- Comments:41 Comments
- Category:Social Media, Technology
When looking at the last 500 front page stories on Digg, the top 10 submitters controlled a mind-boggling 31.4% (157 out of 500). Some of the names on the list are regulars on the front page. A few have found new success using the new Digg Recommendation Engine.
This is not an accusation placed on anyone on the list. It is unlikely that anyone is intentionally gaming the new system in any way. Several have started submitting a higher volume of content, but this is definitely nothing that can be considered “gaming the system”.
The system, it appears, games itself.
Using the Neoformix Digg Explorer, we sorted by Users and looked at the results of the top submitters.
As of the time of this posting, here are the top submitters for the last 500 front page stories as well as their total front page submissions during that time: (UPDATE: The names have been removed, as these users have done nothing wrong)
The recommendation engine is new and will have flaws. Still, one of the goals of the Digg algorithm is to promote diversity. With such an infinitesimal number of submitters controlling the front page, is there any room for the rest of the users?
* * *
Read more Analysis of Digg on this blog or visit one of our benefactors at Automotive SEO.
41 Comments
First!
I’ve always wanted to do that. Anyway, I used Digg for a bit, but I love my Stumble…Digg tends to have antagonistic reviews regularly, like it’s Microsoft. From what I have read, Digg is the communist of the group. We need to weed such types out of the web, before Congress allows certain information to be bottlenecked through censorships. I don’t know enough about Digg to pass judgement, but it’s never sounded good.
Google: “Net Neutrality” We’re gonna get screwed soon. Better help prevent it.
[...] Digg Analysis post on popFAIL reveals an alarming “widening of the gap” between the top users and the middle users. [...]
Digg has become SOOOOO boring.
Checking the current statistics, it shows that 51.5% of the front page was submitted by 28 users. 253 out of 500 front page stories controlled by 1/1000th of 1% of the community.
The real problem has very little to do with the users. They are all quality submitters, the ones that I know. The major flaw in the recommendation engine as it stands (and I’m sure it will be fixed eventually) is that to get recommendations, you need to get dugg. The more you get dugg, the more you get recommended, which means that you’ll get more diggs, which leads to more recommendations…
You get the picture.
In other words, by submitting a ton and making a ton of friends, you have a better chance of hitting the front page. This is, pretty much, how it has been for a long time. The difference now is that the recommendation engine makes it more pronounced. It widens that gap.
Now if you look at the algorithm you’ll see that “more digging” will also make you less compatible with the guys who digg less than you.
The point is: You have to digg and to NOT digg the same stuff to get a high compatibility rating. So it doesn’t make sense to just digg all there is to get more people to digg your stuff.
digg leans a little too much for my tastes to begin with, this just makes it worse for me anyways
I really don’t think Digg has what it takes to be consequential.
IMHO there are too many biases in the approach.
It’d be better to have people directly vote for articles on media sites and for them to be automatically aggregated.
The process of submitting, checking and then hoping others reading Digg will vote them up is too complex a model to work well.
LOL dude that is too funny. I crack myself up.
JT
[EDIT: No unrelated links, please]
half the shit on digg is stupid
who the hell cares if about this dumb shit, really
seriously, give me a reason!!!
Great analysis, man. This had to get out, everybody knew it, but not no one had tangible proof, if you know what I mean.
This is just human nature in action. Most people don’t submit stories to digg.
It seems that a simple way to cure this inequality is to set a cap of perhaps 5 articles per user, per 500.
[...] A look at the last 500 front page stories on Digg reveals that 10 submitters control a mind-boggling 31.4% (157 out of 500). Some of the names on the list are familiar to the front page, while a few have found new success using Digg’s new Recommendation Engine.http://popfail.com/technology/recommended-flaw-31-of-digg-homepage-submitted-by-10-users/ [...]
I would suggest to those 10 to get a life.
And I want add: maybe DIGG should now work in different way.
Just pop ANY news recommended by anybody in the topmost place and give it points if anybody diggs it or bury it if it is buries.
I subscribed DIGG some day ago just to find out that my recommendation value 0 shit because I had no friends in my list… lol.
So here is the way to hack: just add as many friends as you can and you will have probably more news in the top rankings. Of course you must not digg crap.
And with so many nolifers out there, there is always somebody abusing the system.
I like Maki Maki’s and msaleem’s submissions though…
I used to like Digg but most of the users that make comments are such idiots, the way they down vote people who have legitmately decent things to say is bs. Mob mentality rules at Digg, while Kevin Rose and his cronies cash in. I am willing to put money on that Rose and them are involved in allowing some companies to game the site for buzz. It’s obvious. The system is broken. This is what happens when you have a no talent guy like Rose come up with a good idea and what you end up with is a gamed site where the mob rules. Freedom of speech, blah blah, they have silent mods over there to shut you out. Fuck digg. We need something for the people, this isn’t working.
