A source did suggest that Yahoo is now hastily revising its mass-firing plan, upping the number of employees who will be shown the door. The theory: eBay's mass-firing, which had been demanded by shareholders for months, was greeted with Bronx cheers because it didn't go far enough in light of the ongoing global economic crash. Now eBay will like be forced to break the cardinal rule of mass firings: death by an unending wave of cuts.

Yahoo doesn't want to make this mistake, so the theory is that management will now increase the number of sackings to take into account Great Depression 2.0--and to make sure there won't have to be another major bloodletting in a few months.

Email: hblodget@alleyinsider.com

At a reader's request, here's the Investor Presentation Yahoo delivered when it was trying to persuade its shareholders that Microsoft's $31 offer was ludicrously low:

See Also:
Yahoo Cuts Coming In Mid-November
Latest on Yahoo Speculation and Heresay

Shortly afterwards, Digg announced that it had raised $28.7 million in a new round of venture funding. And in the last few days, Digg jettisoned more members of its community with another fresh round of bannings, again including many high profile users. A separate Digg blog post patiently re-iterated Digg’s justifications for these actions.

A palpable level of online controversy has ensued as banned users have cried foul, while other users have applauded Digg’s actions. For anyone who is actively involved in online community-building, whether through a blog, a website, or a social network, examining the events of the past few weeks quickly reveals several important lessons about how Digg has handled the establishment and growth of its community. But perhaps more importantly, the way that Digg has gutted user morale and shown itself willing to cast off those that have been so crucial to its success also reveals the limits of its core crowdsourcing model.

Building a Flawed System

Before we can get into all of that, let’s take a moment and revisit the past. Recall that Digg launched in December of 2004. At the time, Digg was regarded as a direct competitor to Slashdot due to its focus on tech stories. In a 2006 interview with ZDNet, Digg founder Rose proclaimed the site’s raison d’etre, saying:

[Digg] was just a side project of mine and something that we wanted to try out by giving power and control back to the masses. Typically with technology news sites a handful of editors choose which stories are relevant and which they believe the audience would like to read about. This was the first time that anyone experimented with allowing the general mass audience to decide what they believed to be the most important topic of the day.

At a time when the idea of Web 2.0 was just beginning to take hold and millennials were chafing under the constraints of receiving their news through the mainstream media, Digg offered the promise of news that was determined for the people, by the people. The fundamental assumption behind the site was similar to that of any crowdsourcing model: The wisdom of the masses will provide news stories that are more relevant, interesting, or informative than anything chosen by a select few.

Unfortunately, things haven’t quite worked out that way.

In order to understand why, it’s important to know the difference between Digg’s website (i.e. the nuts and bolts of how it functions) vs. Digg’s business (i.e. as a potentially money-making Silicon Valley startup). Both of these elements play important but distinct roles that led to the unmaking of Digg’s purported mission.

The Website

For those who are unfamiliar, Digg’s basic website functionality was as follows: Users found links they wanted to share from across the Internet and submitted them to Digg, where they were automatically entered into an “Upcoming Section.” Users could vote or “digg” up stories if they enjoyed them and if they received enough diggs, based on Digg’s proprietary algorithm, the story would be promoted to the front page. In theory, the Upcoming Section could be a thriving area of the site, where stories were discussed and voted upon, but as the site grew larger and the rate of submissions accelerated, it quickly became useless to check this section, due to the sheer volume of information (As of October 2008, roughly 10,000 to 15,000 stories are submitted to Digg per day. That is about one story every 7-10 seconds).

But Digg also had other features as well. Specifically, it allowed you to 1) Have your own profile page, and 2) Follow people by making them your “Friend.” Initially, profile pages displayed user stats, such as the number of stories submitted and the percentage of those stories promoted to front page (later, they would also display personal information such as photos and links to other social networking sites). Making someone a “Friend” allowed users to follow that person’s actions, including stories submitted and dugg.

Users quickly realized that one way to get diggs for their submitted stories was to make someone your Friend and consistently digg that person’s stories. Reciprocal diggs would usually follow. Using this process to find interesting stories, and to find online friends who would digg your own stories, was considerably easier than wading through the morass of thousands of stories submitted daily in the Upcoming Section.

