Webwork - 12:16 pm on Sep 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

If my (brief) reading is correct Digg seeks to lower the weight that can be given to any one member's vote. Digg upset some active contributing members by effectively devaluing their "active" contribution.

Instead of devaluing their contribution why not assign "trust rank" to active members who have a "long history" of "unbiased voting"? This argument, of course, begs the question. After all, is there really any such thing as "unbiased voting"? Therefore, maybe Digg is right to devalue active voties.

Still, the real issue is the merit of the votes, not the sheer volume. Unless Digg had reason to doubt the voting motives and vote merit of their more active posters they should have used the active and non-suspect member's behavior and experience as a data set for helping to build a Digg trust rank system.

The overarching issue is how to get trust rank to work in any system.

Trust rank that works is especially valuable to a business model that relies upon people who are working for free, i.e., a system based upon public contributors. Presumably all that free labor frees up capital and revenue streams, so those funds can pay for the services of intelligent people who are supposed to be intelligent enough to create systems or procedures that keep the free workers happy.

Maybe Digg can find some free intelligent workers - systems and procedures people - who will do a better job of designing the inner workings and controls of their free labor system? :-P

[edited by: Webwork at 12:40 pm (utc) on Sep. 11, 2006]