Welcome to ODU 366 Class Blog!

This blog has been created for the class of "Public Journalism in the Digital Age" taught by Dr. Jinsun Lee in the Spring semester of 2011 at Old Dominion University, Norfolk VA. Each student will develop his/her own blog and network with bloggers.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Try

Innovation_Research_Park_1

This is another way to post Flickr images

Flickr Image

Innovation_Research_Park_1

I've uploaded this picture from Flickr.

Imge 2


I could write here anything I like....

Image posting

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Rachel Dennett "Wachovia = Fail"

Wachovia attempted to help after the Haiti Earthquake by making donations available through the bank. However, a woman named Heather Lynn did not like the fees that the bank charged. She then proceeded to create a facebook group called "Wachovia = Fail". The point of the group was to expose Wachovia's fees to the facebook community and share thoughts. This is known as the sharing stage.
After the group grew in size and popularity, it transformed into the cooperation stage. In this stage, people were joining the group and making comments about their perspective on the matter. Additionally, they could invite more friends to join the cause.
Eventually, the facebook group got attention from many facebook users, in addition to the media. Wachovia's reaction was to stop, and reverse the charges. This collective action shows the people that real action can be taken just by the creation of one facebook group!!
I think that this is rather impressive!

Thursday, May 6, 2010

April 29th in class writing.

I'm going to compare Slashdot and Ohmynews international.

Slashdot claims in its tagline "NEWS FOR NERDS. STUFF THAT MATTERS", and has stories surrounding digital technology and the internet, ranging from legal and moral issues to trivial and entertaining subjects. Ohmynews international is a spin-off of the original Korean based site, and runs off of UGC, in this case, news stories and editorials.

Slashdot's submission process entails linking to others content mostly, many don't actually write longer stories, the only exception being if you wish to write an editorial, in which case you e-mail Slashdot your idea and they'll tell you if they're even remotely interested in it. This is much different than Ohymnews' process, which runs off article's the users have written themselves, so it differs from something like Huffington post, which does gate watching as well. Ohymynews has one dedicated editor for their standard site, and one for their international site.

Ohmynews has a clear list of 10 ethical requirements of "citizen reporters", here's a few:
"1. The citizen reporter must work in the spirit that "all citizens are reporters," and plainly identify himself as a citizen reporter while covering stories."
"4. The citizen reporter does not damage the reputation of others by composing articles that infringe on personal privacy. "
"6. The citizen reporter does not use his position for unjust gain, or otherwise seek personal profit. "

as well a list of conditions they must agree to when submitting a story, some more examples:
"4. When an article I submit has or will be simultaneously submitted in another medium, I will clearly state this fact to the editorial staff."
"8. Legal responsibility for defamation in articles lie entirely with the citizen reporter."

Slashdot will not post every story that is submitted, unlike Ohmynews, which as two sections, 'Ingul' is for stories formally accepted by the Ohmynews staff, and 'Saengnamu', which wasn't officially approved by the staff or considered an 'article'. Slashdot stories are handpicked by the editors, their FAQ page states :
"Slashdot gets hundreds of submissions every day. Every day our authors go through these submissions, and try to select the most interesting, timely, and relevant ones to post to the homepage. There are probably as many reasons for stories to get rejected as there are stories, but here are some of the more common ones:
  • Badly worded subjects
  • Broken or missing URLs
  • Confusing or hysterical sounding writeup
  • It might be an old story
  • It might just be a busy day and we've already posted enough stories
  • Someone already submitted your story
  • Your story just might not be interesting!"
Another big difference between the two sites is Slashdot allows anonymous registration (although you can, and are encouraged to, register), whereas Ohymynews requires registering using your real name, etc.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Technorati vs. Digg

Sorry this post is extremely late. I wasn't in class the day of and was told to write on the two blogs for half credit.

Both Technorati and Digg are blog sites made up of different stories floating around the internet.
The difference between the two however is that the blogs on Digg are popular because of the users rating the blogs while Technorati pulls blogs that have been the most popularly viewed through the different sites.

The topic that I chose to compare was country music.
For Digg the first three blogs were
1.Hank Williams wins Posthumos Pulitzer Prize. 310 Diggs
2.File Shareres Save until Muisc Biz changes laws 566 Diggs
3.Crazy County Fair Food: The Pork Parfait. 310Diggs

Technoratie
1.The Boot (Taylor Swift Flys to Auburn for Hugs) 729 Down
2.TwnetyFour Bit (Mark Ronson Produced Album) 661 up
3.Aquarium Drunkard (Music Blog) 865 Down

I think after checking both sites out it was definitely easier to follow Digg then it was Technorati.
I wasn't sure how users really rated technorati. There were a lot of hits on the first and third blog but they were red, and arrows down. But then the second blog had the least hits (out of the three) but had a green arrow.

