I have been chatting with a few of our new Netscape Navigators today after one of them mentioned that ever since Jason posted about 30% of the content appearing on Digg’s front page being posted by the top 10 Digg users (3% per top user) that there has been some sort of change in the Digg algorithm. From the sounds of it, the new Digg algorithm punishes top users for being at the top, so that sometimes a top user’s story with 45 diggs won’t reach the front page, whereas someone else’s story would be there in 27-30 diggs. Evidently, this has been something that the top diggers have been talking about even before we actually started hiring on Navigators. I’d be interested in knowing if it’s true and the thoughts behind implementing such a plan. In one sense it evens out the playing field, but on a website that is built upon popularity of stories, it seems odd to punish user popularity in this way.
The current speculation points to a few possible theories. One is that Digg has adjusted the amount of weight that a friend’s digg has on your submissions (so essentially that would mean they would be punishing you for befriending your friends, since each of your friends’ votes would be worth less than a strangers’ vote). Evidently, they’ve been banning people for befriending “too many” people.
Does anyone have any evidence of this being the case? Anyone else notice this trend?
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Someone told me that it was against Digg’s Toss to post to a community forum and ask for your friends of that forum to join your friend list. Is this true?
It IS important that newbies NOT be dissuaded or disenchanted by NOT getting many Diggs – or never getting on the Homepage – with high quality Stories.
Perhaps the newer Algos could give a very slight “Push” based on the less “ties” a user has. But, on the other hand, it could also be argued by some, that top diggers have “earned” their reliability – and should benefit.