Growing pains at Digg?

  If you're unaware of the social news site digg.com, it's definitely worth checking out.  It's a site where people submit stories that interest them, and other users can "digg" the story, voting it up and possibly becoming more popular and hitting the front page, or "bury" the story, which will lead to less popularity and fewer reads.  It's a great way to access a wide variety of news, videos and pictures from around the web by just visiting one site.  This social news submission site has become quite popular, but with popularity comes some issues.

Historically, Digg is a tech news site (that may not be entirely true, but that's how I first ran into it, and this is my blog, so...).  It is a great resource for finding stories for your inner (and even outer) geek.  The tech area is filled with stories about iPhones, HDTV's, software, gaming, PC's, etc.  I used to have a nerdgasm pretty much any time I logged on, as there were always interesting stories about rumors and new tech that I might not have run across on my own.  Digg's popularity has attracted all kinds of new users, and the site in general has become more mainstream.

The new users on Digg have brought about some issues for the hardcore users. The first issue is content submission.  If you read comments on submitted stories, you'll see people asking how in the hell that particular story ever was submitted, much less dugg up to the front page.  The hardcore crowd doesn't seem to much care for the casual content, and their comments reflect this.

The second aspect of content submission was recently addressed with a large ban of certain user accounts that were using automated processes to submit and dig stories.  I don't really understand the point of being a top contributer on a social news submission site like Digg, and it truly boggles my mind as to why anyone would "cheat" to get there.  I guess it's to prove how little of a life you have, or how great your web surfing prowess really is. If someone wants to explain that to me, I swear I'll be a good listener.  Don't get me wrong, I play World of Warcraft, so I understand how people can throw their lives away online.

Lastly, in regards to content, is the issue of duplicate submissions.  It seems like many of the people submitting content to the site don't actually read the site, and you can see the same story (or a blog about the story) referred to two or three times on the same page.  While I don't mind redundancy, it's a little bit of a drag to click a link and find that you're viewing a page that  you just read a few minutes prior.  Often times, two or three submissions of the same article even make it to the front page, which could be edging out something that could be more of an interest to the reader.

Regarding computers: from a glance at Digg, Linux is the new Mac.  Like Windows and Macintosh, Linux is an operating system for computers.  It has a very strong following, but the following is very small and vocal.  Before Apple introduced the first iPod, the future was looking pretty bleak for them.  Mac users have been, and probably always will be, somewhat fanatical and proud and loud.  On Digg, there are constantly stories about how to switch to Linux, what tools and commands Linux users should use, which version of Linux is best, etc.  There are still regular stories about Windows and Macintosh, but Linux seems to be the new underdog that the techies are trying to push.  Outside of the more technically minded user, Linux has a long road to be in as many homes as the Mac, which is still struggling work a chunk of Microsoft's desktop dominance.

Lastly, when it comes to politics, Digg can be easily dominated by essentially three groups: Democrats, Republicans and Ron Paul fans.  A lot of the stories and videos submitted are great to read, regardless of party preference.  However, Digg stories can all be Pro-Obama/Anit-McCain at one glance, then completely the opposite later in the day.  It's generally fair to say that there will always be a Ron Paul "I told you so" story of some sort in the mix.

The point of this last observation is that it is possible to manipulate Digg.  For instance, a group of Pro-Obama folks and digg up a story about McCain's failings, and then a Barak is a Muslim story could be the next most popular story.  And a lot of it isn't even news, it's opinion or blogs like this one.  And since anyone can make an account, there's no real way to prevent an organization from digging submissions to promote itself.  A fine example of this is the Huffington Post, which has dozens of articles submitted every day.  Legitimate or not, there doesn't appear to be a system of checks and balances.

While Digg's growth has brought some challenges, it also brings a lot of perks.  Stories that the mainstream media may not cover can get to more people to read.  Mainstream media has even started to embrace Digg, with articles asking Diggers to submit questions for interviews, etc.  The pros outweigh the cons, and I'm confident that as the site will continue to be one of my favorite homes on the web.

Posted by Agonizing_Gas @ 5:30 pm EDT | Permalink | 4 Comments

The closing of the one game era

Before the Xbox 360 came out, Xbox Live players played one game: Halo 2. That's not to say that players weren't playing other games, but the one that brought people together (as evidenced by this site) was the second game in Bungie's trilogy. You could count on your friends list being active every night, and your clan smacking down fools in matchmaking or in intra-site clan challenges. It was a simple time, and the gaming was good.