Then as far as the content was concerneced, honestly on both sites for all three blogs I didn't really find the content useful. I didn't really care about the content so I wasn't intersted in what was being discussed.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Monday, April 19, 2010

Andy Hamm - Wachovia = Fail

Heather Lynn among many, many others decided to take part in the releif efforts after the devastating earthquake in Haiti. Heather decided to donate through her bank, Wachovia. After She noticed the unfair charges that Wachovia was placing on each doners transaction, she decided to go one step further and make some proactive efforts to do something about this situation. Heather started by sharing the situation with anyone she could. An ideal vehicle for this exposition was obviously one of the wolrds most popular social networking sites, Facebook.
Once Heather put the information out there, it was only a matter of time before other users began to spread the word. A perfect example of cooperation, people saw what Heather had to say, agreed with it and spread the news on to other friends.
After enough people found out about Wacovia's unjust actions and the rally finally gained Wachovia's attention, it was time for a change. Wachovia was forced to reavaluate their fees and through collective action, many voices were heard and an unexpected conclusion was reached.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Brenton Sharpe – Wachovia=Fail

After Heather Lynn donated to a Haiti relief fund, she noticed that Wachovia charged her an extra .30 cents for the donation. She then lashed out at Wachovia on Facebook (Sharing Stage) in protest on the bank’s policies by creating a Facebook group called “Wachovia = Fail”. She started this page in hopes of sharing information with her friends about the fees that Wachovia was adding to the donations.

People then started to join and inviting other friends to join along with them by commenting and telling others of their own experiences with the bank. This in turn was the start if the (Cooperation Stage).

After the Facebook page “Wachovia = Fail” started gaining attention from several users and other news outlets, Wachovia decided to wave and refund the fees that it had charged customers through donations. Through (Collective Action), users made a difference by making a stand therefore making Wachovia retract its policies.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Megan Morrow - Wachovia=Fail

After the Haiti earthquake,Wachovia attempted to help out by making donations available through the bank. However, the fees that were charged by the bank did not sit well with some, namely Heather Lynn. She started with the sharing stage, where she created a Facebook group called "Wachovia = Fail". This was to share information with the Facebook community about what fees Wachovia was adding to the donations.
After several people joined the "Wachovia=Fail" group, it turned into the cooperation stage. People initially acted by joining the group, and then continued to cooperate by commenting and inviting friends to join.
After gaining attention from not only several users via Facebook, but also news outlets, Wachovia decided to save face and reverse their charges. Through collective action, Facebook users were able to see real action being taken. It all started with one group created by one Facebook user.

April 6th Nicole Meraviglia

Heather Lynn is a 21 year old who donated money to Haiti for earthquake relief. After she put the transaction through by using her Wachovia debit card, she realized they had charged her a 3% intrest rate for international fees. Although it's a small amount of money, she was more upset over the issue of Wachovia making a profit off of relief efforts. Stage one of the collective action process was her creating a facebook page titled "Wachovia = fail." She got many people to join the facebook group for the common cause of making sure people knew Wachovia's international policies. Of course people agreed with her because within days the group was very large. Stage two is cooperation, and this happenes when Heather's friends start sending this facebook page to other people they know. As more and more people become involved, the cause is more known and progress is being made. Collective action is when everyone began sending comments and talking about the issue. Other newspapers and online journals got involved and many people found out about Wachovia's policy. After the three steps of collective action were taken, Heather's hard work did not go unoticed. She got back her 3% of the money and sent it to Haiti. People responded well to her facebook page and apparently there were other issues with Wachovia banking. Heather Lynn completed the 3 steps of collective action and won her argument.

In Class Writing - M. Owens Simpson

"Wachovia = Fail"

When Heather Lynn's credit card was charged an extra .30 cents for donating to a Haiti relief fund, she channelled her anger and disappointment into a "group activity" in protest against Wachovia bank. Just as the author Shirky would say, Heather's group activity evolved in three stages to achieve its peak effect. She  shared (stage 1) her frustrations with the world by creating a facebook group called "Wachovia = Fail" detailing what happened and what she thought about it. Heather then, of course, sent out friend requests, in order to rally people around the cause and educate them on the matter. As her friends and peers accepted the friend requests, and forwarded the group page to even MORE friends (cooperation, stage 2), knowledge about Wachovia's extra fees and Heather's cause grew. Wall posts and comments added in the cooperation for expanding the group and creating a group focus. Finally (stage 3 - collective action) the focus was born, which was that Wachovia should get rid of this fee when people are merely donating to a relief fund. Eventually, Wachovia could not ignore the growing protest, and the story was picked up by other online sites and news organizations. All of this combined, forced Wachovia to change its policy, after the three stages of Shirky's group activities was successful.

Kenneth Applegate 4.6.10 In-Class Writing

"Wachovia=Fail," who thought 2 words about a bank could gain so much interest across the Internet about a bank taking 30 cents for a transaction. Heather Lynn created the Facebook group after Wachovia charged a 30 cent fee when she donate money to the Haitian relief fund. Although 30 cents isn't a nominal amount of money, it was the fact that the bank over-looked her willingness to help and charged her for her goodwill. By forming this Facebook group, she used the 1st stage, sharing. When the Huffington Post caught light of this and wrote an article about it, more people became aware and joined the movement to get the fee removed for the donation. The 3rd stage didn't take part until Wachovia realized the negative look this group and it's members were giving to their bank, thus changing their policy to alleviate the fee, and regain trust from their bankers.

