Imo, their algorithms can be tested in developer environments (testing/development servers). And even if they absolutely HAD to do it on the live servers, then they could have easily removed their diggs after testing.
Their's just making an excuse for a mistake. Their way of handling this is understandable, but probably not the best way to handle that situation.
I wanted to write exactly the same comment. I don't buy their explanations. Especially when they write: "we continuously run tests on the site to expose vulnerabilities in our own security." Does that mean they run randomised testing? Basically something that they have no idea what will it do in the end? I don't believe they'd be ok with trying out something that can potentially uncover a data corruption issue in their live system.
More likely, they paid someone to do blackbox security testing on the live site. In that case, they would be pretty lucky if all someone could find, was a way to digg stories multiple times.
Very true. If it was really testing, why would they stop exactly and immediately when informed by the blogger that their behavior was 'caught'? They would've continued the so called experiment if it was really one.
I think they did it to inflate the number of diggs on the front page stories so that it looked like more people were frequenting the site. That's the reason that there's no apparent bias in the selection of media outlets whose articles the accounts digged up.
>If it was really testing, why would they stop exactly and immediately when informed by the blogger
That's absolutely not evidence that it is not testing.
It's a good point, but it is in no way inconsistent with their explanation. It makes perfect sense because it was (theoretically) supposed to be a small test that nobody noticed. Once somebody noticed it, of course they're going to stop it.
It's consistent with other theories being floated around, but it's important to note that it in no way contradicts their statement; exactly the opposite in fact.
If your theory is correct, why not just do it more directly? Why not do it in a less obvious way? Why upvote random spam sites as well (some of which were created at the same time as the accounts in question...almost as if someone were testing submitting spam on Digg...)
I don't doubt it's possible, but it seems to me people are letting their bias against Digg get the better of their reasoning ability.
1) Let's say their excuse is bogus. So what where they doing? Gaming the system like ltgenpanda claims?
There's a contradiction there though. On the one hand you're saying that you don't buy it's testing because they're too smart and too capable to test on production...
...and on the other hand you believe they have to resort to this roundabout way of gaming their own system because they are not capable and smart enough to just do it a more direct way.
2) Your assumption (that they could do it in a test environment) is not necessarily true. If their explanation is to be believed, the testing is not the same as say normal software testing. The intent is to be a realistic security test...more like a "pen test"...which are quite often done on production machines.
So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts their explanation, and indeed it fits the facts as we know them pretty well, while the "game theory" doesn't.
This is not a small technical mistake as you put it -- especially since trust plays a crucial role in user's perception when they are using Digg. If digg is using such shady practices and cloak them as 'testing', its basically a slap in the face of the digg devout users.
Yes I get that. But why are they still getting grilled? The screwed up, admitted as much and started fixing the things that were broken. What more can you do in that situation.
no, they screwed up, then told everyone that they knew better....then when they lost their business, they admitted that they screwed up.
why they are getting grilled now? because once you become the bad guy, even the smallest stuff gets blown out of proportion...and let's be honest...this isn't exactly small
I think the issue is the community that grew around Digg was very spiteful in general and felt quite entitled. I don't think it was Digg's fault per say, but the entire community involvement angle made the user base feel they owned a part of the site and were entitled to have a say, rather than the reality in that they were using a service and being sold as eyeballs for advertising.
And considering digg is an open forum the loud people can be very loud.
They specially groomed their community to be like that, too. The entire theme of digg, Kevin's shows, etc., is a kind of fratboy softcore-geek elitism.
I was at a Digg Live at FoWA in London a few years back and it couldn't have been more different than the conference experience. It was swarming with loud, misbehaving teenagers (and I mean 13- and 14-year-olds, not 17- and 19-year-olds).
No wonder their audience takes every chance to screw with them now (and that vocal portion of the audience convinces everyone else, looking in at it from the outside, that it's important and meaningful).
The live Diggnation episodes are pushed as being better than the normal ones, but a crowd of people screaming and jeering and dumb drinks promos don't make for a good podcast.
I know part of the charm of the Diggnation podcast is that it's kind of dumb, but you can only go so far!
Comments
Imo, their algorithms can be tested in developer environments (testing/development servers). And even if they absolutely HAD to do it on the live servers, then they could have easily removed their diggs after testing.
Their's just making an excuse for a mistake. Their way of handling this is understandable, but probably not the best way to handle that situation.
