Nah, I dont think its buggy. Duncan did a class act job of reporting. I personally think you have something against him and this is your way of ribbing him.
Although I'm saddened SEO Blackhat didnt end up on the #2 spot.
Do you ever stop complaining?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
David: Duncan did NOT do ANY additional reporting. He editorialized. I find Duncan's stuff valuable too, but here he didn't add any value to the speech above and beyond what was originally reported from the floor at LIFT (Duncan was NOT there, so he COULD NOT have done any reporting, he was just reprinting what Philippe wrote).
Too bad I'm not a coder. I'd love to see how something like my idea would work in practice.
David Krug
· 2 years ago
Dude, I'm huge friends of Podtech many guys over there. It just seems like every few days you dust off the complaint matt about why someone isnt linking to you or your buddies.
Irks us little guys.
Yes I've watched that video. I think its awesome. I watch a lot of podtech videos. I even sat through the CERN videos. Yes it took amazing strength. I did it because that genre was interesting.
But I'm going to go to bat for my guys anyday of the week. This seemed a bit like a personal attack on Duncan.
Totally unneccesary.
David Krug
· 2 years ago
What's also irritating is we linked to both reports and then somehow we get attacked.
Ridiculous Scoble.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
David: this is NOT an attack on Duncan. It's an attack on TechMeme which should have linked to BOTH Duncan and Philippe's post. Philippe's post was original reporting. It should be #1. This is a bug in TechMeme's algorithms.
David Krug
· 2 years ago
Well see I disagree. I think Duncan brought some originality to the table. Half the stuff on techmeme is rehashed shit by A listers most of the time anyhow.
Why change it now because you know someone who got dissed?
David Krug
· 2 years ago
There's also a difference because we've set ourselves up as a news site and yes we rehash sources at times.
But do you go to Phillipes site for blogging news or ne media coverage?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
David: the point is that Duncan linked to someone else, who linked to someone else, who linked to someone else, who did the original reporting.
Yet the guy who did the original reporting is NOT on TechMeme.
That's a bad algorithm. It's a bug.
The fact that you're arguing otherwise demonstrates you'd rather have someone who's done second-hand reporting on the top of TechMeme. To me that's a bug in YOUR thinking.
It's the first time I've noticed this directly and can demonstrate the bug.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
By the way, I don't know Philippe. I found his post in Google's Blogsearch when doing a search for "Demo07." You'll notice I linked to his post before any of the rest of you, though.
Karl
· 2 years ago
Gabe has indicated that sites that *link to Memeorandom, and send traffic to it* are considered more relevant to Memeorandum. The level of traffic is considered as well in its algorithms. see Gabe here.
David Krug
· 2 years ago
Yes, you aren't listening so did we. That's my whole point. Yet you are on techmeme too.
Gabe Rivera
· 2 years ago
Robert,
Philippe's post DID make Techmeme, the day before:
It later passed because Techmeme's a news site, and old news goes away.
Whether Duncan's post should have received such placement the next day is debatable, but he did offer some more facts and analysis, and actually used a descriptive title, unlike Philippe, who somehow didn't even mention Wikipedia in his title. :)
Gabe Rivera
· 2 years ago
Scratch that..."Wikipedia" did appear in the title, but as the very last word in the French subtitle portion. Anywayz, a descriptive title probably would have helped yesterday. Too bad Techmeme can't rewrite your title.
David Krug
· 2 years ago
That's too funny. Next I'd like techmeme to take the place of my paid staffers.
TDavid
· 2 years ago
Scoble - I agree with you that the original source should be the most prominent one and Techmeme does a pretty good job of listing the original source most of the time from what I've seen.
You aren't the best one to talk about Techmeme though because you've shown up several times as the prominent link on stories written and reported by others.
From what I understand that's how Techmeme is supposed to work .. it spotlights the most talked about stuff not necessarily the original source. Therefore, not sure you can really classify this one as a 'bug.'
It's nice to see you changing thinking now that you are becoming more content creator, but man this stuff has been happening for awhile :)
Wouldn't surprise me if your post gains any traction if you show up prominently instead of David Krug, in fact. Wouldn't that be ironic?
