I was more than a little surprised to see a Techmeme sponsored post – a Tabblo post defending Yahoo! that I’d spotted in the side column over the weekend – appear in my feed today. My first thought was that Gabe had perhaps decided to mix sponsored posts into the feed, but that seemed very unlike Gabe. So I took a look at the site, and it turns out that the headline post for Monday morning is the Tabblo post, with everything written over the weekend about the Peanut Butter Manifesto appearing underneath it.
This seems really odd to me. I read a lot of those weekend posts, and I don’t remember anyone linking to the Tabblo sponsored piece. The topic is the same, but I’d be surprised to find that anyone had linked to it. For example, Eric Jackson’s piece, which is currently the first Related Item under the Tabblo piece, doesn’t link to it.
This is not to suggest that the Tabblo post isn’t valuable in its own right, just that it seems odd that Gabe’s algorithm ought to give top billing to a sponsored post that doesn’t seem to be ‘involved’ in the conversation – not in terms of being linked to, anyway. Perhaps I’m wrong on that part – I haven’t checked every one of the Related Posts, for example – but a quick scan suggests I’m not.
Quick update – I haven’t even posted this and the Tabblo post has dropped to #2. Still …
Update: Indeed! Tony posts on New Rules at Techmeme on sponsored posts.
Update: Gabe to the rescue – he sets me straight in the comments below. Chastened, I will eat crow, but not too much. It was, after all, an open question.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve noticed that not all Top Items / headline posts are necessarily linked to by its “discussion” items; sometimes the aggregator will shove in related “discussion” items underneath, and this phenomenon predated the Tabloo entry.
Now, whether or not the algorithm gives precedence (different weight) to sponsors into making it INTO organic Top Item search is another question. ;)
Cheers
t
I’ve noticed that too – good point. And they flip with odd regularity.
Rob, in the era of Technorati and Google Blog search, etc., it’s not enough to say “I don’t remember anyone linking to it”. You can check. Why didn’t you?
Had you checked, you would have found it was linked to, even before your and Tony’s post. Though you might have lost a post with dark suggestions about rigged placement.
Sponsored status did not contribute to that post appearing. The fleeting top placement was largely a function of the other posts getting really stale and old.
There are no “new rules” as far a sponsored posts becoming regular posts.
Ironically, I’m also experimenting with marked placement in the left as “Recent Sponsor Posts”, and once Tabblo’s post drops off the edge it might then appear as a “Recent Sponsor Post”. Kinda confusing, but then sponsor posts don’t usually become regular posts (third time in three months).
I think you’re overreacting, Gabe. There was nothing “dark” or suggestive of ‘rigging’, whatever those words mean in this context, about what I wrote. It was effectively an open question that plainly stated that I wasn’t sure.
I didn’t check because I didn’t check. If I’d been inclined to be saying something like “Fred Jones stole money from his company”, I would have checked to make sure it was true first. But that’s not what I was saying – and I thought I was pretty obvious about that – I was starting a conversation. Because I was having a conversation, or thinking I might – not completing an affidavit, or filing a story with the WaPo. I think there’s a difference, Gabe. Regardless of what search tools are out there.
Well, I disagree. The idea that something is fishy at Techmeme, a clear suggestion of your post, could easily spread far and wide (blogs love silly blog-related scandals) and cause real damage, so I believe it’s only fair to approach this more seriously.
So yeah, if you’re going to go as far as reasoning about how links might have affected my algorithm, which you did do, of course you should actually check on that. It takes all of 5 seconds.