Comments on: Digg’s Disincentive Highlights Social Design Issues Clearly

By: links for 2006-11-30 (Leapfroglog)

links for 2006-11-30 (Leapfroglog) — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:21:41 +0000

[...] Bokardo - Social Web Design » Digg’s Disincentive Highlights Social Design Issues Clearly Joshua Porter highlights issues Digg is having with their design. They’ve changed an algorithm, and now the community is pushing back. Porter writes: “The issues are social ones, probably unpredictable in any straightforward way.” (tags: JoshuaPorter Digg socialsoftware design algorithms gaming incentives socialmedia) [...]

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:22:47 +0000

Good point, Michal. I was simply borrowing the term from Digg. From that standpoint, both Muhammad and Mark are in the Top 20.

Other axes are certainly open to debate. But, as I mentioned in my earlier piece on Digg, it is the very gaminess of the system that leads to stuff like this. It both drives adoption and leads to issues like this. That’s why I think this is as much about social design as anything.

By: rdixon

rdixon — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:52:07 +0000

The big “algo” change didn’t stay in effect for very long.
Just guessing, but I would say when they started seeing the daily page view stats dropping like a rock, they were forced to back off on the change.
And for those newbies who are complaining about not being able to push their own submissions to the front page due to lack of people who digg them: It is now even harder for you to get a submission promoted so in esseence your complaints have been detrimental to your cause. It now takes a minimum of 30 diggs to get a story promoted instead of just 15 for some catagories. If you couldn’t get 15 people to digg your submissions, how will you get 30?
Answer: Pay your dues. Invest the time and effort necessay to band together a group of like minded individuals who will digg what you submit. And good luck with that. The casual user who only visits once or twice per day will never achieve that goal.
I find it vey ironic that those who complain the loudest about perceived “gaming” at digg are the very ones who are trying so hard to do the same thing but failing miserably at it.

By: Michal Migurski

Michal Migurski — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:29:00 +0000

I definitely take issue with the term “top users” - it draws focus to the competitive side of Digg, and (wrongly, IMO) suggests that there is something like a single axis along which Digg’s users can be ranked. These guys are the “top users” according to one measure, percentage of submitted stories hitting Digg’s front page. But that’s not the only metric, and it’s debatable whether having a smallish group of people driving the numbers day in day out is beneficial to other Digg users, regardless of how good they feel about. Think of the algorithm changes as an estate tax. =)

By: Matt Terenzio

Matt Terenzio — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:12:49 +0000

I re-read their argument and think I understand now. I just think it may have been the wrong solution. I think they need a more sophisticated algorithm, but not one that penalizes honest success.

By: Matt Terenzio

Matt Terenzio — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:09:26 +0000

Are these users sooo good that they pick magic stories? They only get one vote like everyone else, so I don’t understand why they should have a better chance of getting a story to the front page.

Admittedly, I’m not an avid user, so I might be missing something, but I can’t help but think that many of the users who are against the new system are just mad because they can’t game the system anymore.