Comments on: Digg: What’s My Motivation? http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/ any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:01:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: robhyndman.com » Blog Archive » More on Whether Digg-ing is ‘Work’ http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/#comment-23028 robhyndman.com » Blog Archive » More on Whether Digg-ing is ‘Work’ Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:25:40 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/#comment-23028 [...] The Digg-natives are restless once again at Digg, their ‘labours’ unrewarded, they feel. Of course, since what they do isn’t work, surely there’s no real beef? Related Posts [...] [...] The Digg-natives are restless once again at Digg, their ‘labours’ unrewarded, they feel. Of course, since what they do isn’t work, surely there’s no real beef? Related Posts [...]

]]> By: judson http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/#comment-13105 judson Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:27:25 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/#comment-13105 As one of the clean-up type people on wikipedia, who has also done a few "heavy lifting" articles, I don't know if I agree that the cultures are that comparable. The people that do cleanup don't get a lot of recognition either. It really depends on why you're doing it, I think many people like to see their work online, and know it helps others. <a href="http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/results.htm">Other studies</a> have shown that the original author on an article usually has significant portions of their writing remain intact over time. I think, for many people, just going back and recognizing your work is recognition enough. Digg is very recognition centered though, whereas wikipedia isn't. Heavy editors know their edit counts on wikipedia (using not so easy tools), but when you say you have a super high count people assume (usually rightly so) that you do a lot of semi-automated work. The wikipedia culture does acknowledge edit count as an indicator, but not a proxy for quality. After a while it becomes obvious that the "drive-by" edits are often a source of a lot of good information, that's why people are constantly trying to make it easy to edit. As one of the clean-up type people on wikipedia, who has also done a few “heavy lifting” articles, I don’t know if I agree that the cultures are that comparable. The people that do cleanup don’t get a lot of recognition either. It really depends on why you’re doing it, I think many people like to see their work online, and know it helps others. Other studies have shown that the original author on an article usually has significant portions of their writing remain intact over time. I think, for many people, just going back and recognizing your work is recognition enough.

Digg is very recognition centered though, whereas wikipedia isn’t. Heavy editors know their edit counts on wikipedia (using not so easy tools), but when you say you have a super high count people assume (usually rightly so) that you do a lot of semi-automated work. The wikipedia culture does acknowledge edit count as an indicator, but not a proxy for quality. After a while it becomes obvious that the “drive-by” edits are often a source of a lot of good information, that’s why people are constantly trying to make it easy to edit.

]]> By: Tony http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/#comment-12871 Tony Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:31:06 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/07/digg-whats-my-motivation/#comment-12871 I honestly believe the reason why the algorithm was the way it was, was to reward diggers for their hard work. Unfortunately increasing the worth of their diggs a friends system == a system ripe for unintentional abuse. Re: altruism: the community has exploded over this because many of them feel their own submission are not getting recognition when they may be of equally good substance. A sense of injustice sprinkled with a dash of righteousness will always get a community in arms Re: isolated case: definitely not. Controversy has dogged digg for the past year -- particularly because its become the traffic and VC magnet the way it has. Particularly, the way that Digg, I believe, bills itself as user driven and user moderated, when clearly there are moderators which not only exist, but exist and exercise their powers with impunity. Obliterating posts and profiles without any hint of transparency. One wonders when the community will catch on _that_. Hope you don't mind -- a brief history of the controversy at Digg: http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/08/25/a-brief-history-of-digg-controversy/ Cheers, Tony @ DJI I honestly believe the reason why the algorithm was the way it was, was to reward diggers for their hard work.

Unfortunately increasing the worth of their diggs a friends system == a system ripe for unintentional abuse.

Re: altruism: the community has exploded over this because many of them feel their own submission are not getting recognition when they may be of equally good substance. A sense of injustice sprinkled with a dash of righteousness will always get a community in arms

Re: isolated case: definitely not. Controversy has dogged digg for the past year — particularly because its become the traffic and VC magnet the way it has.

Particularly, the way that Digg, I believe, bills itself as user driven and user moderated, when clearly there are moderators which not only exist, but exist and exercise their powers with impunity.

Obliterating posts and profiles without any hint of transparency.

One wonders when the community will catch on _that_.

Hope you don’t mind — a brief history of the controversy at Digg:
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/08/25/a-brief-history-of-digg-controversy/

Cheers,
Tony @ DJI

]]>