As a result of all of these elements, the system favored stories submitted by users who had a combination of the following attributes:

• The time and the inclination to find interesting stories

• The time to digg their friend’s stories

• The will to both digg and submit stories consistently over a long period of time

Users who had these attributes naturally saw a large percentage of their stories get promoted to the front page. This was what led to the concept of “top users” or “power users,” a notion that was, in some ways, antithetical to the idea of democracy (and that’s completely leaving out the fact that the site needs editors to supplement the efforts of its users).

Why should a really fascinating or interesting story have a higher chance of getting promoted to the front page if it was submitted by a top user than a newcomer? Indeed, today still, a story submitted by a top user will instantly garner a significant number of diggs from followers, often regardless of the story’s quality. While Digg’s algorithm was theoretically supposed to correct for this, page after page of front page stories submitted by the same few individuals demonstrated that Digg was not doing its stated job very well. At one point, Digg’s top 100 users were responsible for over 50% of Digg’s front page stories.

This was Digg’s fundamental problem, although it didn’t have to be: It was an attribute shared by many other Web 2.0 companies. Only a small fraction of the total number of users contributed substantially to the site. According to recent Quantcast statistics, 1% of the Digg’s users are contributing 32% of the site’s visits. But this is no different than a company like Wikipedia, which clocks in billions of pageviews every month, yet whose articles and infrastructure are mostly maintained by a few thousand enthusiasts. While Wikipedia and similar sites have found ways to recognize and reward their active participants, Digg, as we’ll see, has constantly tried to shake the image that it is controlled by a select few.

The Business

From the business end, Digg has acted in ways to consistently grow its page views and expand its audience in the three and half years since its founding. About a year ago, Digg changed its interface to make friends’ stories significantly less accessible and to require more clickthroughs, a move that was widely decried by power users and which inadvertently led to the script situation that it is currently caught up in.

In a stunning analysis by ReadWriteWeb, the site also began dramatically expanding the variety of its front-page topics, focusing less and less on technology as the years went on (in other words, while the proportion of tech stories to all stories submitted remained roughly the same, the proportion of tech stories promoted to the front page went down dramatically). The implications of this were more troubling: Digg was actively manipulating the distribution of front page stories. Combined, these moves showed that Digg was becoming ever-more conscious of its need to appease investors as time went on. Despite a lucrative ad deal with Microsoft in 2007, social networks like Digg remained (and still remain) notoriously difficult to create a business model around.

Digg has also struggled to contain the influence of its top users throughout its existence. Far from acknowledging their contributions, Digg has constantly denied their key role its growth. On an episode of Diggnation, Rose even claimed that he didn’t know who the top users were, saying, “I don’t pay attention to who might be considered a top Digger, or who’s not.” In early 2007, Digg stopped hosting a public list recognizing users that were getting the most front page stories. According to Digg, this move was to prevent them from being harassed, although the list has since moved elsewhere with few complaints of any such trouble.

More recently, Digg has shown its independence by banning dozens of high-activity users, allegedly due to script use. Some of the scripts employed actually allowed users to digg their friend’s stories more easily, giving Digg pre-2008 levels of functionality. Digg’s recent actions are objectionable and suspect for a number of reasons. First of all, several of the banned users have complained there was no warning given and that the decision was irreversible. But most importantly, while many relative new users were swept up in the mix, top users such as “CosmicDebris” and several others were also eliminated.

These users have helped Digg to deliver dozens of millions of page views and clicks to sites across the Internet. It is not an exaggeration to say that they have helped to make Digg the popular site that it is today. For Digg to cast off these users like so much dead weight, rather than work with them constructively, is an indictment of Digg’s recklessness with its devoted community. It has also brought to light the tension between Digg and those users that have climbed their way to the top by learning Digg’s system. As a result, several other top users have expressed fear that their accounts, which they have poured hundreds of hours of time into, will be next on the chopping block.

