Thursday, September 14
As my faithful blog readers (hi mom) know, I've become obsessed with digg.
Not for what it is today, but for what it promises. Finally, I can see the future when groups of people can rise to become editors as or more useful than the editors at major online newspapers.
There are problems with digg as it stands today, for sure. For example, here is an excellent article by Muhammad Saleem pointing out that digg fails the James Surowiecki "wisdom of crowds" test for independent votes.
How can digg fix this? For starters, how about more intermixing of new articles with "popular" articles. And maybe not showing the user the number of diggs per article, so as not to bias the user toward herding. Digg might also disallow a digg until you have at least clicked through to read the article, so as to minimize the impact of punchy headlines.
Check out the right column of my blog to see what I've been digging. ¶6:05 AM; digg
Not for what it is today, but for what it promises. Finally, I can see the future when groups of people can rise to become editors as or more useful than the editors at major online newspapers.
There are problems with digg as it stands today, for sure. For example, here is an excellent article by Muhammad Saleem pointing out that digg fails the James Surowiecki "wisdom of crowds" test for independent votes.
How can digg fix this? For starters, how about more intermixing of new articles with "popular" articles. And maybe not showing the user the number of diggs per article, so as not to bias the user toward herding. Digg might also disallow a digg until you have at least clicked through to read the article, so as to minimize the impact of punchy headlines.
Check out the right column of my blog to see what I've been digging. ¶6:05 AM; digg
