FG-DIGG Issue on TWiT
This week’s edition of This Week in Tech, one of today’s more popular podcasts hosted by TechTV luminaries including Leo Laporte and DIGG founder Kevin Rose (my favorite podcast, actually), features the FovererGeek-DIGG issue as the first order of business.
The edition is actually entitled “TWiT 51: DIGG This.”
To summarize the discussion, Kevin basically provides a bit more information compared to what was considered a non-response. He starts out by saying he’d been DIGGing articles by a poster who actually turned out to be a spammer, and by coincidence DUGG 17th in line for two stories submitted by the spammer, who seemed to be using a bot to DIGG stories.
As for the ForeverGeek banning, Kevin claims that a user had been creating multiple accounts under the same IP address to submit FG stories.
Kevin further expounds on the ways posters game the system by spamming. Since front-paging of articles also depends on the credibility of the submitting account, spammers usually go the route of establishing credibility first, by submitting quality content, before turning to spamming a few weeks after, when the account has already gained trust points (say, from “friends” or fellow DIGGers).
As for the algorithm by which stories are promoted to DIGG’s front page, Kevin admits that this is not so transparent after all. Front-paging is dependent not only on the raw magnitude of DIGGs, but a host of factors, including the credibility of the submitting account, time of day submitted, category, raw number of DIGGs, karma (or credibility) behind the source site or DIGGers, user reports, and whether DIGGers are using web proxies.
For now, I’ve leave it to our readers to decide if this is a better response than the one written on DIGG the Blog. Of course, the podcast is likely to be biased towards DIGG.
Personally, I think DIGG may have been too haphazard in banning sites and individuals based on their spammer-detection algorithm. I mean, theoretically I can spam DIGG using submissions of sites I am not affiliated with, and those sites would subsequently be banned, in turn. Maybe this can be yet another way to game DIGG!