Submit your breaking news stories and original articles to us by contacting us
As the web 2.0 hype continues to become ever more
href="http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/09/03/getting-outside-the-frothy-
bubble/">frothy, it becomes more and more obvious that abusing the
inherent ’social goodness’ is not really that difficult.
To take a step back, the big trust in social sites is that most users are
good, and the few that are bad, the good users can easily police them. Not
exactly the same, but even
href="http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2005/12/just-do-it.html">Larry Page from
Google believed that most users are good.
href="http://www.ibegin.com/philosophy/">iBegin’s philosophy (point #2)
clearly spells out that users are trusted to deal with the minority that
are spammers. And (getting to the point now),
href="http://www.digg.com/">Digg operates under the premise that if a
story is spam/inaccurate/etc, users will mark it before it gets promoted.
And if it does get promoted and people report it, a little text message
will be added notifying users that the article may very well be wrong.
Now, the abuse of the beforementioned power has come to rear twice on Digg.
The first one was about the
href="http://neothoughts.com/2006/08/20/introduction-to-socially-driven-poli
tical-news/">abuses in the political section. Nothing makes people
angry like politics do. So instead of forming mobs and torching heathens,
it was decided to bury all opposing views. Left wingers buried the right
wingers. Right wingers buried the left wingers. Both ganged up on the
libertarian and green party stories. Who had marked what lame? Were they
organized? No way of knowing.
The second incident is the one still being felt today –
href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Top_100_Digg_Users_Control_56_of_Digg_s_Home
Page_Content">accusations that the Digg ‘elite’ effectively controlled the
site, followed by
href="http://diggtheblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/digg-friends.html">Kevin’s
promise of change (but lets not forget his
href="http://diggtheblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_diggtheblog_archive.html">e
arlier promise of making the burial process more transparent – still
waiting on that), and finally peaking with the
href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_s_Top_User_Says_Goodbye">top user on
Digg saying goodbye.
Digg is interesting because it is the largest of the ‘ranked’ users. Sites
like MySpace and Delicious are also very large (or larger) but do not have
the same problem – they do not rely on users to report ’spam’ (at least in
the same way). But a lot of the new-fangled ‘web 2.0′ sites do rely on
their users. And unfortunately, most of these sites trust the user
implicitly.
So where is this article headed?
Lets take a look at P9 (the top Digg user). While I unfortunately do not
have a link handy on me, once he was accused as ‘gaming’ the system, what
had happened to political stories happened to him. Instead of removing
stories that were at ideological ends with their beliefs, people simply
reported anything P9 submitted. It did not matter what the content of that
article was – as long as P9 was the submitter, it was marked off as
lame/inaccurate/etc, and the article ceased to exist. It got bad enough
that both
href="http://diggtheblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-on-digg-friends.html">Kev
in and
href="http://hemphill81.blogspot.com/2006/09/digg-ceo-jay-adelson-defends-di
gg.html">Jay (the two leaders at Digg) were forced to respond, asking
people not to do that (a tacit admission that they were unable to stop it).
So while P9 announced a public resignation, he was basically killed off by
his fellow diggers. He had an inverted Midas touch – anything he
dugg/submitted was instantly bombed with spam reports, and the story
dissolved and ceased to exist. Irony at its best – people who had accused
him of gaming the system were doing the exact same thing.
So this was ugly, but an isolated issue … right? But lets use our
imagination. Lets say Person X doesn’t like Digg. It may be because he has
a site like Digg (and no, I don’t mean
href="http://www.calacanis.com/">Jason Calacanis). He may simply not
like Kevin. Or he may be demented, like
href="http://seoblackhat.com/2006/09/08/sexbaiting/">Jason Fortuny. So
he thinks to himself – how can I mess up Digg? Pretty easy. Get 100
different IPs (not that hard, even if all 100 have different C classes).
Register them on Digg. Have them randomly digg 5 stories a day. Then scrape
the top 100 users on Digg, and add them randomly across the 100 fake users.
Simmer for a week or 3, and then *bam* – start reporting any story dugg by
the top 100 users as inaccurate.
KA-BOOM
Thats the sound of havoc. Instantly the biggest Digg addicts are neutered.
What was a reward in fame and recognition is now an exercise in
frustration. Anything they touch becomes tainted and useless. Repeat ad
nauseum for as many weeks and as many users as you want. After all, RSS
feeds make it easy :)
Now before I get accused of wanting to wreck Digg (why would I? They send
us great traffic), Digg is simply the easiest example. Imagine other web
2.0 sites once they reach enough users. Shopping sites? Would it be
surprising if suddenly the iPod gets knocked off as favorite MP3 player
only to be replaced with a Zen? Or a tourist site – whoops, forget about
the Empire State Building, check out the snazzy Chrysler Building (these
are of course only hypothetical situations).
This is a major issue that web 2.0 sites need to plan and look into.
Trusting users is a good thing. But implicitly trusting users is no good.
If Digg has moderators that approve a story before it goes live on the
front page, shouldn’t they have moderators checking spam reports? Social
sites give so much power and emphasis on users yet a handful still have the
power to wreck these sites. Until these issues are properly addressed,
social sites will continue to be gamed.
Digg Corrupted: Editor’s Playground, not User-Driven Website
Beginner’s Guide to DIGG
Are DIGGers Biased Against Blogs?
See What News is Being Read on Digg Spy 2.0
Are you a Digger? Wanna be Friends?
Forever Geek is a resource for all things geek. You can stay tuned by having the latest FG news delivered to you for free via RSS.
Category: Uncategorized
Tags:

Netbooks and User Satisfaction: It’s All About Expectations
10 Cool Sony Walkman photos – celebrate Walkman’s 30th birthday
4 Responses for "Web2.Doh – Trusting the user too much"
September 12th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
1You are mistaking the term User for something else. A deliberate act of trying to wreck a system is not a User action, but a system attack; its just in this case you are using the bahaviour of many false users to do it.
Can we stop this? Not without more clever thinking; and why would somebody do this? For the same reason as any other act of senseless vandalism.
I am sure the big brains at Digg can work this one out too (perhaps set a trust relationship and peer review system that has a script resistant control).
September 13th, 2006 at 12:36 am
2This is an interesting article but I think it is mis-titled. It’s more about Digg than anything.
There is much more to Web2.0 than this.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
3I’ve been a victim of the DIGG mob myself. A couple of articles I wrote have been DUGG frontpage but buried outright because my site hosts (two separate ones) were killed by the traffic upsurge (and the entries were marked “inaccurate”). Of course, I never expected I’d be DUGG (not my submissions), so I didn’t do the necessary steps to protect against the spikes.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
4Hi there! Your site is cool, indeed! Please also visit my site:
[url=][/url]
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a reply