A reader recently suggested that some of my articles should be submitted to Digg, a website where readers online and vote for the submission of new and interesting pieces. The Council was flattering, in fact, it seems that some of what is said in all aspects of interest to a wide range of readers, but even more interesting is the process that Digg aims to achieve the objective news.
The site works on the principle Democratisccolui that readers can choose WHpresentado in articles if they wish to read and want to "Digg", with the obvious consequence of these articles with the highest number of "research" on the cover and the exposure. For those readers thinking that the articles are interesting, but not vote, readers can click "This is lame" - if a sufficient number of these "lame-vote", the article was removed from the light zalt hands moderators.
So far this seems quiteroom intuitive reasoción democratic, and all accounts should be little complaint with the method, but there were some voices of opposition to the site of much value. The most recent attack was a writer named Charlie Demerjian, which an article entitled "Digg.com is useless as a democratic concept which describes the experience of writing an article on online gambling to find out who was very popular. Deciding which Digg.com Demerjian also see its popularity and hasreceived more emails from rockets and comments, some agree and disagree with what he had to say, but be careful.
When the young writer has done research on your point dig.com a couple of days later, was surprised by the fact that it is removed. LL Consulting moderators of this site dzij that work has also received ten votes lame "and have been removed, as was the number required. Logically, the point that, despite containing more than one obiettivot, a potentialthe thousands of votes, can be eliminated only if sprouting ten inches
Consumer Democracy
Demerjian's Rant is a little 'remember the attacks on the list of programs like "American Idol" and "The X Factor." The Spanish version, Triumph Op.eraccion recently received two delegations from all the research dealt with journalists last steps are not present at the time.
In case of doubt, not erauthorizzati "edition" of the producers concerned, butviewers have complained about the poor quality of the winners album, which led to most of the poor, once the sale to reach stores. In large part, is why the cost of many plusou required to vote for candidates because, if the income of consumers has shown that democracy will triumph is left for the majority of sales of finished products of this screen is displayed ees net loss.
Demerjian summary: "Fortunately for humanity, Dee evaluation is left to the professionals, or in our case, the crack monkeys. However, monkeys are professional crack, and show a good agreement on the common sense of mass selling, and here the point of view.
Even if we think we know exactly what we want and we can choose our product of choice, with no experience as a consumer, in fact, very inefficient, so that if a sasocietà traditionally always been happy to have "professionals" for the selection for us.
If there is no process for amending natural, artificial and often must be applied so that the company comerceialmente vital. The reason for this is ridiculous Digg.com Article 10 in relation to 1000 is that if it was not the case, a consumer of media articles about the ridiculous time of the extent to which the link of the site has become "more the same."
This is normal. Apuestación the difference between consumers and businesses is which, while consumers are very common in their performance editionles minerals and are not producers at all - in their eternal commitment to the "last thing, the natural recycling process that seems to practice hard, but the content takes us back to the exhibition and shops.
If the current trend of "reality" has joined the democratic exchange of tecnologiaconoscenze technology, such as the Internet, such as the artificial replacement of a natural process of review will be necessario, because, as noted, consumers are key mentella dysfunctional democracies.
Production cycles more to the left of a small number, even if, as Demerjian, which coincides with a crack habit.
The site works on the principle Democratisccolui that readers can choose WHpresentado in articles if they wish to read and want to "Digg", with the obvious consequence of these articles with the highest number of "research" on the cover and the exposure. For those readers thinking that the articles are interesting, but not vote, readers can click "This is lame" - if a sufficient number of these "lame-vote", the article was removed from the light zalt hands moderators.
So far this seems quiteroom intuitive reasoción democratic, and all accounts should be little complaint with the method, but there were some voices of opposition to the site of much value. The most recent attack was a writer named Charlie Demerjian, which an article entitled "Digg.com is useless as a democratic concept which describes the experience of writing an article on online gambling to find out who was very popular. Deciding which Digg.com Demerjian also see its popularity and hasreceived more emails from rockets and comments, some agree and disagree with what he had to say, but be careful.
When the young writer has done research on your point dig.com a couple of days later, was surprised by the fact that it is removed. LL Consulting moderators of this site dzij that work has also received ten votes lame "and have been removed, as was the number required. Logically, the point that, despite containing more than one obiettivot, a potentialthe thousands of votes, can be eliminated only if sprouting ten inches
Consumer Democracy
Demerjian's Rant is a little 'remember the attacks on the list of programs like "American Idol" and "The X Factor." The Spanish version, Triumph Op.eraccion recently received two delegations from all the research dealt with journalists last steps are not present at the time.
In case of doubt, not erauthorizzati "edition" of the producers concerned, butviewers have complained about the poor quality of the winners album, which led to most of the poor, once the sale to reach stores. In large part, is why the cost of many plusou required to vote for candidates because, if the income of consumers has shown that democracy will triumph is left for the majority of sales of finished products of this screen is displayed ees net loss.
Demerjian summary: "Fortunately for humanity, Dee evaluation is left to the professionals, or in our case, the crack monkeys. However, monkeys are professional crack, and show a good agreement on the common sense of mass selling, and here the point of view.
Even if we think we know exactly what we want and we can choose our product of choice, with no experience as a consumer, in fact, very inefficient, so that if a sasocietà traditionally always been happy to have "professionals" for the selection for us.
If there is no process for amending natural, artificial and often must be applied so that the company comerceialmente vital. The reason for this is ridiculous Digg.com Article 10 in relation to 1000 is that if it was not the case, a consumer of media articles about the ridiculous time of the extent to which the link of the site has become "more the same."
This is normal. Apuestación the difference between consumers and businesses is which, while consumers are very common in their performance editionles minerals and are not producers at all - in their eternal commitment to the "last thing, the natural recycling process that seems to practice hard, but the content takes us back to the exhibition and shops.
If the current trend of "reality" has joined the democratic exchange of tecnologiaconoscenze technology, such as the Internet, such as the artificial replacement of a natural process of review will be necessario, because, as noted, consumers are key mentella dysfunctional democracies.
Production cycles more to the left of a small number, even if, as Demerjian, which coincides with a crack habit.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น