« Fact or Fiction; Fiction or Fact | Main | Is Transparency Worth it? »

September 27, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Recruitomatic

I came across this last week and thought it an interesting read, somewhat related:

http://www.rashmisinha.com/archives/06_01/digg-crowd-psychology.html

Sometimes I think we overlook that other people’s blogrolls, for example, are a better read of what people are reading than who digs this and who tags what. Clearly, when it comes to the consumption and ranking of content, not all interactivity is as overt as we find among the crowd, is it? And sometimes, forensics is more interesting to an enquiring mind than fashion is a guide to anything. Yes, sometimes good content does require a lot of digging for.

Great post, Jeff.

Colin Kingsbury

Digg's technology content is really good, though as the "gene pool" gets diluted with growth into less-savvy users the links become more banal. But it's still good enough that it's pretty much stopped me from browsing sites like Slashdot and Ars Technica on a regular basis.

Outside of technology, their content stinks. Therein lies a lesson.

Jeremy Langhans

Leave it to Jeff Hunter to have readers with solid vocab ... I actually had to look up "Banal"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=banal

Jeremy Langhans
Sr Sourcer - Human Resources
Panasonic Avionics Corporation
Direct: 949-462-1458
26211 Enterprise Way
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Jeremy.Langhans@panasonic.aero

The comments to this entry are closed.

The recruiting.com 2005 Best Blog Awards Winner


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


View Jeff
CHiMBY the Career Advice Search Engine

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31