There are many categories of social software, a crucial part of Web 2.0.  Websites such as Flickr and YouTube are in the media category, while Facebook and MySpace are in the networking category.  These areas dominate the mainstream press when compared to the social bookmarking category.

 Despite the relatively low mainstream press exposure, many tech-savvy users follow the growth of social bookmarking sites as newcomers enter the competition and debates over network controls rage.  Of particular interest to me are the social news sites, such as Digg, Newsvine, Reddit, and Netscape.  These sites consist of communities of users who find and post links to news articles and other resources.  Users are then given a chance to vote on the quality of the submission, with the most popular links (as defined by various algorithms that can include factors such as lifespan and weighted user voting) making it to the front page.

 As these sites mature, the community questions the methods employed to control the network.  Users typically question how the ranking algorithms work, how often and easily the system is gamed, whether there is or should be any editorial power, and the extent of power of top submitters.  Recently, Digg was criticized for supposed rule by a “select few,” that led to cronyism and censorship, along with accusations of gaming the ranking system.  Muhammad Saleem responds to these criticisms and the prediction of Digg’s downfall in Another Mistaken Blogger Incorrectly Predicts The Downfall of Digg.

Digg’s ranking algorithm employs logic partially based on the popularity of the submitting user and the users who vote for the submitted link (a form of a reputation system).  It should be no surprise then that certain users rose to the top of Digg’s network.  However, as Saleem asserts, this is a positive effect, not an example of “rule by the elite.”  These users earned the top spots by the approval of previous links by the community - it makes sense to value this rating from the community and reward the user with credibility.  Even though this makes it more difficult for new users to get their links on the front page, it does not make it impossible and it does lead to better quality.  As Saleem states,

“The top Diggers on Digg are ranked at the top for a reason. You get to the top by consistently submitting excellent content that is generally loved by the community and so Dugg to the front-page.”

Another issue brought to light is the possibility that some Diggers use advanced notification systems to make sure their links get “dugg” quickly by prominent members.  This is an example of an attempt to game the system.  Although Saleem points out that the top 30 submitters do not employ such a system, he acknowledges that others might.  This is a common challenge among any website with user-submitted content - money and fame can be made from placing a prominent link on a popular website, so Digg and its rivals must constantly evaluate gaming tactics.  Much like Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft defend against search result spammers who game their systems, Digg will continue to evolve its ranking algorithms to defend against gaming.

Saleem concludes with a strong statement of support for Digg - his belief that Digg will stick around for quite awhile.  As long as the community continues to thrive on their collective researching power and the Digg owners continue to protect against widespread ranking gaming, I agree that Digg will live on as a great news resource.