Even after the introduction of the 360, Halo 2 remained king over XBL. Newer, slightly prettier games were coming out, but the lobby and matchmaking system kept Spartans and Elites shooting it out on the new hardware. Games like Call of Duty 2 and Perfect Dark Zero promised to lead the way for a new generation of online gaming, but neither had any real long-term interest. The real contenders to overthrow Halo 2 from the top of the play-time list didn't show their faces until about a year ago, with Gears of War and Call of Duty 3.

When these games came out, Xbox players started to fragment. Some shrugged at the new offerings and went back to the tried-and-true Bungie title. Others became avid players of their new titles, loving the chainsaw and the roadie run in GoW. Yet others like the game options and first-person feel of CoD3. The usual crowd on XBL became diverse and even shrunk a little as some had just lost interest in Halo 2 and none of the newer titles really interested them enough to make regular appearances.

The Xbox crowd continues to divide as more and more good titles come out. Halo 3 even seems like something of a recent memory since Orange Box and CoD4 came out. But it isn't just the shooters taking the spotlight and pulling players in different directions. Single player games like Bioshock and Mass Effect have taken a toll on the online numbers, as have Rock Band and Guitar Hero 3. In addition, the PS3 is still slowly chugging along here in the states, and the Wii remains out of stock just about anywhere you look. PC games like Crysis and WoW will also have an impact on the XBL crowd. So as the masses divide, each finding their gaming niché.

Speaking of Halo 3, why did it just breeze by? I know people are still playing it, and that it isn't a bad game, but something was just missing. Or perhaps it was too familiar. After two years of playing Halo 2 nearly every day, Halo 3 just felt like too much of the same. Had it been changed too much, it would have suffered for not being Halo. As it stands, new weapons, equipment and maps are fun, but it's still Halo, and gamers appear ready for something new. I'm looking forward to the next map pack for H3, as I think the included maps where the biggest let down for me.  I'll probably only download and play them for a week or two then head back to my role-playing addiction. I miss the classics from Halo 2, which somehow never really got to feeling old. I also missing seeing everyone on my friends list playing the same game, not because it was the only thing out, but because it was like coming home. But as more players go their separate ways, I doubt that we'll ever see a console game dominate an online service did like Halo 2 did.

Posted by Agonizing_Gas @ 4:32 am EDT | Permalink | 5 Comments

Pay me for advice

Here's an advice column that I read out of the local rag while I was on my lunch today (spotted it because it was next to the comics):

Carolyn: My boyfriend is very stable, responsible and loving. But I'm really attracted to someone else. He's like me, more artistic and creative. They are complete opposites. Does this mean I don't know what I want? The scary thing is Boyfriend and I have talked marriage. I dunno if this is just me being nervous. He would make a wonderful husband and amazing father. The other guy I don't see working out long-term. - Los Angeles

Los Angeles: Being married to someone who isn't a good spouse or parent eventually will affect how much you like that person. People seem to understand that on an intuitive level.  What I think people often miss is that if you don't like someone, then that person won't be a good spouse or (to a lesser extent) parent.  As a how-much-do-I-really-like-him meter, pick the true statement:
A) You've always dreamed of having a guy be as lukewarm to you as you are to your boyfriend.
B) The other guy would be perfect for you, if you had a future.
C) Your boyfriend would be perfect for you, if you only liked him more.
D) Your choices are limited to either the boyfriend or the other guy; you can be neither single nor with any other man on Earth.
E) The right guy will make this the biggest non-decision you ever make.

(Hint: You're right.) - Carolyn

I think that the direction that the columnist took to provide advice (did she provide any?  I don't really see anything that looks like advice.  And was she trying to be funny?) really address the writer's concerns?  Wasn't the writer really asking if she should risk possibly losing the best thing she's ever had just to go have a fling with some hot guy she wants to get dirty with?

When we're younger, and even as we get older, it's my belief  that we have the dream that the hot guy or girl that we just want to have hot, sweaty, porn-star sex with will turn out to be the dream spouse, the one that we always imagined being perfect for us (okay, maybe that's just my dream).  It's a case of "the grass is always greener" because we're in a committed relationship and some days, just about anything looks hotter than your current partner.  Regardless of the reason behind it, I think that we will always run into people that we "click" with, and those that will tempt us.  For instance, men are wired by nature to feel the need to mate with as many women as possible.  Not all follow that urge, but no matter how much people don't like to think about it, I think men and women will both look and think "what if?" if for no other reason than just the sex.

I'd wager that outside of "Celebrity Exception Lists" that some couples may jokingly make (if I see celebrity name, and they want to have sex, I love you baby, but...), I'd say that a lot of folks don't talk about it.  Some couples might, but even then I don't think that it's 100% honest.  If it were, a lot of guys would go home with a list of names to report on, and some women might as well.

