racoma.com.phJ. Angelo Racoma on technology, economics, writing, problogging, and getting things done

It’s been a busy week again for me, folks. Between managing a blog network, to coming up with content, to coordinating with people, I don’t know if 24 hours in a day are enough (there’s still my personal life to manage)!

So here are links to a few good reads.

• Make mine to go – This is an article I wrote on Forever Geek a year back. I was on a roll, with columns almost every day. Of course, that was also during the time I had this thing called blogging burnout.
• More recently, I asked on the Blog Herald whether I could trust my memories to web apps. I’m quite a fan of Flickr, but I’m wondering whether online and even digital archival are lasting. In a way, I think printed photos still rule.
• I’m also a Twitter fan, but I’ve been wondering if SEOs will soon be taking advantage of the linking powers of Twitter and other microblogging services.
• Here’s a thought on community blogging, over at our new blog Froodee.

Here’s one interesting observation I’d like to share. We ForeverGeek contributors sometimes post links to our more substantial articles on DIGG.com, to share and possibly get some inbound traffic (as with what other writers/bloggers are fond of doing). We have had our share of DIGGs, and it was great. Traffic usually rises to absurd levels (but of course, we make sure our servers could handle the load) and we get great feedback from readers and other blogs.

So far, we’ve already had four stories that were frontpaged, according to this query. Yes, this includes the DIGG link to the podcasting article I authored (which I’m quite proud of).

But if you tweak the search query to “include buried stories,” you get nine frontpaged stories, including older ones. But what’s intriguing is that this type of query would include quite a number of stories posted after the FG-DIGG issue where DIGG’s credibility as a reader-driven site was questioned. In particular, that one story was frontpaged by the sheer number (and speed) of DIGGs, but was quickly “buried” because of the sensitivity of the issue.

After that one, no other FG story had actually appeared on the DIGG front page, but the query for frontpaged stories (including buried), as likewise linked above, would say otherwise.

Something seems amiss. The search query classifies one story as “frontpaged,” but the article doesn’t actually appear on the frontpage. Now buried stories are prominently marked as “buried,” and I can understand why those will not appear on frontpage. But what of those classified as frontpaged, but not marked as “buried?” Why aren’t they appearing on www.digg.com?

I am very much confused why the DIGG search query classifies some stories as “frontpaged,” but “buried,” but without the appropriate “buried story” marking.

DIGG founder Kevin Rose mentioned something on the TWiT podcast about moderators actually choosing which stories to get frontpaged (here’s a recap I wrote for FG). So this means among other factors in the algorithm that decides which stories are sent to the frontpage, there are human “editors” who get to select their picks.

So in the end, one might ask, is DIGG.com really the user-driven website it publicizes itself to be?

Once a story has received enough diggs, it is instantly promoted. Should the story not receive enough diggs, or is reported, it eventually falls out of the digg area queue. Digg works because a large group of people actively promote good stories to the homepage. Since this site’s content is user-driven, it is up to YOU to contribute.

I used to be such a DIGG fan. Somehow, I still am—I still find DIGG’s ideals to be something to root for, especially given the collaborative nature of the Web today. But for me, DIGG.com has lost its magic!

Podcasting isn’t always as easy as it seems. First you need interesting content. Then you need to have a well-modulated voice and good diction. And then there’s the need for adequate equipment. Most of all, you’d need passion for audio as a medium of communication.