TDavid
· 2 years ago
Ahh, while writing I see that Gabe clarified that the original source was already listed yesterday. Thanks Gabe. I guess it wasn't so 'bug'gy after all ;)
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
David: now that I see that Philippe was linked to yesterday I understand. Personally I should NOT be linked to without Philippe being linked to again, especially since I linked to Philippe's article here. Funny that my earlier link and comment didn't appear, but this one does, even though it has even less news value than my post yesterday did.
Gabe: if a conversation happens a second time regarding a root article that's already appeared, shouldn't that root article also be relinked? Seems to me that there's a bug here even with your explanation.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
TDavid: if my posts show up, but an original report does not, then I believe that's a bug. Please point it out when you see it again. I don't want top billing on TechMeme if I didn't earn it and I'd like to help Gabe improve his algorithms to bring his readers the best news, not the most popular news. This is why I got mad at sites that only link to the New York Times. That's linking to the most popular thing, and not looking around for other things to link to too.
And, David, note that I haven't argued for removing Duncan from TechMeme. I argued for INCLUDING Philippe's post here, which would have made TechMeme more complete. In fact, Philippe's post missing today looks awfully strange.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Oh, and neither yesterday nor today has Bruno's post (which is an original, from the floor of LIFT) is included. It has a TON of facts also included on it. http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/lift07_wikim...
Gabe Rivera
· 2 years ago
Robert, in general, to answer your question, no, the "root" article should not always be linked. Because stories evolve over time, the "root" articles tend to lose value for Techmeme's readers. How many days after Google's YouTube acquisition should TechCrunch's original scoop have appeared with Gootube stories? I'm fine with "1 day" as the answer myself.
In this specific case however, I see your point. It's only been a little over one day, and the story hasn't yet evolved much.
TDavid's remark touches on another point: very often non-originating posts tell the story much better. In these cases, it's actually in Techmeme readers' interest when the non-originating post is emphasized, though I can understand why the originator would get frustrated with that outcome.
Anyway, I think it's my job to find the right balance. That job's not done yet.
TMS
· 2 years ago
There are a lot of RSS related 'bugs'.
Sourcing (and the Echo Chamber) is one.
Not getting the full story or only a title in my Google Reader is another.
Sometimes the cause is technology related. More often it is eyeball envy (I mean marketing).
A bad user experience is a bad user experience. If it's because no one has figured how to do something, I can live with that. However, purposely creating a bad user experience -- as in the case of crippled RSS feeds and echo chamber posts that add no new thoughts, insights or knowledge -- is criminal. I especially laugh/cry when someone with a crippled RSS feed writes a post extolling the virtues of Steve Krug's book Dont Make Me Think. (Think about it)
Rogers Cadenhead
· 2 years ago
"David: the point is that Duncan linked to someone else, who linked to someone else, who linked to someone else, who did the original reporting. Yet the guy who did the original reporting is NOT on TechMeme."
If you want news as judged by humans, read a human. TechMeme's just trying to grab new stuff that gets the most links in a short window of time. As a beneficiary of that system for so long, you're a weird person to be complaining about it now.
Everton
· 2 years ago
Robert
You've really got to stop complaining about either your site not being included somewhere, or other people's. There are millions of other blogs out there who cover news just as well and in many instances get the scoop first, but they never get linked to because unfortunately the big sites continue to link to each other.
You are already in a position many other bloggers are envious of - just be happy with your lot!
Everton
Nicole Simon
· 2 years ago
My goodness, can't you people stop seeing conspiracies?
I too mailed Gabe some time ago because one of my articles was beneath another persons article - to which I did not link and especially would not want that connection to be made through that.
I see the problem of how to bubble up the newer articles withoug loosing the older ones, but other than Roberts example, this is a combination of the two - bubbeling up of a newer one and showed linking beneath that (this is how most of us read that!) without a real connection nor relevance.
No, I do not claim to have the solution but I do not need to like the current system just because I have no better.
William Yao
· 2 years ago
Is that that important if both are there? BTW, Megite also has a thread about it at here.
Pens Insider
· 2 years ago
To me this came of as way more of a rant againts Techmeme and not Duncan. I think he was just calling out attention to the fact that he didn't do any original reporting (something most of us typically engage in) yet was ranked higher than those who were actually there. Great post, glad to see you bring our attention to it.
