The Drill Down 025A – RevoltNation, Part 1: The Issue at Hand

Social bookmarking site Digg.com recently made adjustments to their promotion algorithm that had the net effect of making it exceedingly difficult for frequent and popular submitters to get quality content to the front page of the site. Concerned that these changes would lock out their submissions and effectively kill the incentive to participate in the community, a core group of submitters, represented here by Digg users Andy, Mu, Reg, and David Cohn collected all their major grievances against Digg and issued them in a statement. In part 1, we discuss those grievances, and what we expect from Digg in response. In part 2, Jay Adelson & Kevin Rose, founders & operators of Digg, address those concerns.
(Apologies for the poor audio quality of this weeks’ episode. Major technical issues!)


Show links:
Digg: New Algorithm Changes
The Digg Community’s Concerns With Digg
New Digg algorithm angers the social masses

Feedback is absolutely welcome, but positive or negative, let’s keep it constructive. Flamers will be deleted.

  • Great show fellas! I’m waiting for episode II.

  • Pingback: Rose, Adelson Respond to Diggers Concerns on TDD | Soshable | Social Media Blog()

  • Andy – you rock for turning this around so quick.

    Listening to it again, I think we absolutely did the right thing.

  • Pingback: The Drill Down » Blog Archive » The Digg Community’s Concerns With Digg()

  • Ryan

    I’m concerned that popular digg submitters use the so called digg effect to their advantage. Try creating a new digg profile and submitting a story and getting it to the front page, now you know what it is like for a regular digger. The new feature I want on digg is the feature that separates friends and fans into those that do and don’t accept shouts, that way I can remove about 400 of my friends. I’m manually, going though them now.

  • Great show! The authentication methods are very original :D

    Can’t wait for part two!

  • Ryan

    Okay. My last comment was a rant. I’ve thought some more and have a more creative comment to make.

    What I would like to see from digg are stories with 30 diggs on the front page next to stories with 3000 diggs. I submit stories on gay topics (gay marriage, organ donations or comedy), I’m concerned that some from of hidden discrimination can occur with professional buries, I think that if a digg is public then a bury should be. I’d also like to have a report on my profile that shows me if a friend or fan buries my story, so I can remove them as a friend / fan them. Or for that matter, I want to have a report generated on my profile if I have a friend that has never digg my story.

  • Whats up guys, I listen to every show, although always admittedly late. Kudos on the episode. I think everyone would appreciate the positive discourse. This topic could easily turn into a rant and I thought you handled the conversation with class. Looking forward to Part2!

  • It’s had to fathom the sense of entitlement the people in the broadcast have.

    The main point of the algorithm changes are to promote stories with a greater diversity of diggers. I’ve been listening to you guys rant for 20 minutes and you’ve only now come to actually address this central point. And what is the counter argument?

    “If completely random people are voting for your stories they get a heads up over establish “respected” users – which is counter intuitive. The respected users should be taken as the AUTHORITY on good content.”

    Then in the next breath you hear them complaining about the end of democracy on Digg. This is absolutely ridiculous. The guy in this broadcast who is saying that digg’s policy on the algorithm is not the right policy because it undermines the digg mafia is prima facie admitting that a group of ‘respected’ users have established editorial control over the site and believe that they are the arbiters of quality content… just like a normal mainstream editor believes that he/she is the determiner of good content.

    This is blatant hypocrisy… but even worse, these people have only established their authority because they had a set of mates willing to vote for their submissions – as a favour for digging other submissions of the group (as one fellow openly admits in the broadcast) – when the algorithm was simpler and not savvy to these practices.

    Digg has absolutely made the right choice in throwing you guys to the wall. I just hope that all this self-righteous and self affirming complaining doesn’t cause them to change their mind. You guys are not the heart and soul of digg at all.

  • Jeez, Andy, do you ever sleep???? Kudos to you for your hard work; and kudos to you guys for getting through to Kevin and Jay. Well done.

  • Pingback: from revolt to resolution in 12 hours or less – by [muhammad.saleem]()

  • Pingback: » 12 Tips To Make The Front Page of the “NEW” Digg (Humor…..Kind Of)()

  • Pingback: the drill down: kevin rose and jay adelson talk to the community – by [muhammad.saleem]()

  • Mark

    Come on, you “top diggers” usually get thousands of diggs per submission. You’re gonna get front page stories whether they turn up the threshold or not, let the little guy have a chance.

  • Pingback: Social Blend 05.2 - Episode Stripe: Revolting Digg()

  • Pingback: from revolt to resolution in 12 hours or less : kazpro.com()

  • Pingback: seo finance blog » Blog Archive » 12 Tips To Make The Front Page of the “NEW” Digg (Humor…..Kind Of)()

  • Pingback: 12 Tips To Make The Front Page of the “NEW” Digg (Humor…..Kind Of) | Online SEO Blog()