ODU Student protests Wachovia

When Haiti suffered its destructive quake a lot of charities offered help in the form of public donations. Some of these charitable sources were frauds and were actually stealing donations intended for relief. A surprising case of this came from Wachovia charging a 30 cent fee for international service. The money wasn't huge, but charging a fee for making a charitable donation seems unethical. Wachovia was making money from people trying to help out in Haiti. This charge struck a nerve in Heather Lynn. She fought back against Wachovia and demanded they cease collecting fees from donations. She created a group on the popular social network, facebook to show Wachovia just how many people agreed that this practice was unethical. In response to the over 1000 members of the "Wachovia = Fail" group, Wachovia refunded all service charges in Haiti donations.

Heather Lynn's Anti-Wachovia Facebook Page, How it relates to group activites

An Old Dominion University student, Heather Lynn, was frustrated with Wachovia for charging a fee when trying to use her Visa card to donate to Haiti, a fee other banks and credit card companies had been waiving. She began venting this frustration through a Facebook group entitled "Wachovia = Fail"

The three stages of group activities Shirky notes are Sharing, Cooperation, and Collective Action...

In the context of Lynn's story, the initial creation of the Facebook group, "Wachovia = Fail", takes care of sharing, the first stage.

The second stage of cooperation was accomplished when people accepted this request, and then invited their friends to the Facebook group as well.

Collective action, the third step, was when the members began to not only continue to spread friend suggestions for the page, but began commenting on it as well, for both members and visitors of the group to see. They all were commenting and complaining about Wachovia's practices together, with common frustration and understanding in mind. Wachovia must have felt pressured by all the attention, especially when digital outlets like the Huffington Post began to cover the story, and it appears Wachovia attempted to quell this negative attention earlier rather than later, and changed it's policy regarding fee donations, perhaps part of an attempt to silence any more criticisms that could be highlighted in the Facebook page.


In Class Writing April 6 - Thomas Raines

ODU student Heather Lynn has convinced Wachovia Bank to change company policy in regards to donations to Haiti. How did she manage to do this? By using the social networking site Facebook, she was able to share her concerns that Wachovia was charging people a service fee to donate to a Haitian relief fund. In doing do, she used the first of Shirky's three stages of group activities; sharing. She let her community know what was wrong and alerted the public that something should be done. Cooperation, the second of Shirky's three stages, happened when the Facebook group she started (Wachovia = Fail) began to garner more and more members and thus attention. The spread of the group shows the acknowledgment, and thus collective action that is the third stage of Shirky's list. With more and more members joining, and showing support for Lynn, Wachovia was forced to publicly announce that they would repeal the $0.30 international service charge for the Haitian relief fund. And that is how Heather Lynn utilized (albeit unwittingly) Shirky's three stages of group activities.

jillian baylor in-class writing

Heather Lynn exuded Shirky's 3 steps of sharing, cooperation and collective action in her fight against Wachovia.
Sharing - Lynn brought the issue of the $.30 charge first to Wachovia who in the beginning did not care about her out rage and did not even seem concerned. She then brought the issue to Facebook and gained supporters.
Cooperation - Through cooperation from her and her supporters Lynn gained enough backing to actually address the problem successfully with Wachovia, who decided to acknowledge her complaint.
Collective Action - Through cooperation of the masses, a whole collective action, Wachovia decided to change their policy since this issue became nationally realized through Lynn's efforts.

William Viola In Class Writing April 6th

The situation of Lynns problem with Wachovia shows a perfect example of Shirky's three steps. Those three steps being sharing, cooperation, and collective action are all seen in her use of the internet as a way to reach out.

By posting her argument on a facebook group page she was able to get her story out to many people and allow them to share it with others throughout the social networking site. As it got bigger and bigger the cooperation spread the story on to other sites and was able to gain major support. With all of these people feeling the same about the issue they were able to collectively act as a force to get the changes they wanted. In the end if Wachovia had not made new policies then they would have lost many valuable customers.

This is a great example of how people are able to work together much easier now with social networking groups than ever before.

Victoria Croffie April 6th in class writing assignment

The first stage is sharing and this is seen in the Wachovia article when Lynn made a Facebook page describing her disagreement with the bank. By setting up the page and sending it to her friends she allowed her thoughts and views to be shared with the rest of the world.

The second stage is cooperation and this is done by Lynn when people after becoming privy to her Facebook group and Wachovia's doing they band together to show their own disapproval against the bank via posting to the group discussion and joining the Facebook group.

The final stage, collective action is more clearly seen with better resultys when supporters of Lynn closed their accounts with Wachovia and voiced their opions to the bank. Enough of a complaint was made against the bank that they reversed their policy. If it wasn't for the sharing that Lynn originally did none of this would have come into fruition and therefore the policy would never have changed.


In-class writing assignment

Heather Lynn used Shirky's sharing, cooperation, and collective action ideals to take action. Her small fee created a big problem for Wachovia. Heather shared her personal issue she had with the international fee on her donation to Haiti by using Facebook and asking friends to become fans. She had cooperation of her fans to listen to her problem, read her page, and agree with her on the issue. They took a collective action by responding about problems they've also had with Wachovia (creating more negative publicity for Wachovia) and several made themselves ex-clients of the bank by withdrawing their funds. These 3 actions led to personal satisfaction and a $0.30 check from Wachovia for Heather Lynn.