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
William I was just about to point out that Megite generally give a much broader view, plus they have very good custom memes.
Personally I though my story about coComment / Technorati deserved more eyeballs though I am thankful to Mashable to pick it up as it is quite significant (though many dont realise how significant)
Also Clickbank now require disclosure - much bigger than paid post companies requiring disclosure, but again, I didn't get any eyeballs.
Sometimes I feel it is best not to write original stories in great detail, and just write Top 10 lists to get Diggs.
TDavid
· 2 years ago
"Sometimes I feel it is best not to write original stories in great detail, and just write Top 10 lists to get Diggs."
I hope you don't seriously think that, Andy, and are just letting off steam. Good content will always be found sooner or later. Look at how much old stuff is being brought out at digg and other similar sites.
People tend to want instant gratification too much in the world. Excellence will be noticed sooner or later. Hopefully not too late.
Duncan
· 2 years ago
Scoble, lets see, I'm in trouble because people linked to my post? WTF? And what, I'm also in trouble because unlike a whole pile of A-list bloggers (I'm not saying I'm in this ground BTW...nor am I pointing the finger at you..although your credting skills have a fair bit to be desired) I actually *CREDITED* in full the reference path from which I found the story? If I'm guilty of anything it's giving the story a wider audience, that's why they linked back to the post at 901am, it was an audience that otherwise may not have seen it. So what EXACTLY are you saying? that I shouldn't have bought up the story? what, I'm not allowed to report of these things because my last name isn't Scoble? Again, full reference path and links in the post not only to Philippe Mottaz but to the blog I found the story at, SEO Black Hat. Difference audience...enabling a discussion. Techmeme tracking links in, 901am has a wider audience, hence it go the links because that's where people read it...but not to take away from Phillippe or Quadszilla for that matter, because they deserved credit (and got it from me) as well. Go a try to start a meme tracker Robert, then lecture Gabe on what should and shouldn't be done, I actually have before, it's no easy task.
Duncan
· 2 years ago
I'm while I'm at it, if this isn't about me, why not bring up all the other sites that get links in when they've picked up a story from somewhere else (usually with credit). Engadget is a great example, 90% of the content at Engadget is picked up from other sites, to their credit they do give credit, but it's Engadget that gets the links to the story in Techmeme, Digg, megite and others. Boing Boing does it, Gizmodo does it, indeed YOU do it...give me a free hour and I'll give you a list of the top 100 blogs and at least half of them pick up stories from other sites...and they get the headlines on Techmeme and other places. It's sad that you've needed to play the man not the ball in this example Robert. If you're serious, you'll take a look at the bigger picture as opposed to singling out me and 901am (which BTW, I don't own, I'm simple a paid writer).
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Duncan: again. It's NOT about you. It's about TechMeme. Read my post again, but this time read it slowly and try to understand what I was trying to say. If you didn't get it the first time, maybe read the comments where I made it much clearer.
You linked to something else. Therefore you told TechMeme something else is more important. I find it interesting that the things you linked to aren't on top.
Oh, there's the "you can only complain if you have built this" meme again. Interesting, but I call BS on that.
Again, it's not about you. You didn't do anything wrong. TechMeme, though, chose your post to be on top tonight, even though you weren't an original reporter. That IS a bug.
Or, are you trying to say that people who just editorialize about the news deserve to always be on top of TechMeme? I don't agree there and I'll be consistent, even when I'm the beneficiary of such linking on TechMeme.
So, why are you so sensitive? Do you think you deserved that top link today? Are you saying you really are the most important post on this story? Really?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
>>If you’re serious, you’ll take a look at the bigger picture as opposed to singling out me and 901am (which BTW, I don’t own, I’m simple a paid writer).
I will, and hope you join me in looking critically at EVERYONE's linking behavior. Including mine.
It's just that I'm at the LIFT conference this week and noticed this tonight because it's a situation I've been following closely.
I'll be looking a lot closer at the linking behavior of bloggers in the future. It's a project of mine cause I've noticed that people aren't linking as often, that the meme trackers aren't linking to the best stuff (even you must admit that Bruno's stuff is much more detailed than anything else linked to on this story) and that many bloggers are just linking to the first thing they see (often from popular bloggers, including me) and not looking for original links, or posts from people they don't know.
