What’s the bloody point in all of this?

Is this yet-another half-baked Google product that is doomed to mediocrity? I think that we won’t really know until it all pans out, but in this case, I think its an issue of Google creating something that is quite deliberately a “me-too” type product.

Usually these fail. But this just isn’t “any” company — this is Google, the 900 lb Gorrila that only needs to break wind to turn Steve Ballmer into a quivering mass of incoherent insults (although, granted, it doesn’t take much to do that).

No, I think Google will probably do just fine in copying many features as it finds necessary, and then rolling it out quietly between its users who are also, quietly, using iGoogle, Google Reader, Gmail, Google Docs, and Picasa. While it _could_ do so, I don’t think Google needs to do anything extra other than keep up with other social news / bookmarking features, and keep itself at parity.

And let the non-early adopters who are familiar with Google to start having fun with this service, as it can probably be integrated fairly easily into its own suite of products.

Another rosy-glasses way to look at it is that by joining the social bookmarking / news group, particularly as you’ll be able to share stuff from other social sites, is that it will increase awareness *of* these other sites as well.

You know what they say about a rising tide and all that.

So, yes, you might think that Google Shares is “meh”. And it might be. But I don’t think Google’s really worried about it at this point, for a whole bunch of reasons. And even if it doesn’t really evolve into a killer product, there are reasons for _that_ as well.

What he also divulged was there is an “x-factor” in all of this — a secret sauce, a trump card, an inside man, a tunnel to that honey pot of Techmeme gold.

What is it?

Its simple — send traffic to Techmeme.

Gabe wants Techmeme to get inbound links. Google juice. Pimp action. To be showered with praise. Have flowers strewn at his feet. First borns named after the news aggregator (“Techmeme Hung?” — that’s a direct IN, and what my next child is named — you heard it here first).

… I think you get the idea. :)

As was clear at the Pre-Mesh Hookup, people know I post frequently, and from time to time, it goes up to Techmeme. So what happens when you actually get listed? What about traffic? Does it compare to Digg? Well, its not what you think.

Here are my thoughts on the whole thing:

My own personal story is that I got listed on Techmeme a few months ago, and I’ve had a few successes with it. In terms of traffic you really only get any if you’re listed as a primary story; very little traffic happens if you’re listed as part of the “discussion” (although its not that I’m not grateful that I’m on there, Gabe!”) — like an extra 20-50 hits max on a huge story.

To have a leading story (one of the stories that has branchpoints, or a “discussion” underneath it), it seems as though you have to be linked to; although, this is not a strict association. That is, if there are people linking to you, you will appear in the discussion; but the algorithm is such that sometimes it will associate related stories sometimes when there aren’t enough.

Also, Gabe does seem to have a manual override button (what I like to refer to as a “Defcon button”) where he can set things right if things are amiss (i.e. important stories are missed, stories picked up that don’t seem to go, overly sycophantic posts — you get the idea).

Now the benefits of a leading story is modest in terms of traffic. You can get uniques coming in to the tune of the hundreds perhaps low thousands, which is nice — but no where in league with the social bookmarking giant, Digg (where you can get blasted with almost 100K uniques in a day — a sort of server stalling avalanche of traffic).

An intangible benefit of a leading story, however, is enormous; and it has to do with the quality of the community around Techmeme — which is incredibly high. I don’t know if Gabe has any demographics — but anyone and everyone in the Tech industry reads the thing … and often several times a day. Its a case of the traffic being much more targeted and influential than Digg traffic, which is often a one-off thing, and, if some data is to believed, full of younger individuals than, say Netscape.

Bottom line — Techmeme is the place where connectors and influentials go; traffic might be modest if you get listed, but its important if you do. To get listed, make sure you’re writing good stuff, and that people know you. Comment on their blogs, start being a little more extroverted, and it will pay in spades. And name your first child after Techmeme. That’s a sure in as well. ;)

UPDATE: For a dissertion-strength diatribe on Google, linking as a central place in an algorithm, and Techmeme, please see Shelly Powers’ blog.  Amongst the points I understand, they seem really strong, like. ;)

Citizendium may be one of a few markers that reveal the evolution of user-driven content.

Wikipedia has been marked in the past with controversy, as although there are some limitations, virtually anyone can create an entry on something, and virtually anyone can edit them. For particularly contentious issues (say, “George W. Bush”, or “abortion”), it creates challenges as one or more parties can end up changing a post to support their particular biases — rather than, say, creating an entry with a balanced view on things.

What is fascinating is how this forking or offshoot may represent one step in the evolution of user driven social content sites — one that started with Slashdot, moved on to Netscape, and perhaps, continues with Citizendium. Reddit and Digg also have their roles, but they seem to represent the other end of the spectrum as we shall see.

Slashdot (and Fark, really) represents user-driven content, inasmuch as users submit news stories to editors. Editors act in an ad hoc fashion to choose which stories to profile, and may choose not to profile stories as they see fit. From a content point of view, Slashdot, the grandfather of tech/geek sites, clearly has an editorial board, which controls the sort of stories which make it to their front page.