Megan Byerly - In Class Writing Due April 6th

Heather Lynn created a Facebook page in order to express her opinion on Wachovia charging and international fee for a donation. Heather called it the “Wachoiva=Fail” page. She was able to use Clay Shirkey’s three stages, sharing, cooperation, and collective action, to make a change to the new policy. By making the actual page for the public to see and for her to express her opinion she was able to use the sharing stage. She asked all of her friends to join the page and by doing this she was demonstrating cooperation. When everyone pulled together and began pulling their money out of the Wachovia banks this was the third step, collective action. This lead to a reduction in the number of customers Wachovia was getting and was portraying the company itself in a bad light. In order to change people’s opinions and make the customers happy Wachovia was forced to change the policy back so that a fee was not necessary and they refunded all of the customers that were charged, all of their money.

In Class Writing due April 6th

Heather Lynn used Shirkey's three stages (sharing, coopereation, and colective action) in an attempt to make Wachovia change a policy where they charged an international fee for a donation. Suprisingly her attempt worked. She used sharing by creating "Wachovia=Fail" on facebook. This got the attention of her friends and others to see what Wachovia was doing. Then as perople interacted within the group, became members, and spread the word they all fell into the second stage, cooperation. She needed people to cooperate and listen to get the word spread so they could collectively take action, which is what they did. When Lynn took money out of Wachovia a lot of people followed as they were now aware of what was happening and as a result of losing business Wachovia changed their policy, and with Shirkey's three stages Lynn made a major change in how things were done.

Ina Chandler- Writing Assignment April 6th

Heather Lynn started the facebook page Wachovia=Fail to freely share her thoughts to others on the Wachovia fee. Many people responded to her page and shared their thoughts on the fee which started the sharing stage. Heather Lynn shared her thoughts so others wanted to share their thoughts on the fee. It did not matter if people agreed with the fee or not, people wanted to share their thoughts and be heard.
The cooperation stage started, when people saw others thoughts on the fee because they wanted to respond and be heard. So when others saw that many people had joined the facebook page more and more people joined. And more and more poeple expressed their opinions in response to other people's opinions.
Lastly, the collective action stage started when Wachovia saw the responses from the many people on the facebook page. They then decided to drop the fee so they would not lose members. So the collective action from all the people on the facebook page made Wachovia drop the fee because they saw the responses from others. Therfore, Heather Lynn made a facebook page to share her thoughts, many people started cooperating beause they saw others cooperating, and collective action resulted in the change that Heather protested for. And the change was made from so many people responding to something that they felt was wrong.

Monday, April 5, 2010

In Class Writing- April 6th

Heather Lynn was able to make Wachovia change its policy using Clay Shirky's three stages" sharing, cooperation, and collective action. By making a facebook page to let out her opinion about Wachovia's policy of charging an international fee for a donation. She then send the page to all her friends to join and be aware of what Wachovia was getting away with. Cooperation and Collective action coincided with one another in Heather's case by having the friends she invited to the facebook group invite their friends as well. By spreading the word like this, Wachovia was losing customers due to the popularity of this facebook group opposing their bank. Spokesmen Edward Terpening was forced to do something aobut it. Wachovia was forced to change its policy and refund everyone including Heather of their 30 cents charged on their original donation. By simply sharing, asking for cooperation from friends, and Heather's friends bringing more to the group through collective action, they were able to change a policy of a huge business such as Wachovia.

In-Class Writing: April 6

Lynn created “Wachovia=Fail” as a Facebook page for the first stage known as “sharing.” This is the most minimal of all 3 stages, meaning it releases the least information. The second stage is “cooperation.” As people join the Facebook page, comment, and interact, this creates the second stage. Finally the third stage is “collective action.” People began moving their money out of Wachovia, just like Lynn did, creating this last step.

Danielle Bevacqua: In Class Writing: Due April 6 2010

I apologize if this isn't meant to be posted on here, but I thought that's what we were told.

Shirky's three steps can be seen in the event of Heather Lynn's activism against Wachovia, starting with the sharingstage. This first stage would be when Lynn decided to make the Facebook page, "Wachovia = Fail." This is the stage that is the most minimal, in which the information is just getting out. During the second stage, cooperation, would have been when people started joining her Facebook group and changing their behaviors to mimick hers. Lynn removed the majority of her money and moved it to another bank. Once others joined the group, it was said that they too moved all of their money out of Wachovia and closed - in some cases- multiple accounts. This stage would continue as more and more people joined the group and shared the same actions. The last stage, collective action, actually would be as previously mentioned where people actually moved their money to other banks. This collective action- the movement of multiple accounts all around the same period of time- by many different people, would be the collective action of the group.

April 6th Writing Assignment

Through the means of facebook Heather Lynn was able to make Wachovia change its policy using Clay Shirky's three stages, sharing, cooperation, and collective action.
With sharing, she made a facebook page to vent her frustration with Wachovia's policy of charing an international fee for a donation and then sent the page to all her friends so they could be aware of the situation.
For cooperation and collective action her friends (once they had recieved the request to join) then shared the page with their friends. People who heard or read the story soon started closing their accounts. The controversy surrounding Wachovia became so huge that Wachovia Spokesmen Edward Terpening had to address the issue.
Wachovia was going to change its policy regarding charging international fees on donations made and was also going to refund everyone including Heather Lynn, the 30 cents which was charged on the donation.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

In-class Writing by April 6

Digital Media and Collective Action

  • Take a look at the comments on the news as well as the news story.
  • If you have a Facebook ID, you can refer to a Facebook page called "Wachovia=Fail" which Lynn initiated to protest Wachovia.
Shirky addresses three stages of group activities. Describe how Lynn’s online suggestion has led Wachovia to change its policy, evolving through the three stages (sharing, cooperation, and collective action) of the group activities.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Hey Class: Here's my Wikipedia article

Sorry I wasn't able to see everyone's in class, but if you want to comment on this post and link to your Wikipedia project or someone else's who stood out that'd be excellent.