You're the one taking it personally. Why is that? Do you really think you deserve the link on TechMeme tonight? Is that what you're saying here? That your article is the best on the topic tonight?
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Yep it's the weekend. Scoble is it fair some google searches yield Digg articles as a top link instead of the source?
I understand your position, but the reality is software cannot naturally determine the quality of an article, so heuristics like number of links or chronology are employed. And if you were bring back the conversation starter, do you disregard all the previous conversations?
If you kept previous conversations, Techmeme would sort of suck. Due to delayed feedback, Apple would own a chunk of Techmeme real estate for a week whenever they announced something big.
William Yao
· 2 years ago
>is it fair some google searches yield Digg articles as a top link instead of the source?
That is a great argument. I believe that Scoble never complains that:) I like it.
Duncan
· 2 years ago
Techmeme tracks the most links into a post Robert, 901am at the time (not earlier I'd note) had those links, it got there because it disseminated the story to more people. Whether you like it, or as the case is you don't, that's how a meme tracker works, it tracks a meme by tracking incoming links. It's not a bug, it's the measure of what it actually is. As for taking this personally, you take all criticism about your activities personally, so if I take this personally I'm learning from the master. You could have singled out any leading blog over the last couple of years on this, you didn't, and given your choice of one particular friend I'm not really surprised you're targeting me, of course the gutless wonder wouldn't have the balls to do it himself, knives in the back are much more easier after all, and attack by proxy makes sense. :-)
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Duncan: TechMeme doesn't just put the most-linked to article up there -- I've seen hundreds of examples of when things are on top that aren't the most linked to article. Gabe has written hundreds of algorithms to try to pick the right article to display. And what caught my eye about your article is that you were linking to something else, and that something else wasn't included as a link, even underneath your link. Again, I did NOT say you didn't deserve to be on TechMeme. Look at my postings again. You're taking this too personally and thinking I'm attacking YOU. That's a bug in YOUR thinking. What I was saying is the cluster would have been better to include the things YOU LINKED TO!!!
But, again, you tried to make this about you. Hint: it's not.
And why haven't I done this before? Because it's something that has gotten my interest only recently. You won't be the last I use as an example of an algorithm picking something that doesn't make sense or is incomplete. In fact, it's even worse this morning because there are people on TechMeme (who weren't at the speech) who now are saying that Wikipedia will shut down, when on analysis of what actually was said on stage wasn't close to that.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding my so-called friends.
Dan
· 2 years ago
I don't know if anyone has noticed but Robert, the last two links in your post point to the same blog. Am I right in thinking you meant to link to two different blogs?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Dan: yes, aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh. I fixed that. Thanks!
AndyBeard
· 2 years ago
@TDavid
It really depends on the nature of the content which you are creating. The Clickbank item is news that affects 100,000+ affiliate marketers, but also hints as it should have done in the past that the ftc letter is much more important to affiliate networks than most top bloggers gave credit. Almost everyone without exception used it as an attack on PPP. Affiliates are breaking the some of the Clickbank rules several months after the change they made on bonuses because there wasn't any coverage. I can't confirm how long the disclosure rules have been in place.
@Robert - it takes Google 5 days to recognise linking after they have cached a site, so whatever improvements meme trackers offer over that is a good thing, even if it means people will have to make one extra click to get to the original source.
Steph
· 2 years ago
Maybe I'm not in there because I didn't mention the cash issue, so nobody linked to me ;-)
All Comments
I dont think its buggy. Duncan did a class act job of reporting. I personally think you have something against him and this is your way of ribbing him.
Although I'm saddened SEO Blackhat didnt end up on the #2 spot.
Do you ever stop complaining?
If you want me when I'm not complaining, go watch some of my videos. I highly recommend Photowalking with Thomas Hawk. Free of complaints! http://www.podtech.net/scobleshow/technology/13...
Too bad I'm not a coder. I'd love to see how something like my idea would work in practice.
I'm huge friends of Podtech many guys over there. It just seems like every few days you dust off the complaint matt about why someone isnt linking to you or your buddies.
