Do we need a digest option? UPDATED
February 13, 2009 – 9:51 pmUPDATE added 2/14/09 10:34 am:
Here’s a little proof-of-concept for the RSS link. Instead of a separate link to each post on a digest blog, people would go to a page like this one (opens in a new window), and then from there they could link back to the original entry on that blog.
ORIGINAL POST:
I’ve noticed that the main page tends to be made up of mostly the contributions of 3 bloggers lately. I don’t want to discourage people from frequent updates, but at the same time I don’t want very short posts from a couple authors owning the home page and rss feed, pushing out longer and more time-consuming posts.
I think a good solution might be to have a digest option for bloggers whose preferred type of posting is the short and frequent ‘tweet’. To be specific, I’d most likely be placing Updated All The Time, parody blog Updated Way Too Much, and possibly I May Be Cheap into this mode.
Each time one of these blogs put up a new post, the system would either create a new digest for that day, or else prepend it to an existing digest. The timestamp, which determines the order where the post appears on the homepage and in the rss feed, would be updated with each successive posting, meaning that the authors would still be rewarded with the top spot after each new update. That entry would contain all the abstracts for all the entries of a particular day, along with separate links to each entry. Other blogs that update more slowly wouldn’t be pushed out of the results altogether quite so quickly.
By the way, simply posting frequently is not sufficient criteria for placing a blog into digest mode. To name one example, The Toxic Mud Pit would not go into digest mode because the posts there tend to be a more traditional length. Digest mode is only for blogs that BOTH update very frequently AND contain very short posts.
Please let me know what you think of this idea. If most of you are in favor, you’ll see the feature added soon.
49 Responses to “Do we need a digest option? UPDATED”
I think it’s a good idea, and greatly appreciated.
By Lowell on Feb 13, 2009
I like the idea, but think it should apply based on frequency alone and not length of posts. A crowded list is a crowded list, and I don’t see why The Toxic Mud Pit should be treated differently - their posts may contain more words but since they usually just link to and quote at length from one source, they don’t take much longer to create.
By Jeremy on Feb 13, 2009
I think frequency is a good measure. I have listened to some bloggers brag of gaming aggregators in just such a way in order to run other people’s posts off the page. And I would not be so kind as to call one blog a “parody” so much as a childish and mocking attempt to disrupt your site and Hburgnews.com and jab at the other site.
By Lowell on Feb 13, 2009
I don’t think The Mud Pit is one of the three blogs. I think it’s a good idea.
By Emmy on Feb 13, 2009
I took a look at the blog posts listed on the feed between February 10 and just now.
Updated Way Too Much - 31 posts
Updated All The Time - 28
I May Be Cheap - 15
The TOXIC Mud Pit - 13
the state - 11
The Valley Progress Report - 9
Harrisonburg Foreclosures - 7
And I think all the others were below that, though some did average one post a day.
Again, I am all for doing the digest but don’t think you should discriminate based on “traditional length” of posts, especially when those blogs that are frequently updated like Mud Pit and Valley Progress Report are often really just quotes from other sites along with a very short original commentary or question.
I would say you should consider digesting every site that updates more than daily to make it as fair as possible. Harrisonburg Foreclosures would be a great one to digest, too, because while it doesn’t update often it often sends several listings in a short time span.
By Jeremy on Feb 13, 2009
You don’t think Mud Pit is one of the three blogs? Do you even pay attention to Harrisonburg blogs? There are days when only Mud Pit posts, Its like those people are just talking to themselves. Its obvious that these bloggers don’t have a life.
By Dennis USA on Feb 13, 2009
Obviously based on what Jeremy just posted…it isn’t. To me it always seems like it is Updated All the Time, Updated Way Too Much and Valley Progress Report, though clearly that isn’t the case and my blog is one of the offenders. I still don’t mind. If there’s a way to make the feeds more of a mix that would be great.
I’ve tried to time my posts out so that it doesn’t dominate, but some things I post are limited time things, so they can’t wait.
By Emmy on Feb 14, 2009
My goal would not be to “punish” any blog for frequent updates. I think its great that Emmy finds so many deals and tells people about them. And since they get comments, I assume people enjoy following both of the “Updateds”. People will still be able to get all the content from the blog posts of a digest blog, and it will still move to the top any time it updates. I just don’t think those short little tweets need their own entries in the feed.
Anyway, I’m glad to see interest in the idea. The hardest part, clearly, is going to be determining which blogs need to be in digest form and which to leave as they are. Obviously, I have to use an objective standard, so no one feels like I’ve been unfair - best would be if it could be an automatic trigger. I’ve suggested one standard - do any of you have better ideas?
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
Is there a reason not to do a digest for every blog?