Now, to get back to the writer's letter.  She has met a guy with whom she feels she shares physical chemistry. I assume this because she didn't see there being much of a future with the guy she's attracted to.  The question she asks is: "Does this mean I don't know what I want?"  I think it's clear that she's hasn't acted on her attraction because she knows she's with a great guy.  The question is really this: Is one of these guys the guy?  Is the perfect partner out there?  For this woman, is there a guy that will satisfy aspects of the two different kinds of guys that she seems to like?  If you're married, is your wife or husband the one?  Or is it just a fairy tale?  Should the woman settle for the guy she is presently with because she knows he'll be kind, loving and a great father?

Posted by Agonizing_Gas @ 1:09 am EDT | Permalink | 1 Comments

Overwhelmed by gaming goodness

So, after being on a cruise for 2 weeks to Alaska, I have come back to the release of Halo 3.  I've also got a hankering to play some WoW again, but it feels good to playing a new yet familiar game.

The cruise itself spoiled me.  It was my first, and I didn't realize how little you have to do when you go on one.  Have fresh sheets and towels daily, three gigantic meals each day, ocean and mountain views right from the boat...  I did pretty much nothing for 14 days and I loved it.  Alaska and the Pacific Northwest were incredible, and I hope that I get another chance to go.  Hell, any cruise would make me happy.  It would be a perfect escape to take with a girlfriend or spouse.  By the end of week 2, I was almost ready to come back.  Almost.

Halo 3's campaign rocked!  I sat down and played the single player game, finishing it on Heroic, before logging a single multi-player game.  The campaign reminded me of Halo 1's, except without the repetitive environments.  I'm presently focusing on matchmaking so that I can unlock the last few achievements I need to deck out my Elite in some sweet armor.  I'm a little grumpy that it's unlocked in FFA multi-player, but I'm determined to get it all unlocked.  The hardest one for me to get will be the "Steppin' Razors" achievement.  That's getting a Triple Kill with a sword, and the other one that I have left is "Overkill," which is 4 kills within 4 seconds of each other.  Some king of the hill game would be good for that I'd think...  I've yet to even tinker with Forge yet, for the last Forge I played with (the map editor to Bungie's Marathon series) sucked away weeks at a time while I made maps for the regular LANs that I went to.

I have a desire to play WoW again too.  But with Halo 3's new sexiness, it's hard to go back to WoW when I've been playing it so much before I left.  It's been a good break, and I don't think I've really played in about 3 weeks or so.  Anyone who's played and been sucked in knows that 3 weeks is a real haul.  I have toons on both 2o2p PvP servers that I want to level.  I think I've decided to take my BE rogue to 70 with HotH and I'll level my druid and another toon with the fine folks in Helter Skelter.  I've been considering just throwing in the towel completely on my WoW career (how much grinding and how many alts can a guy really do?), but I do want to get in some end-game stuff with my rogue.  It's just a long haul to 70, she's still only @ 40-something.

Well, back to Halo for a bit before bed.  If you see me online, I'd love to get in some custom games.  And, yes, WoW buddies, I'll be back in the not too distant future.  Don't consider me retired yet.

AG

Posted by Agonizing_Gas @ 2:20 am EDT | Permalink | 1 Comments

The ESRB is for what again?

Tonight I saw a story on digg.com that talked about how a judge declared that a law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional.  Now, in the great state of California, I guess it's okay for minors to buy whatever games they want.  Having worked at a game retailer, I know that parents don't pay nearly enough attention to what their kids are playing.  Mature-rated titles are going to be sold to anyone.

While I agree that the responsibility belongs to parents as to what their children play, I disagree with taking away the one restriction that tries to pick up where a lot of parents slack off.  If we think about why it's unconstitutional to discriminate by age, we can get rid of the MPAA as well.  If kids can buy whatever game they want, why can't they go to whatever movie they want?  Buy whichever CD they choose?  Have a beer?  Smoke a cigarette?

Sadly, if an M game comes out with nudity (most likely even that of a statue, as was the case with Oblivion), it will be restricted in sales.  So I guess that the only way to keep violent games out of the hands of kids is to but the naked human body in the game somewhere.   If you look at the ruling by the judge (available in PDF format on the interwebs), the definition of violent games was explored.  One of the approved activities is torture.  Dismemberment was another.  Again, I cringe in embarrassment that we, as a country, endorse graphic violence, but blush and turn away when a woman unbuttons one too many buttons.

Posted by Agonizing_Gas @ 2:15 am EDT | Permalink | 9 Comments