Irks us little guys.
Yes I've watched that video. I think its awesome. I watch a lot of podtech videos. I even sat through the CERN videos. Yes it took amazing strength. I did it because that genre was interesting.
But I'm going to go to bat for my guys anyday of the week. This seemed a bit like a personal attack on Duncan.
Totally unneccesary.
Ridiculous Scoble.
Why change it now because you know someone who got dissed?
But do you go to Phillipes site for blogging news or ne media coverage?
Yet the guy who did the original reporting is NOT on TechMeme.
That's a bad algorithm. It's a bug.
The fact that you're arguing otherwise demonstrates you'd rather have someone who's done second-hand reporting on the top of TechMeme. To me that's a bug in YOUR thinking.
It's the first time I've noticed this directly and can demonstrate the bug.
Philippe's post DID make Techmeme, the day before:
http://www.techmeme.com/070208/p56#a070208p56
It later passed because Techmeme's a news site, and old news goes away.
Whether Duncan's post should have received such placement the next day is debatable, but he did offer some more facts and analysis, and actually used a descriptive title, unlike Philippe, who somehow didn't even mention Wikipedia in his title. :)
You aren't the best one to talk about Techmeme though because you've shown up several times as the prominent link on stories written and reported by others.
From what I understand that's how Techmeme is supposed to work .. it spotlights the most talked about stuff not necessarily the original source. Therefore, not sure you can really classify this one as a 'bug.'
It's nice to see you changing thinking now that you are becoming more content creator, but man this stuff has been happening for awhile :)
Wouldn't surprise me if your post gains any traction if you show up prominently instead of David Krug, in fact. Wouldn't that be ironic?
Gabe: if a conversation happens a second time regarding a root article that's already appeared, shouldn't that root article also be relinked? Seems to me that there's a bug here even with your explanation.
And, David, note that I haven't argued for removing Duncan from TechMeme. I argued for INCLUDING Philippe's post here, which would have made TechMeme more complete. In fact, Philippe's post missing today looks awfully strange.
http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/lift07_wikim...
In this specific case however, I see your point. It's only been a little over one day, and the story hasn't yet evolved much.
TDavid's remark touches on another point: very often non-originating posts tell the story much better. In these cases, it's actually in Techmeme readers' interest when the non-originating post is emphasized, though I can understand why the originator would get frustrated with that outcome.
Anyway, I think it's my job to find the right balance. That job's not done yet.
Sourcing (and the Echo Chamber)
is one.
Not getting the full story or
only a title in my Google
Reader is another.
Sometimes the cause is technology related. More often it is eyeball envy (I mean marketing).
A bad user experience is a bad user experience. If it's because no one has figured how to do something, I can live with that. However, purposely creating a bad user experience -- as in the case of crippled RSS feeds and echo chamber posts that add no new thoughts, insights or knowledge -- is criminal. I especially laugh/cry when someone with a crippled RSS feed writes a post extolling the virtues of Steve Krug's book Dont Make Me Think. (Think about it)
If you want news as judged by humans, read a human. TechMeme's just trying to grab new stuff that gets the most links in a short window of time. As a beneficiary of that system for so long, you're a weird person to be complaining about it now.
You've really got to stop complaining about either your site not being included somewhere, or other people's. There are millions of other blogs out there who cover news just as well and in many instances get the scoop first, but they never get linked to because unfortunately the big sites continue to link to each other.
You are already in a position many other bloggers are envious of - just be happy with your lot!
Everton
I too mailed Gabe some time ago because one of my articles was beneath another persons article - to which I did not link and especially would not want that connection to be made through that.
I see the problem of how to bubble up the newer articles withoug loosing the older ones, but other than Roberts example, this is a combination of the two - bubbeling up of a newer one and showed linking beneath that (this is how most of us read that!) without a real connection nor relevance.
No, I do not claim to have the solution but I do not need to like the current system just because I have no better.
Personally I though my story about coComment / Technorati deserved more eyeballs though I am thankful to Mashable to pick it up as it is quite significant (though many dont realise how significant)
Also Clickbank now require disclosure - much bigger than paid post companies requiring disclosure, but again, I didn't get any eyeballs.
