Digg Redefines Popular
You can bet Merriam-Webster wasn't consulted on this redefinition.
Up to now, the way any online news publisher got one of its articles publicized through the Digg social service is by hoping enough people were interested in it to vote in favor of moving it up the Digg scale -- of giving it enough "Diggs." Starting today, however, that changes: The secret to a heavy publicity on the Digg service won't be having enough people, but having the right kind of people. And how Digg determines the right kind has already become a subject of controversy among its community.
This morning, Digg founder and chief architect Kevin Rose unveiled the key to its new popularity algorithm. Described as involving "diversity," it apparently involves an unusual way of determining whether recommending members are diverse enough from one another: by ascertaining just how much they don't get along with one another. The idea, of course, is to reduce voting blocs which are used to vote up stories.
However, based on what happens a lot at Digg, politically, our question is, will this also prevent blocs that bury stories? If not, the usefulness of this, already challenged at Digg in a near-revolt, seems limited.
Up to now, the way any online news publisher got one of its articles publicized through the Digg social service is by hoping enough people were interested in it to vote in favor of moving it up the Digg scale -- of giving it enough "Diggs." Starting today, however, that changes: The secret to a heavy publicity on the Digg service won't be having enough people, but having the right kind of people. And how Digg determines the right kind has already become a subject of controversy among its community.
This morning, Digg founder and chief architect Kevin Rose unveiled the key to its new popularity algorithm. Described as involving "diversity," it apparently involves an unusual way of determining whether recommending members are diverse enough from one another: by ascertaining just how much they don't get along with one another. The idea, of course, is to reduce voting blocs which are used to vote up stories.
However, based on what happens a lot at Digg, politically, our question is, will this also prevent blocs that bury stories? If not, the usefulness of this, already challenged at Digg in a near-revolt, seems limited.