I mean, if you want to get technical, here are how many original (not taken directly from another site) words were in the last ten posts on the following blogs:
hburgnews - 1071 words
The Mud Pit - 787 words
the state - 591 words
Updated All The Time - 500 words
I May Be Cheap - 488 words
Updated Way Too Much - 296 words
The Valley Progress Report - 293 words
By Jeremy on Feb 14, 2009
The only thing about Emmy’s blog is that some of the deals are time-sensitive, so it’s nice to see them right away rather than waiting until the end of the day.
I have an idea, is it possible rather than a daily digest to do multiple digests per day? Say, once every 6 hours or so?
By Renee on Feb 14, 2009
Let’s keep in mind that Jeremy’s “research” was “conducted” over just 4 days, hardly an accurate representation of the problem. The longer you go back, the more accurate the data, especially if you go back before the “updated…” blogs appeared.
I like the idea of a digest because I think it addresses the diversity of the blogs on Harrisonburg blogs while preserving the convenience and value of the site.
I can enjoy the timing and energy of “I may be Cheap,” the discussions on “Econospeak” and “the state” while ignoring the self-absorbed, instigatory drivel of MP and Repub.
By Dennis USA on Feb 14, 2009
Dennis, Sometimes you see nothing but Mud Pit under the comment section. We don’t dominate the Post sections. You see us so often on the comment section because people are talking.
Mason, I don’t have a problem with the way it is right now without a change. There is a blog on your list to digest that I like, so I like the fact that the posts are listed quickly.
By Megan on Feb 14, 2009
Let me clear up my last sentence. There is a blog on your list to digest that I like, so I like the fact that the posts are listed quickly (NOW). I would rather you didn’t digest it.
It would seem that some people are wanting things thrown into digest mode based on what they prefer. It’s not hard to scan down the list based on the blog name. That’s what I do. I keep my eye out for the blogs I like and skip over the rest.
By Megan on Feb 14, 2009
With a digest option, all entries would still be available as quickly as they are now, it’s just that the newest entry would be listed in a single, expanding entry for that particular day.
I can compromise on I May Be Cheap, but the two Updateds have really cluttered up the site since they started. I cannot stop indexing them because both are local and they are in no way violating the TOS. But at the same time I really want the site to be more useful again. I added I May Be Cheap to my list because it also fits the mold of very short posts with many updates. It isn’t really my primary concern however.
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
I resent the idea that Updated All The Time is
“cluttering up” the feed more than other blogs, especially those like the Mud Pit. We have almost as many original words per post, and we have as many different commenters and comments as they do on average.
I can’t help but feel that if I would take long quotes from the sites I link to, as Mud Pit does, rather than just linking to them; or put in a bunch of graphics to fill in the space, like the state does, then you wouldn’t perceive the blog posts as being different in quality from other sites, even though neither of those things actually improve the quality of a post or the discussions that happen because of them.
As a blog reader, I would be unhappy to see just one post from Updated All The Time in the feed because it’s in digest mode, while still seeing three or four of the posts from The Mud Pit in the most recent 10 posts.
By Jeremy on Feb 14, 2009
Traffic on the aggregator seems to come and go - but there has definitely been an increase since the “Updateds” started posting, and it is affecting traffic to and from my site from yours.
Mostly we post once per day at Hawksbill Cabin, and I do have about 10 regular readers coming from HBBlogs - it’s not my only source of readers but it is an important one.
With the amount of traffic here the last few weeks I’ve noticed HC moves off the roster by mid morning, so I wonder if I may have lost some of those.
On the other hand, I know that two or three of my readers frequently exit to HBBlogs…that seems to be decreasing since so many posts are sourced to “Updateds.”
I’m not referring Valley readers to HBBlogs to find me anymore because of this. Most of them made up their minds on “Cocoa Puffs vs. Fruit Loops” and other such important life issues a long time ago, and they remain comfortable with their decision.
Jim
By Jim T on Feb 14, 2009
“I resent the idea that Updated All The Time is
“cluttering up” the feed more than other blogs, especially those like the Mud Pit. We have almost as many original words per post, and we have as many different commenters and comments as they do on average.”
Comments on last ten posts
Updatedallthetime 5
Mud Pit 61
I see what you mean Jeremy. That certainly is close.
By Not Jeremy on Feb 14, 2009
How about:
COMMENTS in the last few days?
COMMENTERS in the last few days?
Then try removing the blog authors from the comment count, and get back to me.
By Jeremy on Feb 14, 2009
Here’s a proof of concept I’ve been working on. In digest mode, there would be only one rss entry for that particular blog per day, and it would link to a page like this one.
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
Off topic, but has anyone else had problems with the site acting really slow lately? I’m hoping it’s just my connection, but I sort of doubt it.
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
I liked the expanding entry/drop down idea better. I would prefer not to be sent to a new page to see what’s new. But then my computer has been running real slow lately and that might be influencing my opinion. Even when it’s running great, I like to come to Hbblogs.com to see what’s new without clicking through to each site to check.