I wanted to write exactly the same comment. I don't buy their explanations. Especially when they write: "we continuously run tests on the site to expose vulnerabilities in our own security." Does that mean they run randomised testing? Basically something that they have no idea what will it do in the end? I don't believe they'd be ok with trying out something that can potentially uncover a data corruption issue in their live system.
More likely, they paid someone to do blackbox security testing on the live site. In that case, they would be pretty lucky if all someone could find, was a way to digg stories multiple times.
I'm with you --- Digg's response is pure bullshit. They have $30MM in funding and don't have a test environment??? Yeah. Right.
Very true. If it was really testing, why would they stop exactly and immediately when informed by the blogger that their behavior was 'caught'? They would've continued the so called experiment if it was really one.
I think they did it to inflate the number of diggs on the front page stories so that it looked like more people were frequenting the site. That's the reason that there's no apparent bias in the selection of media outlets whose articles the accounts digged up.
>If it was really testing, why would they stop exactly and immediately when informed by the blogger
That's absolutely not evidence that it is not testing.
It's a good point, but it is in no way inconsistent with their explanation. It makes perfect sense because it was (theoretically) supposed to be a small test that nobody noticed. Once somebody noticed it, of course they're going to stop it.
It's consistent with other theories being floated around, but it's important to note that it in no way contradicts their statement; exactly the opposite in fact.
If your theory is correct, why not just do it more directly? Why not do it in a less obvious way? Why upvote random spam sites as well (some of which were created at the same time as the accounts in question...almost as if someone were testing submitting spam on Digg...)
I don't doubt it's possible, but it seems to me people are letting their bias against Digg get the better of their reasoning ability.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~ Hanlon's Razor
Well there's a couple problems here:
1) Let's say their excuse is bogus. So what where they doing? Gaming the system like ltgenpanda claims?
There's a contradiction there though. On the one hand you're saying that you don't buy it's testing because they're too smart and too capable to test on production...
...and on the other hand you believe they have to resort to this roundabout way of gaming their own system because they are not capable and smart enough to just do it a more direct way.
2) Your assumption (that they could do it in a test environment) is not necessarily true. If their explanation is to be believed, the testing is not the same as say normal software testing. The intent is to be a realistic security test...more like a "pen test"...which are quite often done on production machines.
So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts their explanation, and indeed it fits the facts as we know them pretty well, while the "game theory" doesn't.
Maybe some more conclusive info will come out.
I don't really get all of the Digg hate recently. It seems that Digg has a perception problem similar to Windows Vista.
Sure they made some technical/communication/process mistakes, but they seem to have fixed most of the ones that are easily fixable.
I personally find Digg more useful these days because of the changes.
This is not a small technical mistake as you put it -- especially since trust plays a crucial role in user's perception when they are using Digg. If digg is using such shady practices and cloak them as 'testing', its basically a slap in the face of the digg devout users.
Digg users appear to be a thin-skinned, shrill bunch to be honest. Perhaps it's just a vocal minority.
They made people mad. What's not to get?
Yes I get that. But why are they still getting grilled? The screwed up, admitted as much and started fixing the things that were broken. What more can you do in that situation.
no, they screwed up, then told everyone that they knew better....then when they lost their business, they admitted that they screwed up.
why they are getting grilled now? because once you become the bad guy, even the smallest stuff gets blown out of proportion...and let's be honest...this isn't exactly small
I think the issue is the community that grew around Digg was very spiteful in general and felt quite entitled. I don't think it was Digg's fault per say, but the entire community involvement angle made the user base feel they owned a part of the site and were entitled to have a say, rather than the reality in that they were using a service and being sold as eyeballs for advertising.
And considering digg is an open forum the loud people can be very loud.
They specially groomed their community to be like that, too. The entire theme of digg, Kevin's shows, etc., is a kind of fratboy softcore-geek elitism.
I was at a Digg Live at FoWA in London a few years back and it couldn't have been more different than the conference experience. It was swarming with loud, misbehaving teenagers (and I mean 13- and 14-year-olds, not 17- and 19-year-olds).
No wonder their audience takes every chance to screw with them now (and that vocal portion of the audience convinces everyone else, looking in at it from the outside, that it's important and meaningful).
The live Diggnation episodes are pushed as being better than the normal ones, but a crowd of people screaming and jeering and dumb drinks promos don't make for a good podcast.
I know part of the charm of the Diggnation podcast is that it's kind of dumb, but you can only go so far!
I agree, they messed up. They've also been pretty good about trying to improve communications with their users in the past weeks.
Relevant story from yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1832767
I still have yet to find an explanation for what looked like them lying about the # of comments an article has: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1741574