Recent events have given hints about Digg’s upcoming trajectory. This past summer, Digg rolled out its Recommendation Engine, allowing users a new way to find interesting stories and taking some focus and dependency off of its top users. In July, Google allegedly and mysteriously walked away from a deal to buy Digg, amidst longstanding rumors that the cofounders have been intent on a sale. And earlier this month, Digg recently reported a new round of venture funding and declared it would be expanding worldwide. Put all of these together and you get the picture of an organization that is trying to establish it is not dependent on the efforts of a few dedicated and unpaid volunteers (i.e. its top users) to keep its website interesting and thriving.

But what has it sacrificed in its attempt to prove this?

Lessons Learned

The way that Digg has handled its growth reveals important lessons, both for competing social news sites and for social media companies looking to build thriving communities:

True Democratization of News is Difficult – Rose and his crew are undoubtedly a talented group of programmers, but even their Digg algorithm has had compensating for the flaws inherent in Digg’s system. In the years following its creation, Digg became less a democracy and more a republic, with a select few users responsible for the majority of front page stories. The Web is still struggling to come up with a news model that can efficiently crowdsource its editorial process, although sites that automate the process (e.g. Techmeme) or sites that rely on editors (e.g. Fark, Slashdot) are at least more transparent with their advantages and failings.

Recognition is a Key Motivator – Social networks typically have a tangible way for users to track their notoriety. MySpace has “Friends,” Youtube has “Number of Times Viewed,” and Twitter has “Followers.” Digg has “Stories Made Popular.” Top users often pointed to this number with pride, a reminder of the thrill of seeing one’s submission spread to thousands of eager readers. Digg, however, has done nothing to acknowledge their contributions and with its recent bannings, it has indicated it doesn’t believe it needs them at all.

While Digg’s growth may not be adversely affected by the accounts gone missing, it seems that when Time named “You” the Person of the Year in 2006, they were actually on to something more meta than originally thought: People like being recognized for contributions and the potential for Internet fame that may follow. Social networks that have gone on to insanely high valuations or become profit-making ventures have recognized this fundamental fact of Web 2.0. Digg has not.

Communities Require Nurturing – The way that Digg has treated it users has not been with the committed touch of a benign leader, but of a dictator that assumes its actions (or lack thereof) will be consistently met with the assent of its followers. Its town halls have been little more than PR exercises, and user-requested features like the Recommendation Engine have taken years to roll out, while others (e.g. forums) have yet to be implemented at all.

A comparison between Digg and Mixx quickly shows that while the former’s traffic still trounces the latter’s, Mixx’s founders and employees have been open about how they are fostering the growth of their website. Anecdotal comparisons between, say, “The Drill Down” podcast (which covers tech news as well as social news sites like Digg) and Mixx’s unofficial podcast, “Social Blend,” starkly contrast how each company has dealt with its fanbase. While Digg and its policies are frequently an object of criticism on “The Drill Down,” “Social Blend’s” contributors typically have nothing but kind things to say about their digital overlords.

Conclusions

Kevin Rose recently claimed that his primary goal in the most recent round of bannings was to enforce the TOS and make the site easier to use. According to Rose, the bannings are only a response to people trying to subvert the system:

What happens is that some people try and get around [Digg’s algorithm], and they try different ways of doing this. One of these methods is called script digging…and they go and they will digg their friend’s stories, in order to help propagate those stories on the recommendation engine, or to help promote them to the front page. They use automated methods…sometimes it’s very apparent…We have ways of telling how they do it. And so what’s going on is that these people are abusing the system, they are using extra resources and when they throw that many diggs at the system at once it sets our database slaves a little bit off kilter and they will have to readjust everything. We’re talking about, not damaging, but definitely causing a spike in usage and slowing down the site for other users, especially when multiple people are using it, or hundreds of people, whatever it may be. And so what we do is we always give people a second chance. We’ll stop them from doing this, we’ll put limitations on it. Oftentimes, and I hate to say it, but these people are trying to game the system…

There are users that are on the site that will come out on their blog and swear that we have blocked them and that Digg is turning on their users…I can assure you, there’s no reason for us to do that. The thing we want more than anything else is a healthy, accurate community. We don’t want people to game the system, we want it to be fair to everyone. So, we’ve started banning people. If people are abusing us multiple times, I don’t care if they’re the number 1 digger or the number 5 millionth digger. We’ll ban them, because it’s B.S. It doesn’t matter how popular you are. I don’t care which user it is, if they are gaming the system, they are going to get banned. And we’ll be able to tell, we’ll be able to detect that.

