. . . continued from Hot News Problem #1: If a motivated group decides to promote (market?) a particular idea, there's nothing stopping them from repeatedly digging their own item and driving its popularity. Hello Internet politics. Hello Internet social engineering. Let's assume the Digg designers have some background programming to prevent the abuse. User profiles are one of the most powerful features of digg. Once logged in, Digg bookmarks each story you digged (dug?). Users and friends can then browse your profile, to see what you've been digging throughout the day. Digg is a fascinating experiment. The idea is that if everybody else thinks the diggs are worthwhile, that's good enough, and the weight of opinion carries its own authority thereby, however warranted or unwarranted. Digg establishes priorities and popularity by means of the wildly democratic method of 'the majority rules', the only problem being that the "majority" in this case has no discernable criteria of choice, other than personal interest and the pre-existing influence of mainstream authorities for deciding what's popular, factually accurate or politically relevant. I Digg a refinement of traditional information gathering or is it a logical evolution? It depends on the software to some extent and in part on the demographic participating actively on Digg. In traditional news organizations, reporters gain first hand knowledge of subjects, then file their stories. Editors assemble the information based on the priority of the events being reported. Managing and senior editors, then make decisions about what news is fit to print or broadcast based on the priorities of the period, public interest, political interest and the influences of lobbyists and internal social and political sensibilities. Information being reported is often checked by experts and relevant authorities. The end result is most often authoritative and factually accurate within the political and socioeconomic context of the practiced biases of the reporters, editors and media owners. It's complicated, it engages various levels of public trust, and it still requires that we absorb a number of news sources about the same event in order to arrive at some rational personal opinion. What Digg does, basically, is to remove the layer of experienced editorial and managerial oversight, replacing them with the collective opinions of an enormous boatload of motivated individuals, general observers and the merely curious, all of whom come to the table forearmed to some extent with the aforementioned influences exerted by the mainstream media. Last but not least, another of Digg's features lets users submit a story or site to Digg after cleaning up sloppy or poorly written parts. Problem #2: Who should we trust to edit news and information? I often choose an experienced and identifiable editor who checks data and story facts with experts, and who may also be a specialist in the subject being addressed. I like Digg. It's accessible from any location that provides me with an Internet connection. I'll defend Digg's system of popularity rankings by users as far as general interests are concerned—the top level Digg categories in other words. What other users want to know about Apple, Linux, Science, Technology, Music, Movies, Programming, etc., is generally what I want to know. The companies and individuals which originate information can certainly submit their sites and links to Digg. Check it out here.

The manner in which information is automatically selected to suit you, is the subject of lots of research & development these days. Companies like Iotum are busy creating smart server software which analyzes both the context of data itself and the context in which it has been requested in order to serve it in the appropriate manner to the appropriate device or situation. A smarter Internet is just around the corner.

del.icio.us is about 6 degrees different from Digg, billing itself as a social bookmarks manager. Add web pages you like to your personal collection of links on the site, categorize via keywords, and share your collection across your own browsers and machines and with people. Once you've registered for the del.icio.us service, you add a simple "bookmarklet" to your browser. When you find a web page to add to your list, select the del.icio.us bookmarklet and add descriptive terms to group similar links together and add notes for yourself or for others. Links can be accessed from any web browser and are displayed with the most recent ones at the top. del.icio.us is a "social system" because it lets you see the links that others have collected, as well as showing you who else has bookmarked a specific site. You can also view the links collected by others, and subscribe to the links of people whose lists you find interesting.

About. com was founded in 1997 and currently uses a network of approximately 475 Guides—people who are experts in their field. About Guides live and work in over 20 countries and share their interests in hundreds of topics. Guides are selected by About for their ability to provide the most interesting information for users, and for their passion for their subject and the Internet. The Guide selection process is rigorous. The problem with About.com is simply that it isn't big enough one-stop shop to be truly comprehensive. Digg has been in existence only a short time, but it is already much bigger in scope than About. Whether the Digg collection of 'approved' links is more authoritative than About's Guides is moot. I haven't checked yet, but it's likely that Digg's categories include links to articles written by About's Guides. Is this where populism blends with traditional authority?

