Comments on: The New New Digg Nation http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/ Tracking the Internet Evolution Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:09:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: broadstuff http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86386 broadstuff Fri, 02 Feb 2007 23:54:45 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86386 <p><strong>In digg nation and the games people play…</strong></p> <p>So, digg has been gamed for ages, but now is the game over? No sooner has Technorati started to digg itself (wtf?), than digg starts climbing out the hole.</p> <p>As of now they have removed the list of top story pim - er - promoters, maybe because it is b…</p> In digg nation and the games people play…

So, digg has been gamed for ages, but now is the game over? No sooner has Technorati started to digg itself (wtf?), than digg starts climbing out the hole.

As of now they have removed the list of top story pim - er - promoters, maybe because it is b…

]]> By: Daniel Golding http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86392 Daniel Golding Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:11:44 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86392 <p>Actually, scaring off their top diggers may be a great idea. You have a small group of editors who happen to have WAY too much time on their hands deciding what other people read. I'd much rather have a more democratic approach and see more folks digging fewer articles each. </p> <p>The trick will be getting folks to look at the "unpromoted" articles. In any event, Jay and Kevin are smart cookies and have some deep insight into what makes their creation tick.</p> Actually, scaring off their top diggers may be a great idea. You have a small group of editors who happen to have WAY too much time on their hands deciding what other people read. I’d much rather have a more democratic approach and see more folks digging fewer articles each.

The trick will be getting folks to look at the “unpromoted” articles. In any event, Jay and Kevin are smart cookies and have some deep insight into what makes their creation tick.

]]> By: shadilac http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86390 shadilac Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:57:34 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86390 <p>That's tricky. 2/3 of people who voted don't believe that the top digg list is a major incentive… I think I agree, I have submit articles to digg and I never even check the list… but I would like to know what people believe are the true motives? For me, I think it was just curiosity, how many votes could I get. But obviously the novelty wears off pretty quick.</p> That’s tricky. 2/3 of people who voted don’t believe that the top digg list is a major incentive… I think I agree, I have submit articles to digg and I never even check the list… but I would like to know what people believe are the true motives? For me, I think it was just curiosity, how many votes could I get. But obviously the novelty wears off pretty quick.

]]> By: Visible.Mobi http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86394 Visible.Mobi Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:10:29 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86394 <p>Definitely a step in the right direction.</p> Definitely a step in the right direction.

]]> By: Rajiv Doshi http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86384 Rajiv Doshi Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:16:29 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86384 <p>I can understand why it's a smart but very bold move for Digg because it will surely upset some of the most active users, a group that you don't usually want to upset. Most of the times, you try to cater and build that group. This change really appeals to the more casual diggers. </p> <p>But I don't see it changing the way digg functions as it will continue to be interesting and people will always try to game the system in in terms of getting certain stories to the front page.</p> I can understand why it’s a smart but very bold move for Digg because it will surely upset some of the most active users, a group that you don’t usually want to upset. Most of the times, you try to cater and build that group. This change really appeals to the more casual diggers.

But I don’t see it changing the way digg functions as it will continue to be interesting and people will always try to game the system in in terms of getting certain stories to the front page.

]]> By: Mike D. http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86388 Mike D. Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:07:08 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86388 <p>You're right… it's a bold move, but it's a good move. Digg's profile has grown so large that it's become a bit dangerous to expose the balance power in its entirety.</p> <p>Here's the great truth about Digg that Kevin and Jay are too smart to say in public: their contributor base is so ample and active that you could literally delete the accounts of the top 50 Diggers and the site wouldn't miss a beat. Someone else will submit that great new X-Box hack 3 minutes after user #32 would have. It's a testament to how resilient the system really is… it can withstand the loss of one or many contributors.</p> <p>Meanwhile, Kevin and Jay have tried to do the right thing over the last several months and "spread the power" out a bit, only to be met with criticism from the "top" users. So what's a Digg exec to do? The smartest move may be to do exactly what they've decided to do: get rid of the concept of "top diggers", at least in a public sense. If no one knows where they stand on the overall "leaderboard", they won't feel too powerful for being so high or too powerless for being so low. As Kevin said in his post, the leaderboard served a positive purpose when Digg was at a certain size… but now, it probably does more harm than good.</p> You’re right… it’s a bold move, but it’s a good move. Digg’s profile has grown so large that it’s become a bit dangerous to expose the balance power in its entirety.

Here’s the great truth about Digg that Kevin and Jay are too smart to say in public: their contributor base is so ample and active that you could literally delete the accounts of the top 50 Diggers and the site wouldn’t miss a beat. Someone else will submit that great new X-Box hack 3 minutes after user #32 would have. It’s a testament to how resilient the system really is… it can withstand the loss of one or many contributors.

Meanwhile, Kevin and Jay have tried to do the right thing over the last several months and “spread the power” out a bit, only to be met with criticism from the “top” users. So what’s a Digg exec to do? The smartest move may be to do exactly what they’ve decided to do: get rid of the concept of “top diggers”, at least in a public sense. If no one knows where they stand on the overall “leaderboard”, they won’t feel too powerful for being so high or too powerless for being so low. As Kevin said in his post, the leaderboard served a positive purpose when Digg was at a certain size… but now, it probably does more harm than good.

]]> By: Dal http://gigaom.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86396 Dal Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:56:18 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/the-new-new-digg-nation/#comment-86396 <p>Well I am writing my new article titled:</p> <p>"Top 10 Tips on How-To survive the New Digg System and get Payola in 2007" :) lol</p> <p>-Dal</p> <p>P.S. Honestly I think this is a good change but we will see in the coming days.</p> Well I am writing my new article titled:

“Top 10 Tips on How-To survive the New Digg System and get Payola in 2007″ :) lol

-Dal

P.S. Honestly I think this is a good change but we will see in the coming days.

]]>