Who makes the final decision on Digg?
In June 2005, just six days after TechCrunch started, I wrote an article about Digg , and, having gained 15 diggs (points), she got on the main page of the site (there are a lot of old Digg screenshots in that post). Today, in order to get to the main Digg page, you need to dial around 1,540 diggs, although it all depends on the author of the article and the domain name to which he refers in the publication. However, readers of the site have noticed something strange. This post scored 936 votes in 16.5 hours after publication. This is much more than you need to get to the main page. The next most popular post in the same category received 178 votes.
The more users vote against the article, the more positive reviews you need to be on the front page. However, publications with more votes “against” are removed from the site. In this case, this was not observed, and the article continued to gain votes from users, but did not get to the main page (after reading the brief annotation, it is safe to say that this article quickly had to get out of the fight, gaining a large number of votes "against") . Apparently, the article gained a sufficient number of votes "for" and "against" and continued to collect them until Digg's management figured out what the matter was.
')
So what is the point? It is clear that Digg continues to struggle with vote rigging and is trying with all its might to keep the system for determining by users which materials should go to the main page of the site. In view of the fact that they instructed a large number of filters and other barriers, this caused a decrease in the definition of the popularity of really important and interesting articles. It also proves that the efforts of even 1,000 people will not help to make the post top. In my opinion, this is good news.
There are persistent rumors that the Digg Guide hires editors to view incoming articles before sending them to the vote, and this should increase the overall quality of publications. There is nothing wrong with that, but it destroys the theory that the crowd makes better decisions with regard to what we call “news” than an individual using common sense and intelligence. In turn, Digg denies all the rumors about the presence of editors.
Digg can prove to its founders investors what is a great business model. But the coming news revolution can destroy all their efforts. Or users will do this when they find out that, in fact, far from they make the final decisions.
Original article in English
The more users vote against the article, the more positive reviews you need to be on the front page. However, publications with more votes “against” are removed from the site. In this case, this was not observed, and the article continued to gain votes from users, but did not get to the main page (after reading the brief annotation, it is safe to say that this article quickly had to get out of the fight, gaining a large number of votes "against") . Apparently, the article gained a sufficient number of votes "for" and "against" and continued to collect them until Digg's management figured out what the matter was.
')
So what is the point? It is clear that Digg continues to struggle with vote rigging and is trying with all its might to keep the system for determining by users which materials should go to the main page of the site. In view of the fact that they instructed a large number of filters and other barriers, this caused a decrease in the definition of the popularity of really important and interesting articles. It also proves that the efforts of even 1,000 people will not help to make the post top. In my opinion, this is good news.
There are persistent rumors that the Digg Guide hires editors to view incoming articles before sending them to the vote, and this should increase the overall quality of publications. There is nothing wrong with that, but it destroys the theory that the crowd makes better decisions with regard to what we call “news” than an individual using common sense and intelligence. In turn, Digg denies all the rumors about the presence of editors.
Digg can prove to its founders investors what is a great business model. But the coming news revolution can destroy all their efforts. Or users will do this when they find out that, in fact, far from they make the final decisions.
Original article in English
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30745/
All Articles