If Digg’s management responds to this article they will undoubtedly re-iterate this and say that they are simply trying to protect the community (e.g. by enforcing the TOS equally). For the moment, let’s put aside whether or not it’s plausible that a few hundred people using the alleged scripts can significantly affect Digg’s formidable servers. What I have tried to establish is that Digg is giving you an incomplete story. To prove to its investors that its democratization model is functional, Digg has decided that it has a vested interest in getting rid of its top users. In its misguided efforts, it has destroyed the community that it sought to create.

While antagonizing and banning its most active contributors may be expedient, Digg will only ensure a new group of followers will similarly rise up over time, forcing the exact same measures down the line. This will continue until Digg solves the fundamental issue with its site: That those that are most committed will always have the most control. Digg may continue to grow in traffic and size, but with every controversial move like the recent banning measures, it will irritate a continually growing contingent of its most ardent supporters. Unless Digg can find a way to embrace its fans rather than eliminate them, it will find its brand promise as the leader of news democratization fading fast.

[Disclosure: I am Digg user whose account has not been banned…yet.]

David Chen is a writer/blogger/podcaster based in Boston, MA. You can e-mail him at davechensemail (at) gmail (dot) com, or follow him on Twitter.

---
Related Articles at Mashable | All That's New on the Web:

Digg Adds New Features to API
Digg Launches Digg Widgets
Videos Posted Of Tibetan Protest Drive China To Block YouTube
Digg Goes With DataPortability
Metacafe Adds Digg Section
Pownce Co-Founder Upset Over New Digg Features
YouTube Banned in Beijing

Different colors represent entries from different calendars. (Click to enlarge.)

(Credit: Yahoo)

Yahoo plans to begin a beta test of a major overhaul of its online calendar Wednesday, a redesign that brings new advertising and social-networking possibilities.

The new site brings a more polished Web 2.0 interface, with drag-and-drop abilities, color-coded entries, Flickr image backdrops, and a slick "zoom" feature that expands a single day's schedule to a usefully large size when browsing in the monthly view. And picking up an ability from No. 2 rival Google Calendar, the new design finally moves beyond the narrow single-user calendar idea of the earlier design.

For example, people can subscribe to others' calendars, such as schedules for sports teams or college courses, and to share calendars publicly or with others who've been invited, said Scott Dietzen, who took over Yahoo's mail and communications business in June.

And through a later upgrade, Yahoo will build in access to the company's Upcoming service to share and find events, he added. This sidebar will show popular local events and--through the "vitality" information Yahoo users can share as part of the Yahoo Open Strategy--the events on the calendars of a person's top social contacts, Dietzen said.

Yahoo Mail is used by about 278 million people each month, but Yahoo Calendar is relatively unknown with 8 million users, according to ComScore's August statistics. If the company is successful with its calendar push, the calendar will narrow that usage gap, making scheduling a more active and useful part of people's online lives.

Usage has been "relatively flat," he said, but "We think we're going to see some very nice growth...I think it's poised to go mainstream. It's the combination of mobile devices and collaborative authoring in terms of publish and subscribe."

The new Yahoo calendar site lets users zoom into a day's events from the monthly view. (Click to enlarge.)

(Credit: Yahoo)

Of course, Yahoo doesn't just want to be useful to people: it's under financial pressure, and calendars provide at least in theory a better way to make money. Today's calendar shows ordinary banner advertisements, but the new design offers space on the lower left for advertising promotions. Clicking the link can add an event to the user's calendar, and the advertiser will be able to gauge more precisely how successful the ad campaign is.

"With sponsored events in the calendar, you can do very, very narrow targeting," Dietzen said. "We're trying to strive for ways that help Yahoo monetize, but that enhance the user experience as opposed to detract."