Adam Curry suggested in one of his recent Podcasts that it would be terrific if everybody could find and access the shows they want—TV, radio, movies, Internet—through the window of a single playback device. Curry is a highly successful MTV alumnus who has the 'cred to make the content choices needed on a regular basis to fill such a device. Once Curry starts to do such a thing, other experienced authorities (as opposed to people armed only with the statement "I know what I like") will arrive from various situations to enhance the range and quality of selections, sources and formats. The point is that we rely on professional critics and reviewers—people who do nothing all day long but watch plays, TV and movies, read books and analyze web sites for example—to serve two primary functions, a) providing us with considered advice about what's interesting, and b) filtering out the absolute garbage so that we don't have to wade through it. The manner in which information is automatically selected to suit you, is the subject of lots of research & development these days. Companies like Iotum are busy creating smart server software which analyzes both the context of data itself and the context in which it has been requested in order to serve it in the appropriate manner to the appropriate device or situation. A smarter Internet is just around the corner.

Google News provides aggregated feeds culled from all of the major online news services, many of which are the online versions of newspaper, magazine, TV and radio broadcast news organizations. If you need information on any subject under the sun, Google can be used to comb the Internet. Google's massive capabilities depend in large measure on the ability of individual users to assemble effective searches. The advice here is to thoroughly read Google's instructions about effective searching.With the right set of keywords and parameters typed into the Google search field, you can find just about anything.

AOL, MSN and Yahoo aggregate the same sort of stuff as Google. None of these news aggregators and search engines employ their own reporters. The Big Four are information portals supported by vast and powerful search engines sitting on top of enormous buildings full of servers, full of data. The spectacularly massive databases are accessed via complex and powerful analysis programs capable of detecting patterns, traces, linkages and factual relationships across vastly disparate data stores. That last bit is the true power wielded by the Big Four—the ability to elicit order out of an apparently chaotic load of data. The decisions about what to present to you are based on software designed by real humans. You access the software based on specific needs. Automation takes over thereafter. As the Internet becomes more intelligent, as the people running the giant search engines understand more and more personal contexts in which data can be presented, routed and served, you and your needs will become better known. Information is going to be presented to you in ever more personalized ways. There's little more than 6 degrees of separation between the Big Four and Digg therefore—Digg just asks users to provide context. The Big Four propose to impose context by analyzing the results of your needs.

It's possible that Digg's populist approach (it's not the classically defined political doctrine, but rather the notion of the inherent rights of common citizens to access free information and deem it important based on personal needs) can be a huge benefit for all Internet users. Digg, del.icio.us and the Big Four provide us with the power of information, but leave it to us to sort out the priorities which are most relevant to our family and business needs. The idea is simply that any group of people, anywhere, gain greater power, influence, authority and respect as they absorb more and more information about the world in which they live.

Problem #3: How do you choose which news and information source is best for you? The answer has to be based strictly on personal needs. Forget the advice of friends and family. Try each service or method in succession for two weeks each. Decide which method most suits your social, political and technical needs. After you've made a primary choice, switch every so often, because it's probably not a good idea to restrict your information sources solely to those which make you feel good. From time to time, you have to find out what the other 'side' is doing.

The choice is yours to make: a) accept the news and information fed to you by the established authorities in traditional media on and offline; b) participate in the eclectic and democratic populism of Digg; c) learn to use Google's advanced search functions to find what you want as you need it. One way or another, participating in any of these approaches will enhance your knowledge. In the end, your actual participation, rather than mere observation or lurking in the background, helps to determine the importance and quality of information being disseminated. Whether Digging or Googling, stand up and be counted. Don't forget to read your local newspaper and listen to local broadcast news. Understanding the world and your interests is important, but knowing the local news will help you avoid that three car pileup on the Freeway, inform you about the meanderings of local politicians and might even point you in the direction of a terrific restaurant just up the street. Above all else, find out what's going on in your immediate vicinity by going out into it and talking to the people around you. The Internet alone is merely one tool.

Back to Hot News!