Comments on: Why Yahoo! Will Go For The Hat Trick & Acquire Digg In The Process! http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:10:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18121 Anonymous Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:48:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18121 bullshit, never! k-rose is too cool for yahoo bullshit, never! k-rose is too cool for yahoo

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18122 Anonymous Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:46:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18122 oh, but you're forgetting how much money big companies like to spend! <br />$4000 toilets for the CEOs? sure why not! <br />$2mil for something that might bring us tons of money in the future? sure why not! oh, but you’re forgetting how much money big companies like to spend!
$4000 toilets for the CEOs? sure why not!
$2mil for something that might bring us tons of money in the future? sure why not!

]]> By: gekkokid http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18123 gekkokid Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:19:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18123 they could invest to see how much it can grow but doubt they would acquire digg they could invest to see how much it can grow but doubt they would acquire digg

]]> By: Anonymous http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18124 Anonymous Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:09:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18124 digginoggers digginoggers

]]> By: Discfree.com http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18125 Discfree.com Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:04:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18125 I like the term digglicious myself. I like the term digglicious myself.

]]> By: Zero22 http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18126 Zero22 Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:06:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18126 hmmm... I suppose that <i>could</i> actually work. However, I hope they wouldn't use the term "digginterestingness". It doesn't really roll of the tongue. Something like "diggrank" could be better. hmmm… I suppose that could actually work. However, I hope they wouldn’t use the term “digginterestingness”. It doesn’t really roll of the tongue. Something like “diggrank” could be better.

]]> By: Thomas Hawk http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18127 Thomas Hawk Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:01:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18127 Zero, you could adjust the algorithm to divide by the total number of members at the time relative to the diggs. My site shouldn't be the most interesting story for sure and with a digg search digginterestingness filter it still wouldn't. But it would be probably the most interesting story for the search term PriceRitePhoto and for Brooklyn and for "Thomas Hawk" etc. as it probably should. <br /><br />Just like Flickr's interestingness algorithm will not return a photo of a sunset back if you do a search for cat, but it will bring you back the most popular cat. Zero, you could adjust the algorithm to divide by the total number of members at the time relative to the diggs. My site shouldn’t be the most interesting story for sure and with a digg search digginterestingness filter it still wouldn’t. But it would be probably the most interesting story for the search term PriceRitePhoto and for Brooklyn and for “Thomas Hawk” etc. as it probably should.

Just like Flickr’s interestingness algorithm will not return a photo of a sunset back if you do a search for cat, but it will bring you back the most popular cat.

]]> By: Zero22 http://thomashawk.com/2005/12/why-yahoo-will-go-for-hat-trick.html/comment-page-1#comment-18128 Zero22 Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:44:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=2751#comment-18128 Interesting theory. Instead of ranking by a complicated algorithm of inbound linkage, get 'real people' to rank the information voluntarily via Digg/Delicious.<br /><br />One problem I see with this though, is that the amount of Diggs a site has, does not necessarily relate to its "interestingness". A year ago, the top story on Digg received maybe 100 Diggs - now the top story (from your site conincidently :) ) has over 7,000 diggs. Sorry to say it, but your site isn't the most important one on the internets :) Interesting theory. Instead of ranking by a complicated algorithm of inbound linkage, get ‘real people’ to rank the information voluntarily via Digg/Delicious.

One problem I see with this though, is that the amount of Diggs a site has, does not necessarily relate to its “interestingness”. A year ago, the top story on Digg received maybe 100 Diggs – now the top story (from your site conincidently :) ) has over 7,000 diggs. Sorry to say it, but your site isn’t the most important one on the internets :)

]]>