Sometimes I feel it is best not to write original stories in great detail, and just write Top 10 lists to get Diggs.
I hope you don't seriously think that, Andy, and are just letting off steam. Good content will always be found sooner or later. Look at how much old stuff is being brought out at digg and other similar sites.
People tend to want instant gratification too much in the world. Excellence will be noticed sooner or later. Hopefully not too late.
lets see, I'm in trouble because people linked to my post? WTF? And what, I'm also in trouble because unlike a whole pile of A-list bloggers (I'm not saying I'm in this ground BTW...nor am I pointing the finger at you..although your credting skills have a fair bit to be desired) I actually *CREDITED* in full the reference path from which I found the story? If I'm guilty of anything it's giving the story a wider audience, that's why they linked back to the post at 901am, it was an audience that otherwise may not have seen it. So what EXACTLY are you saying? that I shouldn't have bought up the story? what, I'm not allowed to report of these things because my last name isn't Scoble? Again, full reference path and links in the post not only to Philippe Mottaz but to the blog I found the story at, SEO Black Hat. Difference audience...enabling a discussion. Techmeme tracking links in, 901am has a wider audience, hence it go the links because that's where people read it...but not to take away from Phillippe or Quadszilla for that matter, because they deserved credit (and got it from me) as well. Go a try to start a meme tracker Robert, then lecture Gabe on what should and shouldn't be done, I actually have before, it's no easy task.
You linked to something else. Therefore you told TechMeme something else is more important. I find it interesting that the things you linked to aren't on top.
Oh, there's the "you can only complain if you have built this" meme again. Interesting, but I call BS on that.
Again, it's not about you. You didn't do anything wrong. TechMeme, though, chose your post to be on top tonight, even though you weren't an original reporter. That IS a bug.
Or, are you trying to say that people who just editorialize about the news deserve to always be on top of TechMeme? I don't agree there and I'll be consistent, even when I'm the beneficiary of such linking on TechMeme.
So, why are you so sensitive? Do you think you deserved that top link today? Are you saying you really are the most important post on this story? Really?
I will, and hope you join me in looking critically at EVERYONE's linking behavior. Including mine.
It's just that I'm at the LIFT conference this week and noticed this tonight because it's a situation I've been following closely.
I'll be looking a lot closer at the linking behavior of bloggers in the future. It's a project of mine cause I've noticed that people aren't linking as often, that the meme trackers aren't linking to the best stuff (even you must admit that Bruno's stuff is much more detailed than anything else linked to on this story) and that many bloggers are just linking to the first thing they see (often from popular bloggers, including me) and not looking for original links, or posts from people they don't know.
You're the one taking it personally. Why is that? Do you really think you deserve the link on TechMeme tonight? Is that what you're saying here? That your article is the best on the topic tonight?
I understand your position, but the reality is software cannot naturally determine the quality of an article, so heuristics like number of links or chronology are employed. And if you were bring back the conversation starter, do you disregard all the previous conversations?
If you kept previous conversations, Techmeme would sort of suck. Due to delayed feedback, Apple would own a chunk of Techmeme real estate for a week whenever they announced something big.
That is a great argument. I believe that Scoble never complains that:) I like it.
But, again, you tried to make this about you. Hint: it's not.
And why haven't I done this before? Because it's something that has gotten my interest only recently. You won't be the last I use as an example of an algorithm picking something that doesn't make sense or is incomplete. In fact, it's even worse this morning because there are people on TechMeme (who weren't at the speech) who now are saying that Wikipedia will shut down, when on analysis of what actually was said on stage wasn't close to that.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding my so-called friends.
It really depends on the nature of the content which you are creating. The Clickbank item is news that affects 100,000+ affiliate marketers, but also hints as it should have done in the past that the ftc letter is much more important to affiliate networks than most top bloggers gave credit. Almost everyone without exception used it as an attack on PPP.
Affiliates are breaking the some of the Clickbank rules several months after the change they made on bonuses because there wasn't any coverage.
I can't confirm how long the disclosure rules have been in place.
@Robert - it takes Google 5 days to recognise linking after they have cached a site, so whatever improvements meme trackers offer over that is a good thing, even if it means people will have to make one extra click to get to the original source.