The new beta will be available to a gradually larger subset of subscribers in the United States, United Kingdom, India, Taiwan, and Brazil, though users can sign up at the Yahoo Calendar switch site. The company plans to have the beta version in use globally by the end of the year, but Dietzen wouldn't share when it expects to release the final version.

The new Yahoo Calendar is based on the calendar technology of Zimbra, the open-source e-mail, contacts, and calendar start-up Yahoo acquired in 2007. "This is the first wide-scale deployment of Zimbra technology for Yahoo consumer technology. It won't be the last," Dietzen said.

One benefit of the Zimbra technology is the ability to synchronize with calendars stored with Microsoft's Outlook software, though that won't come until a future version, he added. Also coming is iPhone synchronization, he said.

The new Yahoo Calendar can show Flickr images as a background, though not yet a user's own shots. That's planned for a future version. (Click to enlarge.)

(Credit: Yahoo)

UPDATE: NBC tells Nikke Finke, and confirms with us, that they took the clip down on their own:

"Upon review, we caught certain elements in the sketch that didn't meet our standards. We took it down and made some minor changes and it will be back online soon." Specifically, NBC said it has edited out the chyron on-screen text, "People who should be shot" that appeared beneath the Sandler' lookalikes, as well as the "allegations of corruption" made against the couple.

Meanwhile, anything that gets yanked from NBC.com automatically gets yanked from Hulu. We expect both sites to have it up at the same time.

--------------------

Earlier:

We have been praising NBC.com and Hulu for making it easy to get Web video clips of Saturday Night Live. But now there's one clip NBC no longer wants us to watch anymore: Saturday's sketch parodying the bailout bill. It's vanished from both NBC.com and Hulu, the JV co-owned by NBC and Fox.

What's going on? Mashable has the details and a theory -- NBC caved to either political or legal pressure from George Soros and/or Herb and Marion Sandler, all of whom were skewered during the bit. We've asked NBC and Hulu for comment, and will update if we hear back.

But you can still see unauthorized versions of the clip on YouTube, and we assume that as the clip becomes a political story, it's going to be very hard *not* to find it on the Web. Here's a version that was working as of 8:10 am. (UPDATE: That video got pulled off YouTube, we've replaced it with one that was working as of 2:00 p.m.).

See Also: Intelligent Life At NBC!

The new theater view adds curtains to the side of your video and 'lowers the lights' to hide distracting page elements while you watch.

Google Blogoscoped has unearthed a new YouTube feature that's pretty neat. Called "theater view," when clicked it both darkens the screen and increases the size of the player, centering it on the page and adding red curtains. For a leaned back viewing experience it's certainly not as useful as hitting the full-screen button, but I'd consider it a nice alternative--especially if you don't want to watch larger version of a grainy video just to cut out distracting page elements.

Hulu launched with a similar feature called "lower lights," which could be toggled on and off, something that YouTube has provided that simply darkens the rest of the screen.

So far the theater view option appears only on a small percentage on long-form content from specific providers, meaning the three-minute clip you shot of your dog on the trampoline will not have it. Going forward I'm thinking it could only be an option on educational segments, since it temporarily hides advertisements, which could mean a drop in ad clicks.

It could also be the groundwork for a more advanced YouTube viewing experience. The curtains on the player make for a neat decoration, but could also be placeholders for a more advanced 16:9 player that takes advantage of the increasing number of clips uploaded from shiny new HD video cameras.

I couldn't find any theater view-compatible content to try this theory out with, but the extra width on the player is a good sign. As is the huge mass of content that's been uploaded in 16:9 HD, only to be squished into the service's 4:3 player. Last week's 1GB upload limit increase is a good sign, too.

What do you think?

Theory

Imagine a single skin cell on a zebra. How does the cell know whether it should be white or black? Simply puts, the cell takes into account the value of the surrounding cells. If it’s surrounded by several black cells, then more than likely it should be black, right? Over time the cell keep looking at the cells around it, and the system changes. Eventually, the system will reach a pattern where it doesn’t change anymore. When this happens, the system has converged. Overall this is the basic theory behind pattern formation, on which the Activation/Inhibition Cellular Automaton is based.