Regardless, here's what I did for the project, it's on the neighborhood I live in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park,_Norfolk,_VA (in case anyone is still hungry for more Wiki)

See everyone next class!

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

IN-CLASS WRITING

Due to me being sick since Thursday of last week I have ask to be able to turn in my assignments a bit late. I hope this will suffice. Digg.com and Technocrati are considerably different sites. Digg.com is more of a produser friendly letting them edit the blogs on how they see fit. But Technocrati rates the blogs on popularity or how active it is. From there they rate blogs on how they "rise" or "fall". I personally prefer Digg.com. It seems simple and gives a variety of subjects at the same time.

In Class Writing 2/25 - Thomas Raines

Having been sick the past week, I am posting this a bit late in the game. But, I hope I am still able to contribute and enrich the class as a whole ;)

Digg.com and Technocrati.com are both blog sites that link in other sites as a way to collect and view the most popular things on the internet. These range from news stories, to videos, to simply pictures. The subject of content varies greatly, and as a result, each site is broken down into categories beyond the main page (which showcases the top links out of the entire site).

So format is very similar between the two, but how do they gather said information?

They rely solely on user generated content, which requires free site membership to participate in. A user links in something interesting and posts it in the correct category within the site. It is at this point that the similarities stop. Thankfully, otherwise they would just be copies of one another.

Digg relies on its users to rate the link as either good or bad. If it's good they "digg" it, and the link lives on. The more "diggs" it receives, the longer it stays on the main page and visible to traffic.

Technorati relies on its users for content, but as to how the content is distributed is based on site-analytics. What does that mean? Well, the traffic of the think posted over a period of time determines the relevance and popularity. The more traffic the more likely you'll see it featured on the main page, and in view of the most people.

Why does this matter? Well, digg popularity is totally dependent upon member participation. So if the digg community doesn't like it, it doesn't get seen. Technorati, regardless of user input, shows the links that have been viewed the most. So if there is a link that has an eye-catching title, regardless of content, it will be pushed to the top. Which, as a result, I enjoy digg over the competition.

Top stories at time of posting:

Digg:
1. Google is very smart these days (pic)
2. Think your life sucks? Think again....
3. Color Wheel [comic]

Technorati:
1. Senator Jim Bunning Gone Rogue
2. From Real Housewife to Desperate Housewife
3. World's Richest Soccer Clubs Revealed

Friday, February 26, 2010

Mark Owens Simpson In Class Writing 2/25/10

The ways in which technorati.com and digg.com evaluate blogs are considerably different. Digg.com relies on users directly rating blogs by clicking on the "digg" icon, representing that the reader approves of a certain blog or an individual post of that same blog. Technorati.com, however, uses a different approach. Depending on the most popular subjects being discussed in the blogosphere, and how specific blogs relate to those same subjects, technorati rates a blogs popularity. The blog rating site also incorporates the activity that an individual blog receives along with how often the information is updated on it. Technorati offers a listing of the top five "risers" and "fallers" based on the same criteria.

On Digg, the top 5 "Offbeat" blogs are:
1) 6 Soldiers Who Survived That Would Kill a Terminator
2)Sex Poll: Women Want Sex More Than You Think
3) Top 5 Ways to Not Be Annoying on Twitter

On Technorati, the top 5 "Political" blogs include:
1) The Huffington Post
2) Think Progress
3) The Corner on National

Determining the overall quality of the both top 3 blogs, I came to the conclusion that Technorati seemed to have more authority in blogs as a whole, whereas Digg may be able to decipher the most interesting individual posts, which users rate as good. Although I think the Technorati top blogs were appropriately rated, I believe that Digg.com's rating system is more effective, as it is more user oriented.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Megan Morrow In-Class Writing 02.25.10

Technorati and Digg are two sites that calculate the validity and popularity of blogs and other content on the internet. Technorati bases its list of most prevalent sites on how timely the information is updated, what topics are being discussed throughout the internet, and how often the sites are updated. Digg uses "Diggs," which are props given by users who visit the site and decide it is relevant. The difference between the two is that Technorati seems to use more complex of a rating scale to find the top sites. Digg just relies on users to find the information and "turn it in" to Digg.com.

The top three Entertainment: Celebrity blogs for Technorati are:
1. Just Jared
2. Cele|bitchy
3. popbytes

The top three Entertainment: Celebrity blogs for this month on Digg are:
1. That's Right, Firefly > Twilight
2. Amazing Morgan Freeman Impression
3. Heart Attack-inducing Pic of Christina Hendricks

The main difference between Technorati and Digg is that Technorati rates whole websites/blogs, while Digg rates individual features, such as images, videos, and pages. The quality of the celebrity blogs rated by Technorati was high, and seemed to be very valid sites. However, Digg seemed to be more about entertainment.

