How Google Could Solve the Digg Gaming Problem
Digg founder Kevin Rose said today that the site will be making changes to its ranking algorithms. The problem is that a small number of Digg users have too much influence over what makes it to the home page. The general perception is that sites like Digg work via the wisdom of crowds, a term recently repopularized by James Surowiecki in his book of the same name. The idea behind crowd wisdom is that large numbers of people with different perspectives will be consistently better than individuals at problem solving. In Digg's case, the problem to be solved is the promotion of stories. Most people assume that because a large number of diverse people promote stories on Digg, then the resulting top stories are the product of collective wisdom. Unfortunately, Digg doesn't really work that way because each user has foreknowledge of other users' diggs. Diggers promote stories that have already been promoted. This is the herding instinct. If you read Surowiecki's book carefully, you'll note the wisdom of crowds relies on diversity, local knowledge and independence. It's that last quality Digg users don't have. Instead, each digg is an individually applied discrete unit of imitation, leading to an information cascade. It's one big Web 2.0 bandwagon. One way to solve the Digg gaming problem, then, is to remove the friends system whereby diggers can tell what their friends are digging. That's a non-starter for Digg, since community is an important aspect of the site. Another way: Remove the digg rank. Also a non-starter for a site based on collective enumeration. So how could Google solve this problem? Implement its own human-ranking system on Google News, and do it in a way that doesn't show how many people have ranked a story. Provide an alternate site -- say, Google News Community -- that displays the results of the anonymous ranking on Google News. Another way to do this would be to allow users to anonymously rank stories from their Google Personalized Homepage. Those results would also be aggregated on Google News Community. It's just a thought. Google's been experimenting with social search, and Google News has the traffic to make the system work. Plus, the resultant traffic to publisher sites would demonstrate Google is a boon to traffic, not a detriment. Just a thought. |

Comments (6)
The anonymous posting is a good idea in some senses, but do people really want to spend their time posting anonymous stories with no recognition? That is part of how Digg has become such a large community the "top diggers" have contributed a large part of news and items to the site. Without their contributions the site would still be in the same predicament only a new set of users. Don't try to fix what is not already broken.
Posted by hemphill81 | September 7, 2006 12:51 PM
I feel ya. I addressed that problem, partly, when I said that community is a big part of the Digg site. I should have explicitly mentioned recognition. There are ways, though, to attribute "digging" without spoiling the ranking process with enumeration and direct appelation of users. For example, the top submitter could be recognized at the end of every day or end of every week. Or submitters could be rewarded on a cash basis but receive no recognition on the site.
Posted by Steve Bryant | September 7, 2006 1:21 PM
Great idea and great response to the questions raised above. If google's not already on this, I hope they get there fast.
Posted by Greg | September 7, 2006 3:02 PM
Google could always try to leverage Orkut for social news-ranking...if it was Brazilian news, that is.
Posted by SeanGallagher | September 7, 2006 9:27 PM
Totally wrong, your whole artical is about how to make Digg more democratic. But the goal of Digg is having best stories, not better democracy. Btw, as longtime user of Google news, and newcomer to Dig. My opinion is that Google new is quite inferior compared to Digg interm of diversity, indepth and hotness.
Posted by TanNg | September 10, 2006 9:35 AM
TanNg: The democratic aspect and better stories go hand in hand. The top diggers aren't smarter or better than anyone else, they just agree to digg any story that's submitted by any within their faction. There are a ton of stupid front page stories which get dugg by these goons. If you look at the front page, you will see a LOT of names over and over again. Click on one of these repeat front-pagers and check their digg history. You'll find even more repetition in whose stories they digg. It's an oligarchy. They have no right to control the flow of stories.
Posted by Lavarock | September 11, 2006 3:53 AM