Did Digg game its own system to benefit publisher partners?
ltgenpanda.tumblr.com
ltgenpanda.tumblr.com
The only way this makes sense is if it was done by someone without access to the algorithm. Either an external voting ring, or someone in the company who isn't supposed to be doing this.
Even that doesn't make much sense.
It could be that Digg disabled the accounts, but if so, why not delete them? Unless they have a shadowban feature that they're not telling anyone about, the timing and manner by which the accounts ceased their operations is highly suspicious.
In the meantime, they run into some problems with the ranking, and knowing their own algorithms, they chose to game it (or tweak it) externally rather than internally because they can't afford to go through the official process. And the intention is that whatever they did would be eventually incorporated back into the main algorithm.
Unfortunately, some low-ranking QAs were assigned to execute the hack, and they are oblivious to the negative perception such maneuver would result.
If you look at the data, these accounts are not digging only preferred publishers.
They are Digging mostly preferred publishers, but also occasionally random blog-spam. (ex buzzll.com)
If Digg was behind this, why Digg random blog-spam as well?
No, if Digg was behind this I expect that would either make the accounts realistic by simply taking what an average user Diggs and replicating it a few times, perhaps with only preferred publisher diggs.
Any first-year CS student could come up with a script to create plausible user names, at least better than those in question.
The Digg team is not the best, but I have slightly more faith in them than this.
What I think we have here is someone who figured out that in order to slip in diggs for blog-spam, they had to digg some "top stories".
Let's think about this for a moment.
Let's say you're writing a Digg spam-bot.
You know in order to make your account look good you need to Digg some top-stories.
The easiest way to do that is pick some stories you know will be top stories...stuff that's always on the front page...e.g. Digg preferred publishers.
Let's say you didn't do this.
In this instance, you'd have a bunch of accounts digging only the same small set of blog-spam.
They would stick out obviously as a set, and digging only the same small stories.
But, wait...
Now they are not digging only random small stories...they are Digging top stories...so now they are part of a huge set of "normal" users, and their digging patterns look more like a normal user.
I think what we have here is simply a spammer who found a hole in Digg's automated account detection.
They gain plausible deniability, can maintain the integrity of their brand and the trust of users. Or at least that's how they would like it to happen should someone catch on.
Agreed.
The fact that it was primarily promoted publishing partners doesn't implicate Digg at all: Many of these spam accounts first seek to establish an algorithmic legacy by submitting and/or digging and promoting sites that they think will do well (see virtually every "Today I learned that Costco sells caskets/survival food kits" post), and that would be my suspicion here.
Eventually once that legacy is established they move over to the actual promotion pimping.
If you look at the list of sites, you'll see there are spam sites in there (ex: buzzll.com) that have diggs from the suspected accounts.
If Digg is behind this, why digg random spam sites?
Also, as dumb as Digg is, I have faith they could do a little better than d42, d43, .... etc.
I think what we have here is a spammer testing ways of gaming the system, or proceeding with gaming the system.
This is like saying google is 'gaming' the search results by having their people influence the rankings / search result pages by changing things in a way that benefits google.
What would be more surprising is if digg would not try to modify the homepage to benefit themselves and their partners (assuming all these parties are in fact digg partners, for which I see no proof). They're a commercial entity, I do not have high expectations that digg would do what they could to make a fair rendering of what their audience thought was best.
Digg has been gamed beyond the point of recovery by voting rings and 'power diggers', to see the people behind digg join in the fray is absolutely no surprise to me.
Other sites call it editorial control, on HN stuff gets banned, or flagged. No algorithm has ever been able to survive in the wild without some form of human supervision anyway, in that sense digg is no different.
Whatever the motivation for the changes I hope they'll succeed in getting the runaway train under control and to get rid of the feeling that digg is being run by a couple of individuals gaming the system but if their main 'tweak' is to join in the game in a way that makes them look like a voting ring then I doubt that will be the case, and digg will lose visitors faster than they did up to now.
An alternative (and simpler) explanation for all this data that the author uncovered is that this is just a real (external) voting ring on Digg, possibly one that is for rent, which happens to benefit those parties that are already using digg for promotional purposes. Maybe digg turned a blind eye to this happening.
Bottom line is it is their site, and they can run it any way they want to including the boosting of stories they think ought to be boosted. That's not going to work as a long term strategy, but their 'publishing partners' may find it worth enough money that digg comes out ahead. It would appear to be a 'slash-and-burn' strategy though.
The individual profiles I looked at all have large numbers of diggs and no comments or submissions, so a voting ring for sure, now it needs to be figured out who runs it, and if it is the digg people they should explain the purpose of this in this way rather than in a more direct one.
Time will tell.
I don't use Digg, I haven't for years, because it was too heavily gamed and not enjoyable to use anymore.
Your comment about Google though, they have to keep the trust of the users and the web as a whole. If they were to game their system for their own gain (that is artificially influence results to improve their own standings) and people found out or could prove it, Google would be in trouble. I am not saying they don't or haven't, just that with Google the trust is important because people have more at stake than on Digg, a lot have their lively hoods tied to it.
Don't tell me you really believe that all those sites that happen to be google affiliated really have that much standing in their algorithmic view of the web. Google has been artificially inflating the ranking of their own site for a long long time.
For instance, not that I'm in the habit of searching for celebrities, but type in paris hilton in the google search bar.
The first result is a link to google images, followed by half a page of sample images from images.google.com, followed by wikipedia (ok, that's a good one) and then a bunch of youtube stuff.
I'm sure they're all 'relevant results' but I highly doubt those image links are really the most relevant results on the subject.
The wikipedia link should have been #1, the images and youtube results probably don't even belong on the first page (unless you search for 'images').