Megan Byerly

The rating systems of digg.com and technorati.com are very different. Each post on digg.com is rated based on the number of "diggs" it receives. Technorati Authority is calculated a bit differently. It is based on the sites linking activity. Depending on what is going on in the blogosphere and what topics are being discussed, will make the popularity of certain sites on technorati rise and fall.


After looking at top three posts under entertainment on digg.com which were Conan O'Brien is now on Twitter!, Jon Stewart Sums Up Everything That is Wrong with America, and the top three under entertainment on technorati.com which were Kotaku, Joystiq, and Just Jared, it seems to me that digg.com has a much more effective blog. I liked the top three posts on digg.com much more than I did the top three posts that I found on technorati.com. I found the quality of the posts on digg.com to be much more informative and effective. The rating system on digg.com seems to be much more effective than that of technorati.com, but it also greatly depends on the type of posts you are interested in. People do not all like the same things, so a post that I find interesting make lack diggs because other people find that post boring.

jillian baylor

Technorati & Digg both evaluate their content in different ways. The main difference between the two is, Technorati uses editors and writers to produce their content for being the biggest blog search engine. However, Digg does not have any editors or writers on staff and everything on their site is submitted by their community, which are the users of the site *produsage*.

Technorati evaluates their content by which blogs are the most popular based on how many hits they get over the internet. They also feature the top 5 "moving" blogs, which are the top 5 blogs that have recently gained popularity and rapidly moved up the top 5 blogs list. Technorati also features the latest articles regarding your topic.

Digg evaluates their content based on user opinions. Their users can "digg" something they like, the more diggs an article has the higher it is on the Most Recent article list. You can choose to view the popular articles based on Most Recent, Top in 24hrs, 7 days, 30 days, and 365 days. After you select an article to read that interests you, after you click the link Digg takes you to the article on the actual blog it came from.

My topic of interest was Music. On the Technorati website the top 3 music blogs were CMT, Consequence of Sound, and Pop & Hiss. On Digg, the top 3 music articles were "I-Tunes Sells 1 Billion Songs" from the Billboard website, a video on youtube "Rickroll Removal Was a Mistake" from mashable.com and "Stories This Amazing Only Happen Once Every Four Years" from diggtheolympics.com.

I think the articles I found from the Digg website would be more interesting to me rather than the blogs recommended from the Technorati search engine. I also feel as though I wouldn't want to be necessarily forwarded to a website without a purpose or article to read. I need something that will draw me into that website rather than browsing around on the blog without a motive. In reality, that takes up too much time. I also feel as though since the first blog that came up on Technorati was a commercialized (CMT) blog anyway I could have used google to get those results. I think the results Technorati gives are only helpful for those unfamiliar with the internet, like for an older crowd. I think its more effective for a website to sort their content based on user opinions rather than based on hits, then filtering and editing that information.

In-Class Writing on Feb. 25

1. Visit Technorati (www.technorati.com) and Digg (www.digg.com).
2. Compare the rating system of each site. In what ways does each site evaluate content (or blog)?
3. On the top menu, click the area in which you are most interested. (Technology, business, entertainment…). Find out the top three posts (or blogs) in the area.
4. What do you think about the quality of the top three content on Technorati and Digg. Discuss the effectiveness of the rating systems.
5. Post your writing on the class blog. (odu366.blogspot.com)
6. If you don’t finish in class, you can post your writing by Friday, Feb. 26.

Rachel Dennett In-class writing assignment comm 366

Technorati and Digg both have very different layouts. Technorati makes use of a program called Technorati Authority which, according to www.technorati.com is "Authority is calculated based on a site’s linking behavior, categorization and other associated data over a short, finite period of time. A site’s authority may rapidly rise and fall depending on what the blogosphere is discussing at the moment, and how often a site produces content being referenced by other sites."

The main difference between the rating systems on the site are that technorati uses a computerized rating system, in comparison with Digg, which makes use of a interaction between the consumers and the site for an also very effective rating system. Technorati uses the topical authority system to allow for quick, fast ratings of the posts. It is very effective, but less interactive in my opinion. I would much rather see a post that is ranked by another person, in comparison is a computerized post.


The topic I chose on Technorati is gaming. The top three posts on gaming are:
- Kotaku
- Joystiq
- Xbox Live's Major Nelson

The topic I chose on Digg is also gaming. The top three posts on gaming are:
- Modern Warfare 2 -Top 10 luckiest kills
- MoProUSA shows off fully integrated Wiimote pistols, tempts investors (video)
- What to do if your accelerator pedal sticks??


All of these blogs are extremely interesting and the main difference that I notice are that the rating systems are extremely different, but both very effective.
I prefer Digg.com's rating system because it is humans rating the posts. I like to see the comments to see what people have to say about the posts. Both of these websites are great and informational.

Katy Townsley

Digg's rating system is short and sweet. You either like it or you don't. You cannot really elaborate on the details of an article like you can with Technorati. Digg is also anonymous. On Technorati, you can add content to an article. Technorati is a system used to search other blogs and sorts everything accordingly. Digg is just information brought from other websites and is presented according to popularity.