By Megan on Feb 14, 2009
I liked the expanding entry/drop down idea better. I would prefer not to be sent to a new page to see what’s new. But then my computer has been running real slow lately and that might be influencing my opinion. Even when it’s running great, I like that I can come to Hbblogs.com and see what headlines grab my attention without extra clicks and page loads.
By Megan on Feb 14, 2009
Actually Megan, that’s still how I envision the homepage view of a digest working - the proof of concept you see is where someone would go when they follow a link through the RSS feed from hbblogs back to a digest entry.
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
I don’t know if this is what you meant about running real slow, but I think posts and comments have taken longer to appear on the list.
By megan on Feb 14, 2009
I have a solution. Note I haven’t read all the above comments.
Provide two versions of the hbblogs feed:
1) A “digested” version of hbblogs where you’ll receive a maximum of one post per day from each blog (summarizing posts of the day).
2) An “undigested” (hehe) version of hbblogs where you get everything in single posts. Same as now.
I’d prefer to see the digest version work without a hbblogs.com webpage “middle man.” Just a list of links directly pointing to blog entries.
By Josh on Feb 14, 2009
Good idea Josh
By the way, the feed appears to be down on hburgnews.
By Renee on Feb 14, 2009
With the digest posts - is it possible for the digest title to include the latest post title? I do like seeing what people are writing about before clicking through, and I think that would help some of the bloggers that are being “throttled” be happier about this.
By Renee on Feb 14, 2009
That’s not a bad idea Renee, but what I’m up against is the technical limitation of how long most feed readers will let a post title get before cutting it off. I decided to keep it to just the date, blog titile, and a signifier that its a digest entry. Beyond that, there simply isn’t much room to add the latest post title.
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
Josh, that’s not a bad idea. At least, it’s technically feasible. Whether or not I should pursue that route is another question entirely. Do the rest of you like that idea? Two separate feeds… digested and undigested?
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
Thanks for the note about the hburgnews feed Renee. I fixed it.
By admin on Feb 14, 2009
I’m just now able to get back to this thread and I know you’ve already started this process. I do like Josh’s idea of the two versions.
By Emmy on Feb 15, 2009
As much as I like I May Be Cheap, I think it qualifies for digesting as well if you’re going to continue digesting. It looks strange to have two blogs digested and then the last few days the feed has therefore been mostly I May Be Cheap postings (even though I think the blog itself is a great thing). I would appreciate it if this would be revisited. I know it was brought up that some of the postings are time-sensitive, but each new posting makes the digest show up as more recent in the feed, so it wouldn’t be hard to just click on the header to see what’s new. Just wanted to register my opinon, whatever is decided.
I’m not familiar with the technology, but I also like Josh’s idea of having choices. Is there a way to digest some of the blogs for the general public, but then give individuals the option to customize a personal view where they can undigest whatever blogs they want?
By linz on Feb 17, 2009
If its not so hard to click the header on the digest then why are you complaining so much about it? I think its fine as is…it’d be best just to move on.
By Anon on Feb 18, 2009
Try reading before typing a response.
By linz on Feb 18, 2009
Sorry for being short, just got annoyed when what I wrote was written off as complaining. I’m over it and you’re entitled, whoever you are. Any-hoo…
Another suggestion is to un-digest everything and then have a setting so that when any blog reaches a set quota, let’s say their fifth posting of the day, then it automatically switches to digesting that day’s postings. That way it’s a fair system and doesn’t put anyone in the position of judging blog content and/or length since that is not as black and white as some would think. I like this idea best. Any takers?
By linz on Feb 18, 2009
It got written off as complaining because that is all it was. The two updateds were crowding the feed, bottom line.
By Anon on Feb 18, 2009
It got written off as complaining because that is what it was. But since you’re over it I guess it doesn’t matter.
I think Mason has found the best solution as is.
By Anon on Feb 18, 2009
I disagree and I guess I wasn’t clear about what I’m over. I’m over what you said, not over the situation.
The decision about how to go about digeseting was made too quickly and is too subjective. Unfortunately, Mason has not engaged in discussion about it, as promised. There’s nothing wrong with looking at how something can be improved, especially when it’s new and there may be several viable options. Mason, I hope you will look at some of the ideas and consider them. I hate to see such a narrow-minded approach dictated and then chiseled into stone.
By linz on Feb 18, 2009
Crowding what, anon? How many of the 9 posts from I May Be Cheap, 5 posts from We Will Rockdem, 3 posts from Cobalt 6, and 3 posts from Toxic Mud Pit did you read yesterday? How many of the 6 Harrisonburg Foreclosures posts that went up one after another last night are you reading? Are you worried they’ll be crowded out by posts from Updated All The Time?
