Recent Posts2351
Living Room / Re: Digg, the wisdom of crowds, the hive mind, netscape, and competitors
« Last post by JavaJones on July 28, 2006, 01:27 AM »Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how to word it just now, but that whole example bugs me. A big part of me is thinking "Of *course* that sensationalist headline is going to work better." and thinking furthermore "why shouldn't it?". Or rather, how is this any different from regular print news, where sensationalist headlines are also the norm? That's what people like and respond to. Expecting Digg to be any different is silly. And if we don't expect that - if we are aware that Digg is merely a reflection of the fairly dull popular mind - then why do we pay attention to it? Because deep down almost every one of us is still interested in the same stuff the popular mind is, even if it's to a lesser degree. 
I mean hell I found his first title boring myself, the second much more provocative. This is fundamental article writing knowledge here: good titles sell. If a "good" title is sensationalist, well that's a shame, but if the content of the article is much the same so be it, if it gets it read.
I dunno, I'm rambling here, but I'm still kind of annoyed with this whole battle. It's like those people who go somewhere solely to complain about it. Why bother with Digg if it's "broken"? And if you don't bother with it, why are you writing articles about it? Because everyone else is paying attention to it and you think they shouldn't? You're just contributing more to Digg publicity by writing an article about it! How deliciously ironic.
Ultimately I don't really see anything different in this than what has been going on for ages, except now "the people" are more in control. Well no surprise, the results are similarly base as what we had before, just a bit less bland perhaps. After all in the capitalist approach to journalism and information dissemination what sells is what is news, and here roughly the same thing applies. Most importantly both are driven by the same customer base. So in the end if you want stupid news to stop being popular, or sites that promote stupid news to stop being successful, you have to cure people of their stupidity.
- Oshyan
I mean hell I found his first title boring myself, the second much more provocative. This is fundamental article writing knowledge here: good titles sell. If a "good" title is sensationalist, well that's a shame, but if the content of the article is much the same so be it, if it gets it read.I dunno, I'm rambling here, but I'm still kind of annoyed with this whole battle. It's like those people who go somewhere solely to complain about it. Why bother with Digg if it's "broken"? And if you don't bother with it, why are you writing articles about it? Because everyone else is paying attention to it and you think they shouldn't? You're just contributing more to Digg publicity by writing an article about it! How deliciously ironic.
Ultimately I don't really see anything different in this than what has been going on for ages, except now "the people" are more in control. Well no surprise, the results are similarly base as what we had before, just a bit less bland perhaps. After all in the capitalist approach to journalism and information dissemination what sells is what is news, and here roughly the same thing applies. Most importantly both are driven by the same customer base. So in the end if you want stupid news to stop being popular, or sites that promote stupid news to stop being successful, you have to cure people of their stupidity.
- Oshyan
He's writing for The Wave now, a Bay Area magazine. Still good writing, just harder to get access to. It's online somewhere though...
