Disqus - Latest Comments for babblin5

Re: Digg: The Lulled Revolution

babblin5 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:33:44 -0000

It was a stopgap measure to buy a little time, but I don't think the revolt was squashed at all, just postponed until either a) Jay & Kev think better of the situation and dial the algorithm down or b) the boycott is retabled and put into action.

Re: The Grim Reaper has visited Digg

babblin5 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:27:10 -0000

Here's a great way to get banned (trust me) because it will LOOK like script activity, which has happened to me. Let me preface this by saying that I don't "game" the system, I just have had a philosophical disagreement with Digg since they tightened the algorithm. I believe that EVERYONE should have a voice, and be heard by the masses, where they can quickly be shouted down (buried) or championed (dugg).

Load multiple pages from new submissions and digg every one. You can EASILY digg a thousand stories a day. Digg will look at the activity and ban you for "suspected" use of a script.

As to the banning of some users and not others who HAVE used scripts, and have ADMITTED to Digg that they used scripts, this constitutes unequal application of contractual obligations (you enter a contract when you agree to the TOS, and Digg is duty bound to apply the terms of the contract to everyone in exactly the same way), which in effect invalidates the contract itself (TOS). By virtue of U.C.C., they have breached their own contract and have left themselves open to a class-action lawsuit whereupon users who have been banned for ANY reason can sue for damages for lost time invested, etc.

Regardless of whether or not there is a clause that they can, at their sole discretion, decide to ban (or not ban) a user if they violate the TOS, the courts look at past performance and the overall pattern of how they respond to violations in making a determination.

This is what happens when Jay and Kevin think that their MIT degrees make them qualified as CEOs and legal experts.

Re: Kevin Rose and Jay Adelson Respond to Digg Complaints

babblin5 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:24:39 -0000

There's a much simpler way to encourage more stories getting to the front page, and that's simply to LOWER the requirements for something to go popular, not skew it towards one demographic or another. This puts the story where it can be seen by the masses, and, with a lower weighting of buries, we'll have a much more "democratic" system where the majority of users can ultimately decide the fate of a submission.

Should top diggers get an edge? Absolutely. They dedicated a great deal of time and effort towards the success of Digg, and they have become popular for a reason, primarily that they have a great sense of quality content.

The problem with algorithmic thinking is that it invariably introduces unforeseen effects as it becomes more complicated. It's also fairly contrary to natural thought processes. If our thoughts and decisions were based on complex algorithms, we'd all be insane.

Is it any wonder that as Digg's algorithm goes through more complex iterations, we see each iteration with more confusion and think to ourselves, "That's insane!"? Algorithms may be cool from a technical standpoint, but I can't help but feel that an occassional reality check is in order.

Re: The Unfortunate Investment of Social Media (and its Consequences)

babblin5 — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:48:49 -0000

It won't make any difference. Jay and Kevin are too self-absorbed in their own vision to see the flaws in it. Town Hall meetings are great, but the real uestions and concerns will never be addressed, because they have no real desire to do so.