Above I have already said: “I love UGC when there is some kind of editorial workflow/filter with a valuable feedback installed.”

Give me a ranking (and explanation) which factors you find most useful for filtering good from crap?!

#1 – Human

I don’t think that one- or two-factor (clicks, most recent) sites will survive. The approach to filter the content is simply too flat. I think it would be great for every blog (= product catalog) if a multi-factor ranking is embedded in the system to give readers (= clients) a chance to dig the best from THEIR point of view.

Embedded cluster search could help. Good and sometimes very helpful is Clusty (link to an example) when searching for fuzzy subjects.

Other approaches: hits, visitors, page impressions, inbound links, outbound traffic, user-, visitor-, author-ranking, keywords, tag clouds

Give me a ranking (and explanation) which factors you find most useful for filtering good from crap?!

yep, definately. and i’d love to see something more from you on here, it’s be most welcome. you can also email me nick@perf to run ideas past me if you have any questions TDavid

>>points

Just an experiment really. users gain points for contributing to the site, i’ve not written about it, cos part of the experiment was to just see if anyone noticed, and if it affected member contributions with no announcement or explanation hah..

i’ll either write it up or remove it shortly though..

I’d like to contribute something here again soon, it’s been awhile. Perhaps this is just me, but what’s the best way to submit new articles these days? Just use our own performancing blogs here? The FAQ says that’s the way to go.

And what’s the story with these points in the sidebar? I did a search for that but I’ve not found an explanation for them yet. Maybe you guys could put a ‘?’ next to the points with a link to what the points mean and are for, if anything?

Thanks again and keep up the good work.

Most of it gets removed really quickly, as at least during euro hours chris or i are usually not far away, but sometimes over the weekend it can stay on the site for a while..

I hate user generated content (UGC) when it becomes some kind of web n.0 cost effectiveness plan of the big media and publishing houses. Some newspaper publishers know that they have to do something in the Internet but the only thing some of them did was to create public blog like pages where everybody can write about everything. They don’t pay for it, get bad content and after a while close the whole thing because they don’t get any revenue.

I hate UGC when it is lifted to the top by stupid automatic mechanisms. Digg is a good example for a bad one factor decision (clicks). I don’t visit Digg anymore.

I love UGC when it is lifted to the top by clever automatic mechanisms. I am not sure if Flickr is feeding the interestingness explorer automatically but they have so many competitive factors to choose from that it is no problem to create great pages.

I love UGC when there is some kind of editorial workflow/filter with a valuable feedback installed.

I have conflicting views of Diggs. It’s an interesting user-controlled filtering site, but you have to wonder how long it is before special interest groups quietly flood it en masse with the goal of biasing the results.

Lacking a better idea, I still believe the “quality content” model will involve linked chains of trusted small content generators (blogs/narrowly defined communities).

Frankly, I see more promise in the Diggs model, where community content generation is replaced by community content filtering. But then, the profit motive invades that too…