Digg, on the other hand, operates on the other end of the spectrum. Digg, bills itself as “completely” user driven, where anyone can contribute stories. Anyone can promote a story as well; if a story gets enough “diggs” (promotions), then it will get more notice. An algorithm, however, decides which stories reach the front page(a la Google), and its based on a number of factors — including the individuals who submitted the story, the time of the day the story was submitted, who has promoted the story, and the speed of the promotion.

With Netscape and Citizendium, I think we’re seeing a response to the darker side of the Web2.0 Netscape, in its most recent incarnation, is both an imitator and evolution of Digg in some respects. While it also delivers user driven “news” in the sense that anyone can submit the news, they clearly have editors which Digg alleges it does not have. Editors check news stories, and they also are active in the community as well. Whereas Slashdot’s editors act in an adhoc fashion (guiding all story submissions to the front page), Netscape’s “Anchors” act in a sort of post-hoc fashion. They only see news stories after they’ve been submitted. They then prune them or edit them as they see fit.

What’s fascinating is where Citizendium fits in.

As the Web2.0 user driven social content sites change and evolve, one wonders if the way Wikipedia “forked off” Citizendium is really like Digg “forking off” Netscape. Is there — will there — be a greater push towards bigger editorial control?
One of the greatest alleged strengths of the Web2.0 is the collaborative effort of internet users; the “wisdom of crowds”. Clearly, sites like Digg, Netscape and Wikipedia are set up to take advantage of that power to create a product or service greater than any single person could achieve on their own.

With Netscape and Citizendium, I think we’re seeing a response to the darker side of the Web2.0, which, ironically, may be a product of its own success.

They seem to be the answer, to their owners at any rate, to the question, “Is the only way to prevent manipulation of these sites editorial control?” Will these sorts of sites evolve and change along side their “completely” user driven sites, or do they represent a new breed of user-driven content sites altogether?

Wait for the next post in this series to answer that question. :)

Next Post: Gaming the Web2.0 — The Rise of Editorial Control?

Finally! Rich irony aside, it looks like copyright litigators have cut their teeth suing the recently deceased and little ol’ grannies with the RIAA, and have now moved on to a real challenge — some of the biggest heavyweights on the ‘net. And the blogosphere has taken notice.

Yes, with YouTube and MySpace on one side, and Universal on the other, this grudgematch currently looks like a handicap match, but will it move on to a battle royale? That is, for all you non-professsional wrestling fans — could this copyright contest look to envelop more music labels or even more web2.0 companies?

I’ve often wondered exactly how YouTube continues to get its free ride. People often wonder at its explosive growth, but its clear a signficant component of it is simply free, ripped and rebroadcast copyright material, be it movies or television shows. I mean, who doesn’t like to watch free episodes of Friends, The Colbert Report, or the Ali G Show, either at work or at school?

With the absolutely rabid intensity with how the RIAA has pursued alleged copyright infringers, it almost makes no sense how YouTube has escaped real litigious attention as long as it has. As opposed to a P2P service, in particular, these videos are actually located on their server; to complain they can’t police all 10 bajillion of them is besides the point.

MySpace is also mentioned in several of the articles; however, since its raison d’etre doesn’t seem to hinge on the question of copyright intellictual property, but the cultivation of communities, I wonder what the scope of the litigation will be towards them.

But back to the question: will it involve other web2.0 companies? How about more music labels?

Well, I see more of the latter than the former. While web2.0 companies are built upon several buzzword, I mean concepts, which allow people collaborate and share information online in new ways, the vast majority of them do not allow them to facilitate, to the same degree, the potential amount of copyright infringmenet YouTube has. Of course, it is always possible to share information more readily — go to this website, try this network, go to this mall, to find the best Stuff — but none of them exist to share it.

Will more music labels? If it looks like Universal’s lawsuit gains any traction, you can bet your proverbial bottom dollar. Litigation law-types must be salivating at the chance to sink their teeth into a corporation as deep-pocketed as News Corporation if the YouTube suit offers any indication.

Now, some have said that perhaps all Universal (and subsequent music labels want) is a way to share in the profit pie. Perhaps this is indeed the case; however, I have a feeling Universal and its upcoming brethren will probably ask for more than a pew pounds of flesh for the privilege; if Newscorp and the investors behind YouTube are not willing to cave, I suspect we’ll have a match bloody enough to make Hell in a Cell look like pillow fight.

This is pretty amazing, considering how the inciting event happened SIX days ago, and has been attempted to resolved since that time through a change in the Digg Algorithm.

We could talk about the laggardness of the off-line media to catch up with new media stories, but the thing I find most fascinating about this is how this story just won’t go away. For example, yesterday Bokardo picked up on this issue, an A-List blog if I have ever seen one and did the best blow-by-blow design-oriented analysis of the controversy. But it was five days after the fact (and they did a kind job of referencing one of my posts).

I think it does speak to a couple things:

1. Digg’s impact: Yes, we all knew Digg was onto something when Kevin Rose was featured on Businessweek — but quite frankly no one would care one whit about the controversy if something similar happened to a lesser web2.0 company. Flickr or even Wikipedia would have never gained as much coverage, I think.

