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

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!

You may have noticed the change since yesterday. My venerable hosting provider, Abe of Ploghost, and I were in close coordination over the course of a couple of hours last midnight in my switching to our new racoma.com.ph domain. Still some minor glitches as of this posting (I’m trying to make racoma.net work perfectly in sync with the com.ph domain, too), but hopefully all will be solved within a few hours.

Other sub-domains have also moved:

* ba.racoma.com.ph
* vince.racoma.com.ph
* pau.racoma.com.ph

A new one, just added:

* alanjr.racoma.com.ph

It’s part of our “use COM.PH” campaign! We will be registering .com.ph domains for free for active bloggers, along with a year’s web hosting, SEO assistance (for those who want to be search-engine friendly, and who probably have popular blogs already), and blog set-up for your CMS of choice (we do recommend WordPress).

Do keep tuned in for more details. We will likely start off with those with active blogs and preferably with considerable readership. If you’re interested, email me your monthly stats for the past two months, along with your preferred .com.ph domain, and I’ll see what I can do for you.

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.

It’s “Web 2.0″ talk again, and I’m pretty sure some of you are squirming in your seats over this catchphrase, which seems to be hurting your ears (and eyes) at every mention.

In essence, I think the social aspect of Web 2.0 is not all the democratization of the Web it’s touted to be (as I have mentioned time and again). And I write my thoughts on ForeverGeek.

You may be able to successfuly market your brand using social networks and tools. But this is still essentially a hit-or-miss proposition. Successful branding via an organic manner (i.e. simple word of mouth) is quite diffcult to achieve unless you have a truly cutting-edge product or service.

Here’s my reaction to the whole DIGG.com gaming issue: along with blogs being the “realm of the elite,” the whole DIGG issue is indicative of the possibility that the community aspect of “Web 2.0″ (emphasis on the quotes) might be undermined by the presence of the elite few. And I post on ForeverGeek:

If we take into consideration our earlier premise, that “blogging is the realm of the elite,” then the very goals that “Web 2.0″ embodies might be in vain. In this case, I have reason to fear that “Web 2.0″ would just turn out to be just another “Web 1.0″ model in the making. It looks like we are but gradually moving into a state where the community aspect of the Web is losing out to dominance by a certain few.

If you do find my FG post interesting, then please do DIGG it. I know we run the risk of being banned (again), or my account being suspended, but in my opinion, my article is a critique (similar to Macgyver’s two posts on DIGG) and not necssarily a criticism of the DIGG model.

So in the end, we might not be evolving, but rather regressing into the same things as we had in the start. Web 2.0? Bah!