This project is designed to investigate how varying parameters in the mathematical equation affects the pattern formation. For example, there is a parameter that influences how many cells away actually influence the current cell’s decision to be white or black. A larger number means that cells farther away are considered, while a smaller number means the converse. By varying a total of six parameters in the experiment, one can see the effect that these parameters have on the system.

Purpose

The Xcode project, aica, is written to perform a few different tasks. First off, you can quickly run a set of sample experiments that will produce some interesting converged systems. By interesting, I mean that the images representing the patterns are visually intriguing, as well as mathematically. AICA also allows a user to quickly run one experiment with a set of parameters, or run a larger set of experiments with different parameters from file.

In designing this application for my Biologically Inspired Computation course, I needed quantitative measurements describing what is happening in the system. These measurements are calculated once the system has converged and are not very pretty equations, involving lots of summations, logarithms and probability. I’m not going to delve into the mechanics and descriptions of these calculations, even though that was part of my report.

Design

I needed this to perform the basic tasks outlined above. In addition, I also wanted to have better statistics, so for each set of parameters ran (an experiment), I might want to run this several times and take the average of the calculated values describing the system. I classified each of these as a “trial”. So, the application structure is beginning to look something like this:

• Controller code for interacting with the interface and managing the experiments to be ran
• An experiment, which will run several trials and average the results, creating an Excel file with data
• A trial, which runs until convergence, writing image files for each step in the simulation

Feel free to look through project. There are two PDF files accompanying, containing the original project description and theory behind the simulation as well as a more technical document providing hints for writing the summations and mathematical equations as C code. This also contains some specific Cocoa programming techniques of interest to newbies, including using a NSProgressIndicator, Objective-C properties, NSNotifications, sheet programming, using NSSavePanel and NSOpenPanel, as well as creating directories and files using NSFileManager.

Get Started Now

Overall, if you have any comments or questions about the project, I’d love to hear from you. Even if you aren’t specifically interested, you should download the Application itself and give it a quick test run. Universal build, Leopard only. I also included some more sample files for systematically varying the parameters as I used in my project and used to draw conclusions about the behavior.

AICA Simulator (Leopard Only)

Source Code and Project Files

While I’m not completely against the idea of the Amazon Kindle anymore (because if it’s good enough for Matt Mullenweg, it’s good enough for me), I much prefer these other devices in theory. While their pricepoints may end up being higher than the slightly-subsidized Kindle, the open architecture leaves it open to working with other cool applications aside from what the designers intended.

What am I talking about? Things like what Google announced today: a Book Search Data API designed to bring the functionality of its Data APIs to Book Search. ProgrammableWeb has the run down on all the technical specifications:

The REST- and Atom-based API lets applications search for and get information about books and fetch data like reviews and labels (tags) from Google Books’ My Library feature. Authentication is required for writing data back to a My Libriary collection, for which web-based applications can use AuthSub while ClientLogin support is supplied for stand-alone programs.

[..]

To coincide with the API updates, Google has partnered with high-profile organizations like WorldCat, Goodreads, and the University of California’s California Digital Library, all of which are now using embedded Book Search previews on their sites.

In English, this means that through the aid of the API, a lot of free functionality and content is going to become available to applications and devices that grab from Google’s own (and partner) libraries. 

We in the blog business generally salivate over eReaders primarily because it can mean a whole new distribution channel for the content we put our blood, sweat and tears into creating. The average Joe, though, who doesn’t eat, sleep and breathe every post from every tech blogger might actually find it a major selling point for their eReader to access something other than the latest blog posts from their favorite magazines (be they Old or New Media).

Certainly this functionality isn’t outside the reach and ability for Amazon to implement on the Kindle, but given the walled garden nature of the device as opposed to the openness of many of its competitors, I say it’s a pretty safe bet we’ll see it elsewhere first.

---
Related Articles at Mashable | All That's New on the Web:

Google Book Search Adds New Organization Features
Google and Random House Considering Book Search Partnership
Revish to Launch Social Network for Book Lovers
Socialbib is a Free Book Swap for College Students
Google Book Search Lets You Embed a Library Into Your Blog
Should Google Book Search Change its Terms?
BookBump is iTunes for your Library