Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The article points us toward a reason why the business model alluded to in the link above (paid for stumbles) is ultimately unsustainable - those visiting bounce through without doing much more than briefly glancing at the pages they visit, very often. This is plausible. People get enthusiastic about their new toy, they get a rhythm going, and they don't want to stop.

Not only allegations that a small group of hyperaggressive users (50 in total) are burying posts on Digg, but with a little unexplained hacking being alluded to, the members of that local cabal are allegedly named. The question this raises being how much faith we should put in strangers who don't explain their methods - but then, if they did, we wouldn't be allowed to link to this article, would we? The fact that a search turned up 16900 hits for "Digg" and "bury brigade" does make this a little easier to believe, though, and a little more of a source of worry for the Stumbleupon user when he hears a suggestion that Digg take over that other service.

A list of article burials on Digg, along with the users who buried them. One does note that one is seeing a very few users doing a lot of burying. See link above.

Points to a disproportionately large number of posts about the political candidate Ron Paul that were buried on Digg, in support of the premise of that so-called "bury brigades" exist on Digg, groups of users who vote against articles en masse when they don't like them, "philosophically". This should surprise absolutely nobody who is familiar with Digg's basic operating principles and has been online for more than ten minutes in his life, but sometimes people need evidence in support of the obvious. Putting the feeedom to be heard on a topic to a vote - how do people expect that to work out?

WARNING: Mild profanity at the other end of this link, too. Unavoidable, as it is found in the quoted material. Brief report of the incident, along with a much longer taped interview with the banned user, marred by prejudgement from the interviewer, who can't seem to let go of a fixation on the idea both sides in this absurd incident must have a point, or that at least Digg must. Quoting the post: "We get the feeling that there is more to this story than we have managed to unearth ... Clearly Digg feels that Zaibatsu has violated their terms multiple times and it appears they've simply had enough." In other words, corporate spin should be taken naively, at face value. Zaibatsu does himself no favors in his response, by choosing to be conciliatory in his response. In a civilized society, there's nothing wrong with that, but we're not living in one of those. We're living in one that still bears imprint of the same fun loving culture that brought us the concept of "trial by combat" and it shows. When you are wronged and you are speaking, keep it short, keep it sweet, and let your anger show. Do not offer to turn the other cheek, and do not express concern for those who have wronged you, for these civilized acts will never be understood by the uncivilized men with whom you deal to be anything other than a confession of guilt.

Chris Crum (the author) writes about a rumored upcoming Digg toolbar incorporating random search, and asks if this is bad news for Stumbleupon, as that is the service's key feature. Perhaps, but Crum hasn't given us reason enough to think so. Randomness, by itself, isn't a big deal. Webrings had incorporated it into their code long before there was a Stumbleupon. Carefully weightened randomness is what Stumbleupon does. Stumbleupon offers a blogging platform, albeit a seriously flawed one. Digg does not. Those who submit content to Digg risk loss of membership if the content proves to be unpopular enough; so far as I know, Stumbleupon users don't have the same worry, outside of a little political whackiness in the fora. I'm left with the impression that Crum repeats somebody who has read too much into too little, having little familiarity with the capabilities of the SU system, and with the policy differences between the two sites.

Larry Halff of Ma.gnolia (where I and many other users were before we came to Diigo) is interviewed, following the collapse of that service, and explains what he did wrong, without evasion. Many of us wish him well, and hope that both he manages to rebuild his company after this regrettable incident.

Post about the data loss incident at Ma.gnolia and what users of other services can do to reduce their risk

Alex Laburu raises a serious point about Stumbleupon than that to be found in the bookmark above; that perverse incentives are built in to the system by SU's business model, in which the company makes money, not from visits to blogs on their system, but by getting paid for "stumbles" - random visits to sponsor websites taking place through their system. Under such a model, Laburu argues, a well written blog costs the company money, because it is a blog visitors are less likely to leave soon via a stumble - and those following its links aren't stumbling. He raises a good point (among others), one that should lead SU users to view with concern the supposedly good feature that is the absence of advertising on our blogs on SU, because it provides SU admins with a short term incentive to side with those misusing the system at the expense of those using it constructively. Which does leave us with the question of how Diigo is making its money, does it? One might ask if many of the users bring this sort of thing upon themselves - listen in on the screaming when the very possibility of introducing advertising is raised, on some sites, as if the hosting service didn't need to make money. Perhaps when the subject arises here - Diigo is still in Beta as I write this - some of us might want to speak in support of that very sensible source of revenue for a company we'd like to evolve in a healthier direction than that being taken by some of its competition, at the moment.

"Robert Frank Steele(Bobebuzz) | LinkedIn"

Social robots used in paediatric unit support sessions could aid the recovery of sick children, a study published today in the journal Pediatrics has found.

Why Should You Invest in Zomato Reviews? Zomato Reviews are one of the most effective ways to get more customers and reviews. The more you have, the more revenue you can earn. Zomato Reviews can be used in many ways: To increase your number of customer ratings, which help you attract new customers and grow your business. To earn more money from advertising because they are a high-quality source of traffic that is targeted at specific audience groups. zomato Buy Zomato Reviews Zomato Reviews Zomato is a restaurant discovery app that allows you to find the best food and drinks in your neighborhood. It has over 1 million users in India and is the largest restaurant discovery platform in the country. Zomato was founded by Deepinder Goyal and Pankaj Chaddah in 2010 with an aim to help people discover new places around them. Today, Zomato has over 100 million users across several countries including India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal (the latter two being part of their Global Expansion Program). Buy Zomato Reviews Zomato's core business model revolves around providing restaurant listings on its website as well as mobile apps for both Android & iOS platforms along with social media integration via Facebook Messenger & Whatsapp Groups; this helps it grow its user base quickly since anyone who wants authentic reviews from friends/family members can just send them over WhatsApp or through Facebook Messenger! Why should you buy Zomato Reviews from us? If you're looking to buy Zomato Reviews, we are the best source. We have been providing verified and authentic reviews since 2011. We don't just sell these reviews but also give them away for free! How does the Zomato review process work? Zomato reviews are written by real customers, and they're written in real time. As a result, you can expect to find honest feedback on the product you're interested in buying. Buy Zomato Reviews The people who write these reviews will have used the product themselves a

It's not only you even I want to be followed by many professionals , unlike Facebook or twitter Linkedin got over 300 million professionals where the entire planet holds only 600 million professionals which mean it is holding one-half of the professional network so it's worth spending time on Linkedin.

Hacking cases are increasing day by day. There are several tricks played by hackers to steal your personal information online.

TAMILNADU DIFFERENTLYABLED FEDERATION CHARITABLE TRUST is a registered social services organisation working for the socio-economic development of the disabled persons in all over Tamilnadu State. We are catering to the multifarious needs of 79,000 disabled persons who are the members of our affiliated districts level welfare Association integrated with us. We have acquired the state level network of 24 District handicapped Welfare Association in all over Tamilnadu.