Humans Cannot Be Trusted

Michael Arrington posted today about Digg's recent "troubles".

Here is the nutshell: People game systems with rules.  Digg is a system with rules.  People game Digg. 

Here is the amusing part:  People seem to think this is news.

Let me let you in on a little secret:

Without Gaming, social networking would not work or be even remotely interesting.

There are a few points along the social networking continuum that extend from dumb tools like LinkedIn to more complex tools like MySpace or Digg.  They range from the personal yellow pages to applications that leverage your network to some immediate benefit.

Even applications as simplistic as LinkedIn can be gamed.  The game is to have the largest network.  Some people take great pride in the size of their networks on LinkedIn and proudly proclaim that they are the most connected person there.  They are quick to snap up new users on the system - who in turn are awed by the massive jump in connections their networks suddenly have by being attached to such a hub.

Now we are shocked (shocked I tell you!) that Digg is gamed. 

Michael says:

Political blogger Michelle Malkin was one of the first to complain that groups of conservative or liberal Digg users were acting to remove posts from pundits on the other side. More recently, another blogger analyzed Digg home page stories and concluded that a small group of powerful Digg users, acting together, control a large percentage of total home page stories.

This is not a good thing.  The rules of the game are being exploited with negative community impact.

But this exploitation is part of the game.  Social networking tools provide elements to game - this creates excitement.  When the gaming of that particular area starts to bog the site down or reduce its effectiveness or create incredibly powerful cyber-fiefdoms within the network - then it's up to the tool owners to tweak the game to level the playing field.  This will often be done by spreading out the impacts of gaming in one arena while introducing a new game on the side.

Digg appears to have done this, Kevin Rose says:

... today we read a couple blog posts that highlight users digging each others stories. This is something we encourage through our friends features and will continue to expand as digg evolves. It is our goal to create a platform in which you can share and promote news that is important to you. What is changing however is how we are handling story promotion. While we don't disclose exactly how story promotion
works (to prevent gaming the system), I can say that a key update is coming soon. This algorithm update will look at the unique digging diversity of the individuals digging the story. Users that follow a gaming pattern will have less promotion weight. This doesn't mean that the story won't be promoted, it just means that a more diverse pool of individuals will be need to deem the story homepage-worthy.

In response to the new changes, some Digg users have left the fold.  This is to be expected.  As the game evolves, some will be more attracted to some parts than others.

Indeed, in gaming systems like this - those who received great power by the original rules will resist seeing their power diminished by the new rules.  Tweaking the rules, however, was done specifically to diminish that power.  So those users can make a big stink, but in the end it's for the good of the community.

So fear not the backlash, Digg. 

Technorati Tags: digg, game theory, gaming, social networking, community indicators, community_indicators, superusers

powered by performancing firefox