hey everyone… actually this phenomenon is not all that mysterious… it is called two different things… 1 it is a “longtail effect” (see “The Longtail” by Chris Anderson) and 2 it is nearly a power law distribution (fabulous analysis of social software like Digg, Facebook, Myspace and other services in the book “Here Comes Everybody” by Clay Shirky)… It has been discovered that many many forms of software search engines and social services, even electronic messaging conversations and commenting situations take place by about 1 to 5 percent of the viewers while many more sporadic comments and “usage” takes place by fewer and fewer people… in the Shirky book the same thing is analyzed over and over… on any given online activities (the writing of Wikipedia articles, contributions to Linux development, Posts to group photos on Flickr) the majority of activity is by a few people, with hundreds more tailing/trailing off with little or minor (but important) contributions… especially on Wikipedia in which minor could mean spelling errors are corrected whereas major portions of articles are written by few people… the power law distribution shows up EVERYWHERE in nature and business…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law
here is an article on wikipedia… look at the graph then look at the numbers posted above in the main article by Rucker and notice the fit…
(so yes, if Digg is setup how proposed above… then either more people need to contribute more and break the power law or a new algorithm that is “more random” that somehow subverts those that contribute the most needs be used)
so just an interesting thought I hope…
[...] Digg Recommended Flaw: 31% of Homepage submitted by 10 Users [...]
The Long Tail is also depicted quite well on the TED website.
Great analogy!
The only thing I use Digg for is to see the top 10 stories of the past 24 hours via a widget on my homepage, which usually means it must have at least 1,000 diggs. I see something interesting, I click on the link which opens up the original post (bypassing the digg comments page).
What do I care who made the original submission to Digg or got on the home page most often? I’ve been to the Digg.com home page….about 2 times. I suspect I’m not alone.
[...] confirms what Digg management has furiously tried to avoid over several iterations — that a few individuals pretty much own the front page of Digg (specifically, 10 users have submitted over 30% of front page [...]
The top news in digg nowadays rarely interest me to read further. Not sure if other old digg readers feel the same. I spend most of my time in reddit instead.
Yeah, this isn’t that surprising. I bet 1 out of 100 users even both to register on Digg. There is always going to be a much small group that has a greater influence over content because they put the most effort into contributing content and their time.
Forget digg
Dgg s rpdly dggng tslf nt crdblty hl.
Thy r ncrdbly “tght” wth thr lttl trf nd r ntrsly clqd fr vtng dwn nyn wh trs t gt n thr wy.
Sms t b gng th ppst drctn f gd scl st.
Fr m - I dn’t vn bthr wth thm bynd gttng lnk n thr nd ny ncdntl dggs - bt nt ntrstd n th bndwdth sck frm gky kds wh dn’t by nythng.
Rick Butts
@#26 aka Rick Butts,
Sometimes people who use Social Media sites like Digg just want to see interesting content thats relevant to them (tech news for example) rather than having scumbag marketers trying to make a buck off of them.
I really am not the biggest fan of your kind, so you’ve been Disemvowled.
Signed,
- The Mean & Nasty Admin
I agree that sites like these shouldn’t be used jst for business promotion. There should be a limit set and thats that!
Digg needs to updates its algorithm or they’re gonna be screwed, period! It’s way too simple for marketeers to figure out for now…
[...] Recommended Flaw: 31% of Digg Homepage submitted by 10 Users | popFAIL Huh. (tags: digg statistics web2.0) [...]
[...] to a very interesting analysis by JD Rucker, in the days after Digg recommendations went live, this is how the numbers shook out. “31.4% of the [...]
[...] It’s been pointed out recently that around a third of the last 500 front page stories on Digg were submitted by only 10 people. [...]
[...] Digg’s flawed algorithims (popfail) An interesting article pointing out just how biased Digg’s front page can be. [...]
[...] Full Article Recommended Flaw: 31% of Digg Homepage submitted by 10 Users [...]
Thought you might be interested in this response from DIGG to my tech request…
How to bury a submitter
I have learned
how to bury a submission
how to block a commenter
But I can not figure out how to
block a submitter
There are some people who submit all the time and while I may like a few of their articles, in general I do not like what they submit and would rather NEVER see any of their submissions. I want to block the submitter.
How do I do this?
Reply
Forward
Digg Feedback
to me
show details 9:03 AM (10 hours ago)
Reply
Sorry, that is not possible at this time but we will pass along your suggestion!
-Digg Support
Same old s**t dog, just another day.
Http://www.squidoo.com/doughboy
[...] Social media however has changed the game. There’s huge scope for mediocre content to gain visibility… if you are or know a power user you’re almost there. Social media sites are in effect cliques. They are dominated by a small powerful user base. Build relationships with power users or become one yourself and you’re in the club. For proof look no further than Digg - 31% of their homepage is submitted by 10 users. [...]
[...] 2008, the front page was instantly transformed into a 20-man show. During the first week of July, 31% of the front page stories were submitted by 10 people and 51% were submitted by [...]
[...] 2008, the front page was instantly transformed into a 20-man show. During the first week of July, 31% of the front page stories were submitted by 10 people and 51% were submitted by [...]
[...] feature that they seem to be so darned proud of. The problem with the Rec’ Engine is that it doesn’t help out new users. In fact, it gives users with large networks of friends even more power. The more people that digg [...]
[...] stories on Digg, the top 10 submitters dominated stories by 31% (157 out of 500). Check out this story for more (thanks JD [...]