The top three sites in the sports Olympic section of Technorati are:
"Shocker: People Would Rather Watch the Olympics Than Do Laundry"
"DIY Rings"
"Far Coast Furniture Raises Awareness of the Pine Industry at the Olympics"

The top three most visited sites in the Entertainment section of Digg are:
"Stephen Colbert Takes on the Russians in Bubble Hockey"
"Batman and Superman Battle for Highest Price Comic"
"Students Teach Target Stores to Improve Energy Efficiency"

Technorati authority chose their top stories based on a 0-1000 scale. Digg chose their top stories by the number of "diggs" or positive ratings. Since Technorati has a computer based system to chose their stories, I think they are more accurate. Public opinion is not the best way to decide which stories to display on the front page.

Digg is a website that allows users to post anything they want from other web content. The people/users on Digg are the ones who decide if they like your article or not. If you like the article, you can "digg" it. Once an article gets enough popularity, it becomes shown on the front page.

Technorati is used to search blogs. It focuses on tags from other peoples websites, which is useful in sorting all of its information. Technorati's top posts, unlike Digg, are chosen by the Technorati authority, which is a computer based system. The technorati authority is now topical, which organizes blogs by subject. Technorati authority uses a 0-1000 scale with 1000 being the highest. If a blog is ranked high, it means it is very influential to it's subject.

The top 3 blogs for sports on Technorati are Bleacher Report, MLB Rumors and Deadspin. The top 3 articles on Digg are How To Get Your Girlfriend Into Sports, Cubs Manager Lee Elia's Famously Profane Tirade and How Automotive Recalls Work.

I think that that Technorati's top 3 were more accurate in relating to sports than Digg. However, I feel like you could google a specific sports subject and find the same general material on it. I think that Digg is more interesting and effective because it gives you articles you might not otherwise run into.

Michael Galoppa

Both Technorati and Digg are link sites that do not host stories, but rather the links to the news stories on another site. Digg allows users to click the link and read the story then decide to "Digg" it. Only when a user "Diggs" a site will the link be given a recognized Digg point. Diggs are tallied and the most popular links appear first. Technorati is similar, but instead of allowing users to decide what links recieve points, if you click a link it automatically receives Technorati authority. Authority is tallied and the most visited links are viewed first. Also, Technorati keeps track of what links are hot and what are not. If a link receives a lot of views today it is featured on the top movers. If it loses its interest it is found in the fallers section.
Digg and Technorati highlight popular links and make it easy for people to recognize what is the current trend in popular internet links. I like both of them, but I would be more intrested in Technorati, because it tallies without the need to "Digg." On the other hand, Digg makes it content more reliable, because people must "Digg" a topic for it to receive points. Technorati may show us what subjects are popular, but Digg shows us what people like.

Danielle Bevacqua

Technorati uses a system (the Technorati Authority System) in which the amount of times a blog is linked too, users' interest in the blog, as well as " other associated data over a short period of time." These ratings change more frequently than their last system, which changed every six months. This shorter evaluation period is better to keep up with changing interests.

Digg.com's rating system is user driven. The amount of "digg's" a post gets, the more attention and higher up on their list it becomes. This system is not computer-based, making it all about the users of Digg to have their opinions at the forefront.

After viewing the first three sites on Digg.com, I chose the Lifestyle category, and the top three stories were (in order), "The Decline in Pop Culture in Two Photos," "Astonishing Illusion of Cave in Middle of London," "Breaking: GM to shut down Hummer; sale of brand canceled."

I also chose the Lifestyle category on Technorati, and the top three stories were: "Meditation Helps You Grow Inside and Out," "Students Protest AT&T Coverage," and "Hannah Teter's Charity Set up for Long-term Good."

Out of both sets of Top 3, I liked Digg's more. I also personally like the system Digg has- it is more user-interaction. Although I think Technorati's system is rather intersting, and I would be interested in learning the coding for it, I find that I like Digg's system more, simply due to the fact that it is more user involved.

In-Class Writing 2/25 Brenton Sharpe

While visiting sites Technorati and Digg, I found that both sites one can look up blogs and rate them based on content and originality. The rating systems on Technorati is based on Authority or linking activity whereas Digg is based on Diggs.

Technorati: Sports- Football Channel:

1) LaDainian Tomlinson Released by the San Diego Chargers
2) 10 Small School Players to Watch at the NFL Combine
3) Your AFC East pre-comine mocktacular

Digg: Sports- American & Canadian Football:

1) Admiral Ackbar as Ole Miss Mascot: It's Not a Trap!
2) Eagles Release RB Brian Westbrook
3) Former Patriots Standout Mosi Tatupu Dead at 54

The main difference between Technorati and Digg is that Technorati rates whole websites/blogs, whereas Digg rates individual blogs. Both were very streamlined and easy to navigate and read- each with a unique color scheme, but overall both sites were interesting.

