This story is archived
Did Digg change their algo to punish their most popular users? »
Posted by: ck 3 years, 5 months ago"I have been chatting with a few of our new Netscape Navigators today after one of them mentioned that...there has been some sort of change in the Digg algorithm." Has Digg changed their algo to punish popular users?
Read Full Story at sampletheweb.com »
Submitted By:
ck
Once upon a time, I was the Managing Editor, Director, and Lead Anchor for Netscape and a contributor to various Weblogs, Inc. blogs, including TV ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 17
-
msaleem
Aug. 9, 2006, 8:16 p.m.Honestly speaking, I had many conversations about this with my digg buddy list too. I would be looking at the upcomming stories at http://digg.com/view/all/upcoming/most and I would be on the top of the heap, and I would see it go from 30 to 40 to 50 to 55, and at the same time people from under me being promoted to the fp. It got very furstrating.
But you see, if you have posted a good story, it doesn't matter how long you wait, people will get behind it, and hopefully it will reach the front page, even after 70 votes. Their plan will only frustrate the top users, not prevent their quality posts from reaching the front page. Good posts will eventually get there. The ratio shouldn't change.
In any case, why penalize these people rather than reward them? So what if the top 10 are responsible for 30% for the content? Just because they are that damn good, you want to punish them? Make it harder for them to reach the fp? C'mon people!
-
Neophile
Aug. 9, 2006, 8:35 p.m.I really hope that this is not true, but I must admit I have experienced the same thing as msaleem recently.
If this is true then it would just make digg seem more like a popularity contest and less like a good place to get your news.
Certainly they aren't willing to sacrifice digg's efficiency for delivering up-to-the-minute news simply to keep the playing field level...are they?
-
capn_caveman
Aug. 9, 2006, 9:31 p.m.I noticed a change in the digg algorithm as well. I'm not sure if it's biased against top users, but I did indeed note a significant change.
-
wayjer
Aug. 9, 2006, 10:03 p.m.I can not tell a lie, I also noticed a change and it seemed to happen right after this story was posted on digg about 3 weeks ago.
http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1228
As soon as that hit the algo seemed to change. But I agree with Caveman, I am not sure that it is biased towards the top users.
-
-
-
Camman
Aug. 9, 2006, 11:21 p.m.wow netscape really is worried about digg, seems every day there is some post on here about something digg is (doing, should have done, reason why netscape is better). Why worry about it?
-
-
NOTShane_Coffey2
Aug. 9, 2006, 11:41 p.m.Yea wayjer posted this story, got 41 diggs and was gone.
http://digg.com/tech_news/New_Social_Bookmarking_Search_Engine_Using_Tags/who
-
-
1-2-Oscar
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:45 a.m.The notion that the endorsement of "friends" should help a submission gain a more prominent position on the board is both anti-democratic and anti-intellectual.
Digg and Natscape have both encouraged the creation of manipulative cabals which distort not only the importance of particular piece, but also result in the dominance of radical political viewpoints.
If Digg has taken actions which will minimize the influence these concerted efforts have, and return control to the ordinary user, then they are to be applauded.
Netscape should follow suit.
-
NOTShane_Coffey2
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:17 a.m.The link I posted at the top does not work. Someone or something added a bunch of crap to the end of the url when you click on it. So when you go to digg, it says url can not be found. Just copy and paste the url to see what I am talking about. But you have to take off the word who at the end.
Here is is again:
http://digg.com/tech_news/New_Social_Bookmarking_Search_Engine_Using_Tags
It is 9:19 A.M. lets see how fast the link gets edited this time.
-
jla1897
Aug. 10, 2006, 3:17 p.m.I've noticed it too. Lots of top dogs and even some of the little people like me are having a hard time getting promoted.
-
1-2-Oscar
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:51 p.m.Here's how it works, folks.
Capn caveman currently has three submissions on the Netscape Home Page.
"Utah Reports 6 Fold Increase In West Nile Virus Infections"
voted on by capn caveman, Ousama, wayjer, msallem, jabonil, GreenBudPacker, zepequeno
"How To: Protect Your Privacy from Google"
voted on by the same seven
"Underwater 'gliders' monitor ocean health"
voted on by the same seven plus shane coffey2, JazzyLite, and bfdWilson
The board is being manipulated to the advantage of a select few. Several of them are being paid to force feed you particular preferences and viewpoints.
Don't you think it's about time you wised up--and went somewhere else?
-
Dygital
Sept. 2, 2006, 10:19 a.m.On the Netscape side of things, I find this interesting, how exactly is the top contributor algorithm is set? C.K. can you offer insight to it? I've pulled the data in my excel, however, I can't break it down.
Ah yes, no response from Kevin Rose on this. ::rolls eyes::
-
alexrudloff
Sept. 8, 2006, 9:55 a.m.I might be a minority in netscape land, but the idea of votes counting for more if they come from a diverse population is an intriguing one, and is largely the same principle behind the electoral college (keeps cities from ruling over the country side).
I hope they put it through, I'm curious to the effects
-
alexrudloff
Sept. 8, 2006, 9:58 a.m.Dygital, it's a rolling thing so it doesn't become stale. I can't get a *ton* of votes and front pages, then disappear and be the #1 person for every and every. Things eventually degrade over time. As for as the alog itself, Trey would know more, but it's based off of all the little things you'd expect it to make up.
All 17 comments are shown.
Submit a Story
Advertisement
