I totally agree with you Kristi. They are saying that when there is a voting pattern, that somehow it is a manipulation of the writers of the posts. Honestly that's a bit offensive and rude. I'm usually not the kind to chime in but I really felt that they were being unfair so I commented 3 times. I stated there that there could be a pattern simply because the person is an avid reader of a blog and therefore as a consequence will promote things from the blog they regularly read. That wasn't taken into consideration when they wrote the article. I for one spend hours researching and writing my posts.. making sure that the content is top notch. Am I suppose to apologize for marketing my post to those I feel comfortable would help me? Absolutely not! Anyone who's been blogging any amount of time knows that marketing is the biggest part of making it online. Also, what I may consider exceptional content is not what someone else considers great content. Opinions are so diverse! The way they are acting will make sphinners feel self conscious about being judged when they sphinn something. If I had a community that's not how I would want my community to feel. Loved your article Kristi. I hope they stop and actually listen to others instead of arguing their position continuously. All the best, Eren
Moderating What Gets Hot on Social Networks
In light of the recent blog post on voting patterns and unexceptional content over at Sphinn which has drawn several desphinns and some heated debate in the story’s Sphinn page comments, I thought it would be a good time to touch on some issues when it comes to the social voting system on sites like Sphinn, Digg, Reddit, and many others.
What Gets Hot
The point of all of these social voting sites is to have a network where only the best of the best stories that are bound to impress almost anyone make it to the homepage. But of course, many people are privy to the algorithm of what gets a story hot on the front page. It can be somewhat easy to manipulate these networks by simply building up a strong network of online friends to be right where you need them and to vote on something to drive it home.
So essentially, the goal to all of these networks is to tighten up moderation on stories that are hitting the homepage based on popularity rather than content. Hence the emphasis on “voting patterns” to see if one site is always getting voted up by the same group of people from the same IP addresses. So where does this plan go wrong?
If the editors feel a story is not up to par and has only made it to the homepage based on a certain “pattern” of voters, they have the right to remove it not just from the homepage, but from the site completely.
The question is who gets to be the final judge of what content is exceptional? My definition of exceptional and someone else’s may differ dramatically. I have gone to several articles that hit the homepage of Sphinn that have not been very informative to me whatsoever, but at the same time have helped out many others.
So what’s wrong with banning users who are all on the same IP for voting for a story? It makes sense – if I have 50 people at my company all active on a particular network, I could probably easily make it to the homepage by asking them to all come on and support me. And if I write for a site that has another 50 authors, the same thing could be said.
But if those people within a certain “pattern” all vote for a story, does this mean the story should be yanked?
There’s almost a reverse affect of this that happens. In a business envrionment, authors of stories have to warn their collegues to wait until they get home to vote on something. Because let’s face it, if I’m working with someone, and I know their articles are always top notch and I happen to see them on the “getting hot” or “what’s new” pages of a site, I’m going to be itching to hit that vote button which will effectively do them more harm than good in the long run.
So now, in fear of having a story yanked or my user getting banned, I have to restrict myself from voting on something that I do believe is quality just because of my IP range and my relationship to the author or submitter.
One thing I am particularly bad about is agreeing to rules and not really reading them, because if I fully read every site’s guidelines before signing up, I probably wouldn’t belong to very many at all. I never realized that on Sphinn, contest submissions were not allowed to be submitted and voted on. While I can see the reasoning (abuse of the system, yada yada), I also think that just because a post was written for a contest does not mean it is unexceptional content and deserves to be pulled simply because it was part of a contest. The post should be judged on quality period.
Ways to Judge Quality
So if I think one editor or moderator’s point of view should not be the end all of quality judgement, what do I think should be? How about a look at some other quality checkpoints of an article including:
- Number of social shares on other social networks.
- Number of influential social shares, such as tweets which you can find out by using the Topsy bookmarklet, going to the story’s page on Topsy, and filter the influential users who have retweeted.
- Number of quality comments on the post itself.
- Number of supportive comments on the story’s voting page.
- Number of down votes or negative comments on the story’s voting page.
- Number of respected community members who have voted on the story.
Of course, some sites are not comment or social sharing friendly, so those may not be good indicating factors for quality content. But in conjunction with other above mention factors, it should be easier to judge than one person simply saying “eh, not a fan.”
Am I Guilty?
Am I guilty of asking friends, family, and others to vote for one of my articles? Yes, and I don’t deny it. I tweet it, Facebook it, IM it, email it, and so on. In retrospect, instead of asking someone to vote on something for me, I should ask people to vote on something if they like it. Because honestly, I have had people send me things and I have not voted on them or refused to submit them because they either weren’t my cup of tea or I knew they were not of the quality.
I also don’t ask for votes on everything I write. While I’m pretty happy with most things, I don’t think everything I do is homepage worthy. But when I do spend 3 – 4 hours researching and writing a post and am confident that it is the type of article that will be useful and valuable to others, I don’t feel shy about asking.
What I should make clear is that I am not a “you scratch my back, I automatically have to scratch yours” person. The more appropriate idea is I will be happy to vote on your content if it is good, and I hope that you will be happy to vote for mine if you believe it is good as well.
Your Thoughts on Social Voting Ethics and Etiquette
Where do you stand on the whole issue of social voting, promoting your friends, and other ways to best use a social voting network to ensure that only the best content makes it on the frontpage?
About the Author
Kristi, The sphinn guide lines don't say submissions that are part of a contest. Here is exactly what the rules say regarding contests. "3. posts promoting competitions, or submissions made as part of a ranking contest." Specifically say subs that are part of a "ranking contest" When I spoke with one moderator she explained that my rules stipulated that the person with the most sphinns wins and therefore the contest is encouraging people to "game sphinn". Now this completely floored me because the official contest post says nothing about the contestant with the most sphinns wins. In any case it's their site so they can do what they want, but their reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me.
Kristi, I think you really hit the nail on the head! With Sphinn's new moderation guidelines, it has definitely caused some interesting debates on how content should be reviewed. I 100% agree with you on your "Ways to Judge Quality". It should not necessarily be up to one person to decide if the content is of high quality or not. Like you said, one person may find a post extremely helpful and another may not. A post needs to have multiple review checkpoints that gauge if the post should be subject for removal. If other social communities are sharing it and leaving quality comments, it should stay. I was trying to understand why Sphinn wouldn't except posts that were part of a contest? What does having a post entered into a contest, have to do with the posts quality. If anything those posts are usually of the highest quality, because people are trying to earn industry recognition and prizes. To play devil advocate, I can see how people are manipulating these social websites and there needs to be a crackdown. Just because you have a large network of friends who help each other, shouldn't give you the right to be able to bypass everyone and hit the front page. I think there is a fine line between trying to promote your content and manipulating these sites. As long moderators are using good judgment and taking into consideration multiple factors before removing content there shouldn't be any argument as to why something was removed. Looks like you have just created the blueprint for how these bookmarking sites should review content submissions. Awesome Post! Mark