2. The insatiable taste for controversy: Geeks might cast disdain and thumb their nose at fashion mags and fashion blogs for keeping up with who Jessica Simpson is or isn’t dating, geeks love controversy just as much. Apple vs. Microsoft. Linux vs. Microsoft. Playstation vs. Xbox (see a pattern here?). When one of their favourite sites are embroiled in it, its a topic no one can ignore.

3. Echo chamber, echo effects: With the blogosphere starving for news and things to talk about, anything that is ever reported on goes through the echo chamber; people report the news again, and again, and again with often very little else to substantial to contribute (I’m guilty of this too from time to time). They link to each other, and then some of it gets wrung through the social network machine where the effects get amplified a thousand fold. Magnification yet again if big-time bloggers get wind of it, and bring it to the attention of their own fan base. Amplification yet again.

4. The blogosphere’s impact: When stories reverb throughout the blogsphere, it drags in the attention of off-line media. I think this speaks to the evolving effect of blogging in the wider role of Journalism. A recent study confirmed my suspicions that very few ‘ordinary’ net users read blogs regularly, or even use RSS — but the effect of blogs and those at their helm continue to change and grow.

Its hard to imagine where all of this attention will go. Will Digg regard this as just more publicity for them — let it fall under the umbrella of “all publicity is good publicity”? Should we expect writeups in slower monthly periodicals next month? And what will the next wave of controversy be for Kevin Rose and his merry band of friends?

We’ll just have to wait and see.

Having woke up this morning, there has been an utter explosion of news, commentary, and coverage over this most recent spate at Digg. Unlike ForeverGeek, Aliwood, or any other phenomena, the particular issue of the top 20 or 30 diggers ‘circle-digging’ each other (intentionally or no) seems to have really gone supernova, literally, over the course of less than 24h.

The Timeline

1. jesusphreak posts his article on his observation that FP posts seem to be dominated by the Top20

2. a firestorm of commentary erupts on Digg, with rumblings of group-marking all top20 submissions as “lame” or to be “buried”.
3. the original article is marked as innacurate, and gets Dugg into the stratosphere at the same time

4. the sheer volume of comments prompts Kevin Rose to issue an edict proclamation statement over how Digg will change its algorithm

5. top digger p9 leaves Digg amongst the implied accusation that he is gaming Digg.

6. news gets picked up by TechCrunch

7. coverage bursts into conflagatory orgy of commentary, news, finger wagging, and of course titles which play on the name “digg” (see below)

With the enormous amount of coverage TechCrunch gets on its own, I think it was the ‘tipping point’ to all the other major blogs / news sources picking it up.

So far the stories have hit:

• Guardian Unlimited: “Digg Confronts Circle-Digging Problem”
• Rough Type: “Undiggnified”
• Search Engine Watch: Digg to Change System to Stem Gaming
• ZDNet: Digital Micromarkets: Why Digg fraud Google bombing and Wikipedia vandalism will not be stopped
• Techmeme: Digg Friends
• CNN Money: Digg Erupts Over Who Controls the Headlines
• Wired: Changes at Digg Increase Diversity, Decrease Rigging

]]> http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/09/07/digg-controversy-explodes/feed/ 4 http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/09/07/digg-history-update-2-kro-says-its-ok-to-digg-each-other-sort-of/ http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/09/07/digg-history-update-2-kro-says-its-ok-to-digg-each-other-sort-of/#comments Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:31:17 +0000 Tony Hung http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/09/07/digg-history-update-2-kro-says-its-ok-to-digg-each-other-sort-of/

Read the rest of this entry »

]]> Digg History has yet been updated again.

Here is the text that has been addended to A brief history of digg controversy:

*********************************************

Circle-Digging: Elite Diggers Controlling Frontpage
September 2006. Jesusphreak posts an article questioning how democratic the digging processes is when he notices that a significant proportion of the frontpage articles are submitted, then dugg by elite, top20 (or 50) bloggers. It seems like these diggers digg each others submissions, thus propelling those submissions right to the frontpage — primarily because the Digg algorithm places weight on reputation. Something that elite Diggers have in spades. A firestorm of commentary erupts, causing it to hit all kinds of major news blogs, and even eliciting a reponse from Kevin Rose himself, wherein he goes on to state that Digg has plans to change the way top “Diggers” are recognized (Submitters vs. Diggers) in addition to subtle changes to the Digg algorithm so it will, apparently, offer a more equitable way for stories to be promoted to the Frontpage. Hemphill81 weighed on the issue himself, stating that he was just using the tools available; the commentary which followed was energetic to say the least.

Also of interest, p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, the Number One Digger decided to quit Digg after the whole debacle, and how Kevin Rose chose to handle things. [tip: Chrisek at DiggAddicts on this one!]. GregD similarly weighed in with his thoughts.

Interestingly enough, it pierces the consciousness of the blosphere, and quite a few other blogs begin to pick up on the story.

• DiggAddict — Controversy
• GoldenGod.net — “Digg Rigg Drama Bigg”
• ProfitPapers.com — “Is Digg Rigged?”

]]> http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/09/07/digg-history-update-2-kro-says-its-ok-to-digg-each-other-sort-of/feed/ 2