Publishing 2.0 - Latest Comments in Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

supaswag — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:01:04 -0000

The shocking reality: What REALLY goes on behind the curtains at digg.com >> http://supaswag.blogspot.co...

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

timoni — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:05:53 -0000

If people are gaming your system, then you don't have an open system anymore. Your initial stated options for Digg cancel each other out. "The will of the people" naturally includes "the will of all people," not just "the will of those people with enough time on their hands," and naturally adjustments will need to be made to make sure the latter group's vote is weighed appropriately. I get the impression you're making the assumption that one man = one vote = democracy. With Digg, one man can equal many, many votes, obviously, and if their data skews too far from public opinion, it's useless. Hence the countermeasures.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

digidave — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:40:05 -0000

@comment 16

If a website has as much traffic as Digg's - then there is a story there.

Anybody who thinks this was just about the algorithm change didn't actually read any of the complaints.

Banned accounts for no reason.
Secret editors, auto-burries, etc. It's about transparency. Can you imagine if Flickr or Del.icio.us had rumors of banned accounts with no explanation? People would be up in arms.

I'm not saying these rumors are true: But they are very prominent rumors - and that was the cause of things.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Adam Ricketson — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:45:55 -0000

I agree with comments 13 and 15 -- there is nothing "non-open" about Digg's reform. In fact, this new algorithm can probably be justified by information theory:

1) A person who Diggs everything is not providing any information about the quality of the content: it's just like grade inflation.
2) A large group with perfectly coordinated behavior does not provide any more information that a single individual from that group.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

You call that a revolt? — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:16:42 -0000

Dave,

The reason there were no reporters is because there was no story. The vast majority of the community did not care about your so-called "revolt". The digg about you guys whining getting close to 2000 diggs while your "digg is a game, let's play" post getting buried is proof of that. Reporters look for news, not manufactured publicity stunts propagated by crybabies.

Here's something we all know that you guys might have not figured out yet: you need digg more than digg needs you.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Joseph Cardwell — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:18:23 -0000

Its true that the internet is a vast sea of information difficult to harness without tools that aggregate the content in a meaningful way. However that which constitutes a meaningful representation of the body of information varies dramatically from one person to the next. It is almost as unique as our fingerprints.

What is odd to me is that we are still seeing the predominance of the MEGA-AGGREGATORS like Digg and Google.

I worry that Google has a strangle hold on content because it does serve as the primary aggregation of information for so many people around the world. It's sort of given us Googley eyes through which we see the world according to Google's logarithms.....which makes me uncomfortable.

What Digg has done makes sense to me and I hope they stick with it. I also hope that people that are disaffected are able to find another aggregation that evolves to fill their niche. I what I really want is to see a greater diversity of aggregations. Where is the long-tail of aggregation channels?

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Stephen Downes — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:06:29 -0000

I think it may be worth considering what constitutes 'completely open' and/or 'regulated' in a network.

All networks - including Digg - are constructed. All networks are therefore regulated, that is, the manner of their construction impacts their conduct.

Perhaps we should say that to 'regulate' is to manage transactions in a network on a case by case basis, as opposed to 'design', which is the creation (or one-time adjustment) of network parameters.

As for what constitutes 'completely open' in a network that has been designed, I am at a bit of a loss.

Strictly speaking, 'completely open' would entail no design whatsoever, but that would also entail no network at all.

We could say that 'completely open' means that any person may participate as fuly as anyone else. But if so, then the recent change by Digg does not change its status as 'completely open'.

I don't have any faith in the press to actually comprehend any of these subtleties. But I think it would be nice were the press to move beyond empty slogans.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

free market research company — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:16:53 -0000

Eventually we start talking about somehow a regulated environment and we all know that could be more fatal than open network - i.e. let’s work on how to make open network a success rather than falling in right wingers’ hands?

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Scott Karp — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:30:59 -0000

Mat,

Middle ground may not be sexy, but does have the virtue, I think based on much empirical evidence, of being right.

Dave,

Indeed, there's a big lesson for reporters -- as sources move to online network, slamming phones isn't going to get the scoop anymore.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

digidave — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:58:47 -0000

I played a small part in this little fiasco last night - I participated as a community member, not a journalist.

But I do think there was a lesson in there for reporters
""My question is - where were the tech reporters from the larger news organizations? They found out about this from ValleyWag, VentureBeat and Mashable the next morning. Those were the beat bloggers - those are the reporters who got the scoop."

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Mat — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:07:02 -0000

Your piece starts with a great survey & critical look at Digg's recent moves, but the close is rather disappointing, no?

The ol' middle ground conclusion...yawn.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Stephen Downes — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:20:06 -0000

What this proves is something that has been known (and resolutely ignored by pundits) for quite some time: that the network effect is not cumulative.

People keep portraying 'the wisdom of crowds' as though it were some sort of democracy - people vote, and whomever has the most votes wins. That's how Digg operated.

But the failure of Digg is analagous to the failure of democracy. The 'wisdom of crowds' is not obtained by mere voting. What is required - as the new Digg algorithm explicitly recognizes - is diversity.

Re: Digg Demonstrates The Failure Of Completely Open Collaborative Networks

Ryan Holiday — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:07:39 -0000

Disrespect of the top users? I would argue that they haven't done it enough. It's laughable to think that users who've submitted 5,000 stories or voted on even more care about quality anymore. The inflation of diggs it takes to get to the top is a direct result of that. And ultimately that alienates the other 2 million users--who in the aggregate mean much much more to the site than those 5 or 6 elite people whining in a podcast.