This sort of thing will happen with a great many subjects, but with a high frequency query like 'paris hilton' the effect must be enormous.
My own Chinese learning site is Popup Chinese (http://popupchinese.com). We have fantastic testimonials, tens of thousands of users, and links from tons of places, but we're still invisible in Google after more than two years. The Skritter (http://skritter.com) guys (who post here occasionally) should also be listed far above where they are - they've got a great product and it's insane that they're drowned out by this sort of flotsam. Ditto for NCIKU.com.
Everyone I know in our industry views Google with complete cynicism. Quality sites that won't play black hat SEO are at a major disadvantage to much spammier marketing sites and link-farms. All that being said, it is nice to see someone at Google is at least asking the question seriously. And given what you are up against... good luck.
Honestly, your claim sounds like most conspiracy theories. It completely falls apart when you assume the participants are even mildly logical and rational.
Shows a whole pile of results from 'google shopping' for me.
Are those really the top results?
I don't really know how the product corpus works, but AFAIK Google is not being paid anything for those results. They're compiled from a bunch of commercial sites across the web. Google gets paid when you click on the ads, which are clearly marked at the top and right hand column.
Search for 'search engine' or 'engines' and you will find that Google isn't the first, in fact it is 4th and isn't to the main page but to their custom search engine. There are other cases where this exists, but I guess it isn't the best example just a simple one.
The downside is that someone identifies and calls them on it, which is purportedly what is happening here (though the analysis and conclusions are flawed, in my opinion). I'm not sure what you're getting at.
"This is like saying google is 'gaming' the search results by having their people influence the rankings / search result pages by changing things in a way that benefits google."
But....people do that sort of analysis of the search engines all the time, trying to find patterns where it betrays user trust for selfish reasons. Search engines tread a dangerous realm where they can lose user trust (and usage) if they abuse their position.
"Bottom line is it is their site, and they can run it any way they want to"
I don't know why, but this sort of comment always bothers me.
Yes, we all know it's their site and they can do what they want. It's also the attention and trust of the community, and they can do what they want, including choosing to move on, distrust, question, etc.
If digg was behind this, then their actions are unethical. It essentially amounts to treating advertisements as content. It's saying "hey, the community likes this" when the truth is "someone paid us a boatload of money for this". Granted, the sanctity of digg's voting system had been violated long before this. But that still doesn't make it right.
I would say that's actually the most likely explanation. Plausible deniability and all that.
It could be a voting ring that is also digging "top stories" to make their digg patterns appear more natural.
The blocks (ordered by the registration time) have registrations averaging a few minutes apart with hours between blocks. IMHO these could easily have been generated manually.
10/16/2010 10:03:05-11:32:20 diggerzXX
10/16/2010 14:44:14-15:08:13 dXX
10/16/2010 15:38:22-17:42:04 dd1-26
10/16/2010 22:52:46-23:10:29 sXX
10/17/2010 10:05:55-10:16:33 aXX
10/17/2010 12:33:43-13:37:59 dd27-47
This brings up another question:
If Digg did indeed do this, why space out registration, as if to hide it (from themselves?).....or do it manually?
Could they not automate the process, and automate it in a way so as to do it all in one go?
This could be "plausible denial", but still it doesn't seem quite right imho.
They've created a monster and are trying to control it by cheating.
You would think that they could have come up with more creative names than ddX and such... If you are going to create shills, at least come up with some better names and change up some of the account creating dates and such. No wonder they are having such problems as a business.
The pattern of diggs from the suspect accounts stopped not long after digg was notified of the blog post and before it was made public.
The accounts were not banned, just the digging of stories stopped.
Digg just had a major update and are in a state of transition still, we have no idea what sort of banning, shadow-banning, temp-banning etc procedures are in place.
(unless you are a Digg employee, in which case please do share)
1. When told about these accounts the activity on these accounts stopped.
2. The OP claims: "On a technical side: Digg can only ban accounts but cannot stop accounts from digging. So, if this was from some exterior group, digg would have only banned them as they cannot stop them from digging."
1 can easily be explained by recognizing that Digg may have decided to temporarily put a hold of the accounts once informed of the odd voting patterns.
2 is bogus. It's their site and they can do whatever they want. It should be easy to keep accounts live but stop their diggs from counting, for example.
It strikes me (see my other comment in this thread) that the accounts could have been created by people outside Digg manually (they are only roughly 100 accounts and they weren't created quickly) and then used for this purpose.
None of that implicates Digg.
I rather doubt Digg's involvement here.
An alternate explanation is that the bogus accounts are external, and digg blacklisted the IP's associated with those accounts upon learning of this. Most larger websites will have a fast way to blacklist IPs on their load balancers or the like simply to avoid buggy robots, spammers and trivial DoS attacks.
Otherwise, this is great scoop. As someone who runs a bootstrapped, ramen profitable niche social news site, I have to chuckle at the irony. The Reddit founders have admitted publicly on many occasions that they used sock puppets to bootstrap a community on their site. Meanwhile is having to fire up Sock puppets to survive after raising $40 MM. Ouch.
Also funny, the article says Kevin rose posts were only getting 30 diggs these days. Were we getting a glimpse behind the curtain of the true size of Diggs active community there? To put it perspective, Windy Citizen does about 70-100k visits/month. Our hottest stories each week will crack 20-25 votes.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1836318
http://about.digg.com/blog/info-site-changes-and-test-accoun...
http://ltgenpanda.tumblr.com/post/1413193597/in-response-to-...
From a technical perspective though I wonder why digg would add all these bot accounts, creating clutter on the site, when they could also easily achieve the same effect by some background tweaking
There is a lesson here regarding audience selection.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19/high-stakes-pl-nl/ultim...
Wow !