Andy Hamm

The website Technorati uses a rating system based on specific data calculated over a short, finite period of time. Technorati Authority is based off of information such as a websites linking behavior, categorization and other related data. With this rating system, a websites "Authority" may rise and fall rapidly depending on what the blogosphere is discussing. The website Digg, on the other hand, has a rating system based completely from the consumers opinion of the article. If the reader "diggs" the article then they simply click a tab to say so. The number of "diggs" indicates the level of popularity of the article.
Based on the two rating systems, I personally prefer the "Digg" rating system. I find that just because many people have visited a website doesn't necessarily mean that the information is quality. With Digg I am able to more effectively discern the interesting articles from the lame.
With Technorati Authority I found that the top 3 articles on the 2010 Winter Olympics were found on these websites...
1. The Huffington Post
2. Engadget
3. Gizmodo

Kenneth Applegate

Technorati vs. Digg

Right off the bat, I notice that Sports on both isn't exactly laid out the way I'd like it to be. Pretty sure there's a picture of BASKETBALL that remains top on the technorati section even after clicking the Baseball sub-heading, and on digg there's a remedy for toyota floor-mats smack in the middle. The ratings on Technorati seem to be out of 1000 pts, but the top 3 blogs at the moment are shy of a couple points, still respectable though. The ratings on Digg seem to be more sporadic as readers can 'digg' the item and boost its credibility.
I feel that the Digg rating systems are a lot more legit than the Technorati system, seeing as the Digg rating is for EACH blogpost, not the writer as a whole. By looking at it this way, if the author on technorati has a good reputation, then posts a faulty article, not many first-glancers will notice because the average rating will only be altered so much. Technorati starts at 1000 and works its way down, while Digg starts at 0 and works it's way up.

right now the top 3 on technorati are

Bleacher report, mlb rumors and deadspin

and on digg, which is olympic-flooded right now is
That Is Just Cold, Canada... (Pic)
NBC's Broken Olympic Coverage Annoys Absolutely Everyone
USA Beats Canada in Men's Hockey Showdown

Matthew McCracken

The websites Technorati and Digg are both great places to find various amounts and different types of news happening around the world. Being a blog type sites, success among these sites is rated by either a "Digg" at Digg.com or "Technorati authority" at technorati.com.

When it comes to Digg.com, the way an individual rates a story is simply by either liking or disliking. They label it as a "Digg" if an individual enjoys the story while if you dislike it, you may click "bury" to the story. On the other hand, Technorati is rated by a term called Technorati Authority. This is where stories and blogs are rated by "calculation of a site's linking behavior, categorization, and other associated data over a short, finite period of time."

Comparing the two rating systems and the top content on both sites, I feel as if Digg's rating system is more simple, but yet more effective. Although Technorati authority is not difficult to understand, I feel as if there is too much thought going into it. I feel that once you are on top as an author on Technorati, you are there to stay whether or not your articles are good or not. When reading an article or blog, one can usually tell within a minute whether or not they are interested in the topic at hand, or if they feel that reading the rest of it would be a waste of time. With Digg, any individual can respond to an article or blog simply by "digging it" or "burying it" based off their own interests while Technorati is based off a system's calculations of visitation to the site. I just feel that both are good websites, but Digg is more convenient for more individuals around the world.

Digg top 3:
James Cameron discusses Na'vi boobs
Guy dumps his cheating girlfriend live on radio
Stay classy Canada

Technorati top 3:
Conan O Brian begins tweeting
Yahoo and Twitter Team up for Content Sharing
American Idol Down to 20

Ina Chandler

Technorati evaluates content by how many posts people put up about a subject. The more people want to post on the blog about a subject the higher the rating goes up. In the entertainment section the most popular post was Kotaku which is a new video game. Digg evaluates content by what people think is the most interesting. If people think a topic is interesting they press digg which means they like the post and the more people who like the post the higher the rating is. In the entertainment section the most popular subject was Conan O'Brien being on twitter. Therfore,Technorati evaluates content by how many people post blogs on the subject and Digg evaluates content by how many people like the subject.
On Technorati the top three posts for entertainment section are Kotaku, Joystiq, and Just Jared. The top three posts for the entertainment section on Digg are Conan O'Brien on Twitter, Jon Stewart sums up everything that is wrong with America, and I experience numbers as fails.
The quality of the top three in the entertainment section on Technorati is less important entertainment to me than Digg. Technorati's top three are about video games, Nintendo and Saturday night live so I feel those are not very interesting in entertainment. Therefore, I feel Digg has a more effect rating system because the posts are more related to entertainment. Celebrities are more interesting to people because they are entertaining. So Digg is more effective because the content in the entertainment section is more related to popular entertainment.

William Viola

The content on technorati is rated based on a system called Technorati Authority. Technorati Authority is calculated by a sites linking behavior, categorization, and other associated data over a short period of time from a scale of 0(lowest)-1000(highest). Diggs content is rated based on active user participation. The Digg users can read articles and chose to "digg" it which will rise the articles popularity or they can "bury" an article. To "bury" an article is to get rid of spam or articles which contain bad links, off topic content, and duplicate entries.

Technorati Sports:
1. Figgy, Takahashi kick off Grapefruit League
2. Michigan, Rich Rodriguez and AD David Brandon Address the NCAA Investigation into Alleged Extra Practice Violations
3. Jets take a LaLook at LaBoy

Digg Sports:
1. Cubs Manager Lee Elia's Famously Profane Tirade
2. Lassila's comeback ends with gold in aerials
3. Germans Take Surprise Gold In Giant Slalom



After visiting both sites it feels as though both work very well in their own ways. Both site seem to have a high level of quality for their articles. I seem to prefer the Technorati site more than the Digg site due to the fact that it seems to have less of an opportunity for user error. The Tehnorati Authority system seems to have a well placed formula for establishing the most important information based on quality content where as Digg uses a system based on what is most recently added.