It was totally arbitrary to digest my blog for having too many posts while leaving the others alone.
By Jeremy on Feb 18, 2009
Speaking of crowding the feed, and all the more reason this should be handled FAIRLY:
2/16
I May be Cheap - 7 sale notices
2/17
I May be Cheap - 9 sale notices
2/17 and 2/18
Harrisonburg Foreclosures - 6 back to back postings
None of these, according to Mason’s terms, are legitimate blog postings and in his words “I don’t want very short posts from a couple authors owning the home page and rss feed, pushing out longer and more time-consuming posts.”
He also said, “Digest mode is only for blogs that BOTH update very frequently AND contain very short posts.” Mason, c’mon, you’ve got to see the discrepancies here.
By linz on Feb 18, 2009
Actually, anon, maybe you shouldn’t respond.
You’ve already had three comments in the last day…you probably wouldn’t want to crowd the conversation by putting up another comment, even if it makes a different point, right?
By Jeremy on Feb 18, 2009
Sheesh - I turn my back for one morning…
I’m at work right now, so I’ll make this quick. I wanted to get SOMETHING up right away when it was clear to me that the two Updateds were causing some people to abandon the service (I do pay attention when I get complaints in my email, even if I don’t always respond right away). I came up with the digest option and went with it, but that doesn’t mean that other options aren’t still available.
Clearly Jeremy hates it, but other than his tu quoque attacks, I don’t see where he’s offered a constructive suggestion.
I actually like the idea of having a digested and undigested feed - people just pick the one they want to use. Harder is putting in an automated trigger to digest a blog on the main page once it hits 5 posts (or insert your own threshhold) in a single day. Still probably doable though.
But one thing that clearly cannot go forward is any single blog taking up half the feed with what essentially amounts to micro-posts of 50 words or less. I’ll index anyone who’s local and follows the TOS, but some content is just better conveyed in a digest.
Linz, I don’t like having to subjectively evaluate the merits of each blog in order to determine whether they should be indexed normally or digested. If anything, that’s almost the last thing I want. But it was clear from the accumulated 2 weeks’ posts that the Updateds were extraordinary cases, and they’ve been treated as such.
And Jeremy, please apologize to Megan Rhodes. I don’t know what the deal is between the two of you, but she’s not responsible for Updated Way Too Much.
By admin on Feb 18, 2009
Mason - Thanks for responding thoroughly and for (hopefully!) looking into some other options. Even if it takes longer to set up, I still prefer indexing at a certain daily threshold becuase I think it’s the most fair. I’ll look forward to seeing what can be done - thanks! And yes it would also free you up from the responsibility of evaluating.
Hopefully these last few days have shown you that the Updates are not so extraordinary as far as “tweets” per day.
As far as who is behind Updated Way Too Much. It will not shock anyone to know that Megan set up the site and Briggman has been handling (most of?) the posting. No more mystery, so Jeremy doesn’t owe anybody anything and everybody has been playing nice and getting along.
By linz on Feb 18, 2009
Yep, they’re concerned about what is most ‘fair’. I’ve seen three year olds show more maturity…
By Anon on Feb 18, 2009
Because coming on here to anonymously troll rather than add to the conversation is the height of maturity.
By linz on Feb 18, 2009
Mason, I don’t know what you have against me, but I said from the start of this thread, and in an email to you a few weeks ago, that I was sympathetic to your perceived problem. In fact, in spite of your whining that I haven’t offered any “constructive suggestions”, I did so in this very thread numerous times.
“I like the idea, but think it should apply based on frequency alone and not length of posts. A crowded list is a crowded list…”- from my first comment on this thread.
“I would say you should consider digesting every site that updates more than daily to make it as fair as possible. Harrisonburg Foreclosures would be a great one to digest, too, because while it doesn’t update often it often sends several listings in a short time span.” - from my second comment on this thread.
“Is there a reason not to do a digest for every blog?” - from my third comment on this thread.
However, you have decided to handle it in a way that treats my blog differently than other blogs which update just as frequently, with just as much (or as little, as you see it) original content. For whatever reason, you seem to believe that the quality of posts on my blog is unworthy of your feed space. At the same time you’re saying that digesting is not such a horrible thing, you’re choosing NOT to do it to other sites…why?
By Jeremy on Feb 18, 2009
“In fact, in spite of your whining…” Pot, meet kettle.
By Anon on Feb 18, 2009
“Whining” was a bad word choice.
Nonetheless, Anon is awesome. I really love his or her many fruitful contributions to this discussion.
And you may think I’m immature, but remember that I am rubber and you are glue, yadda yadda.
Neener neener.
By Jeremy on Feb 18, 2009
They’re just as fruitful as your own…or because I don’t agree with you and just wish people would move on I shouldn’t say anything?
By Anon on Feb 18, 2009