friends digging take over 50 diggs to reach the front page (sometimes even 75 or more), whereas a story might only take 20 diggs if it was dugg by 20 independent users.
hmtksteveDec 15, 2006
Yes, if you had to provide a reason many people would not abuse the system. For one thing it would add time to process.
dingo128Dec 15, 2006
Maybe digg should do something with the comment system. Right now a user can make a comment, and then digg down any opposing views regarding their comment.I think that a user should be able to comment on a story on digg, or digg comments made on a story, but not both. I think that this would help stop, the digging comments that people don't agree with into oblivion. It would also allow more freedom of ideas, and more people will be able to see multiple sides of a story.
undersky1Dec 15, 2006
@stonr:No, you got the definition for +/- reinforcement wrong.The concept of Negative Reinforcement is difficult to teach and learn because of the word negative. Negative Reinforcement is often confused with Punishment. They are very different, however. Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior. So digg comments up is positive reinforcement and digg down is negative reinforcement, both are strengthening the desired comments. Lack of action is not any kind of reinforcement.
undersky1Dec 15, 2006
a very good point! same people vote on technology vote on politics! no wonder the voting system is so bad, because a technology expert can be a moron in literature and idiot in politics...
ostracizeDec 15, 2006
All digg submissions should be labeled as from anonymous users until they reach the front page. That should discourage people from digging "friend's" articles.
dgh1973Dec 16, 2006
"click the button to digg people's comments up as fast as possible."Wow that's a stupid bug right there but it's there, I just added 2 diggs to you doing that.
unitedstatiansDec 16, 2006
Digg has stumbled upon a brilliant formula. Digg has the most advance end-user driven comment moderation system on the Internet today. Just bury a users comments because of inferior content until they redeem themselves, why don't you. Having any working marbles will tell you, Digg is about having social democracy prevail. Moderators/higher User-classes do not represent a true social Democracy voting atmosphere. Period.Where most web sites struggle with worthless or offensive comments/questions on blogs, Digg's thumbs up/down rating system encourages meaningful responses. Many users find themselves going back to stories they commented on to see whether other users found their comments/questions worthwhile, using the rating system. Digg a free social network bookmarking site which gives the editorial power to the people, including the morons. The Digg Nation is the product of Kevin Rose a technology Enthusiast/ Techtv technical personality. Now, people are able to solve all sorts of massive problems by sharing information. Thank you, Kevin and Jay for simulating heaven.Now, each digg user has the ability to rate their favorite comments by digging them. If you see an off-topic, worthless, flame war starting, lame comment, simply click the bury icon to shrink and remove the comment from view. Other new features include: threading, editing, and friend flags.