We, the Diggers, are our own gatekeepers; the responsibility to bring each other the day's stories is shared equally amongst us.
However, there are some that don't feel this way. These "shepherd" Diggers have a flock of "sheep" Diggers behind them that digg that “flock” to the shepherd's stories, regardless of quality, importance or general appeal. If the flock is large and active enough, the shepherd can get their story pushed to the front page without any diggs from other users. This “flocking” has been going on for a while now, though many Diggers may not have noticed.
"you agree not to use the Services… 9. with the intention of artificially inflating or altering the 'digg count', blog count, comments, or any other Digg service, including by way of creating separate user accounts for the purpose of artificially altering Digg's services."Unfortunately, that’s about as close as it gets. It seems the only reason that flocking can still occur without specific violation of the terms of use is the ambiguity of Digg's usage of the word "artificial." Still, I think it's very clear what's going here.
It's time to expose the flock.
Please note that by posting this list, I am not telling you how to conduct yourself on Digg. If you choose to digg or bury a story, it is your choice and your choice alone. This list that I will create on a separate post exists simply to let Diggers know which of their fellow users are believed to artificially inflate the popularity of their flock's submitted content. What you decide to do with this list is entirely up to you.
While I will never ask you to bury flocked stories, one thing I would recommend for you to do is keep your eyes peeled. If you believe someone may be engaging in sheep-like or shepherd-like activities, or any sort of flocking around, feel free to post on the comment section of "Accusations." Your post should include the user name of the accused, as well as some solid evidence. Please don't abuse this or turn it in to a McCarthyist witch hunt, for it will get annoying and I would rather this site not be full of angry comments by falsely accused (though brief rants by the rightly accused are welcome and will provide us with some good laughs).
If you read this and think you may be a shepherd or sheep, and you wish to speak up, please do so.
If you feel strongly about this and would like to help me out with managing this blog, let me know!
4 comments:
Your "Grrr, let's fight 'the man'" theory assumes the threshold for promotion is the same for everyone. I assure you it's not. In fact the threshold for promotion is higher for me than anyone else. While it may be relatively easy for one of my submissions to accumulate 50+ diggs, keep in mind it takes upwards of 150+ for most stories of mine to get promoted (if they do at all--and at least 3/4 don't). Most other digg submitters' articles get promoted in the 50-100 digg range. Seriously. Take a look at the front page stories for an average day and see how many are mine. How many are makimaki, talsiach, jaybol, msaleem. Now compare them to how many are not mine in a day. You'll see, Digg's algorithm levels the playing field for all.
Hey mr. babyman, good to hear from you. Don't take it personally that I picked on you first, I had a list of others already, but at the time you had the top two stories on the front page at the time. I probably wouldn't have cared so much if that one from esquire wasn't complete crap. It just looks awfully fishy when you read a comment section full of bad reviews yet the story gets dugg +3500 times. I'm not saying that you could flock anywhere close to those kinds of numbers, but if a random Digger were to post that, it wouldn't get touched, and rightfully so.
About the algorithm, I already knew that. However, thanks for pointing out that my "theory" assumes equal thresholds. Maybe I'll tweak it a little to clear that up, but it was not my intention to appear like I was making that assumption. Given that, you and I both know that all it takes is a top 10 basically anywhere to get "noticed," and your sheep can get you that far.
BTW I'm assuming that by you outing other shepherds that you want me to add them to the list. Thanks, I'll get on it right away! And yeah, those guys post some shit articles too. Especially that pizzler guy. I mean, occasionally he posts something worth a look, but most of the time I'd rather just read a cosmo.
I've been critical of Digg in the past - and the idea of blind digging or IM-ing for diggs.
My article: http://www.digidave.org/adventures_in_freelancing/2007/12/diggs-iming-epe.html
I can tell you - you are barking up the wrong tree by accusing BabyMan.
I agree that there are lots of people who want to try and take advantage of the Digg system, but BabyMan isn't one - he engages in it as honestly and openly as possible. He does still get a lot of front pages but that's because
1. He uses the site a lot
2. He has a loyal following because he posts quality stuff.
Of course "quality" is subjective - so while you might not like something he posts, it's safe to say that 'it takes all kinds.'
I agree with your overall mission - to try and keep digg a level playing field, but you are aiming your gun in the wrong direction.
I never give anyone a digg url on IM. Instead I just share the direct link to an interesting blog post or funny image with my friends on IM and just remind them of the digg bookmarklet.
No violations there!
Post a Comment