Comments on: In ur filters, fixing ur tubes http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/01/in-ur-filters-fixing-ur-tubes/ Because all the other domain names were taken Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:04:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: minifig http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2008/12/01/in-ur-filters-fixing-ur-tubes/comment-page-1/#comment-3083 minifig Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:59:35 +0000 http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/blog/?p=1030#comment-3083 Interesting. It's something I've also been thinking about of late, and without wishing to go all pretentious on yo ass, it reminds me of John Rawls's Theory Of Justice from my political philosophy class. Essentially he puts forward the premise that justice stems from fair systems, which sounds pretty obvious, but the opposite is found in a system like Digg. One of Digg's greatest errors, in my opinion, was forming the system of social networks that it did. Its 'friend'-based economy created a clique-based system which meant that people blindly gave Diggs to anyone on their list regardless of quality. Delicious dealt with this slightly better, insofar as one still has 'friends' but you have to actually devote some time and effort to relinking, whereas Digg makes it too easy. Alongside the ease and the social-network based warping, it's cliqueyness has been amplified. Anyway, I think this links in with your notion of faulty filters, but I would go so far as to suggest that regularly the problem is actually built into the system from the start. Your example of any comment, positive or negative being looked at as 'buzz' is prime example. What we need, as you say, is a fairer system in which people's disappointment can be registered. I don't know what that system would look like, and I think you've outlined the problems with a 'this is pants' button, or detecting inactivity (but I'd add to that that it has the problem of being easily gamed by overly-sensitive types as a means of ad-hoc censorship). I'm going to stop there, or my response is going to be longer than your original post, but suffice to say you got me thinking - thanks! Interesting. It’s something I’ve also been thinking about of late, and without wishing to go all pretentious on yo ass, it reminds me of John Rawls’s Theory Of Justice from my political philosophy class. Essentially he puts forward the premise that justice stems from fair systems, which sounds pretty obvious, but the opposite is found in a system like Digg. One of Digg’s greatest errors, in my opinion, was forming the system of social networks that it did. Its ‘friend’-based economy created a clique-based system which meant that people blindly gave Diggs to anyone on their list regardless of quality. Delicious dealt with this slightly better, insofar as one still has ‘friends’ but you have to actually devote some time and effort to relinking, whereas Digg makes it too easy. Alongside the ease and the social-network based warping, it’s cliqueyness has been amplified.

Anyway, I think this links in with your notion of faulty filters, but I would go so far as to suggest that regularly the problem is actually built into the system from the start. Your example of any comment, positive or negative being looked at as ‘buzz’ is prime example. What we need, as you say, is a fairer system in which people’s disappointment can be registered. I don’t know what that system would look like, and I think you’ve outlined the problems with a ‘this is pants’ button, or detecting inactivity (but I’d add to that that it has the problem of being easily gamed by overly-sensitive types as a means of ad-hoc censorship).

I’m going to stop there, or my response is going to be longer than your original post, but suffice to say you got me thinking – thanks!

]]>