Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

Pete Cashmore — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:29:22 GMT

Scoble pronounces it "meem-orandum". That sounds logical to me.

As for hacking memeorandum - it had to happen, and it's better that you did it than a spammer. Personally, I don't believe in algorithms at all - algorithms are things that get gamed. You need to put a human brain in the loop somewhere. Anyway, I might do a follow up post to explain this better (at the risk of get banned. hehe).

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

Tara 'miss rogue' Hunt — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:15:15 GMT

This is brilliant, Alex.

Will you teach me how to screencast?

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

alexbarn — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:54:46 GMT

Here's the software I use:

Techsmith's Camatasia Studio 3:
http://www.techsmith.com/products/studio/default.asp

There is a screeast of how to use their screecasting software (!):
http://www.techsmith.com/videos/studio/CS3/CS3ShowMe/showmevideos.html?movie=1

Other software listed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screencast

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

John Dowdell — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:27:41 GMT

Thanks for mentioning that, Alex -- that technology open to abuse will likely become abused, should that technology become sufficiently popular.

I'm not sure about spammers in this case, though, because Memeorandum relies upon a known pool of bloggers to recommend any story. I guess it would be *possible* for all of us to recommend a certain spam site, but unlikely.

Since the tech pool opened I've been wondering how long it would be until some company tried to deliberately target the tech.memeorandum pool of influencers, to get a number of them to highlight a given story, and so artificially raise its profile. The first line of Michael Arrington's write-up last week made me wonder whether such manipulation had already arrived, but I don't know whether this was an intentional strategy, or just an incidental side-effect:
http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=18

This "known pool of recommenders" strategy at Memeorandum seems to protect against arbitrary spam, but it also raises the possibility of groupthink and echo-chamber, as you've shown in your experiment here. Maybe what we need are local engines, where each reader can choose their own pool of trusted sources for recommendations...?

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

alexbarn — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:55:32 GMT

Hey John, I think your last point is big deal - you're spot on. One answer is to allow users to import their OPML. See:

http://blogs.msdn.com/alexbarn/archive/2005/11/02/488364.aspx

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

Pete Cashmore — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:07:23 GMT

"This "known pool of recommenders" strategy at Memeorandum seems to protect against arbitrary spam"

I used to think that, but now I'm not so sure. Surely all it takes is for one or two "known recommenders" to start regularly recommending spam sites (and hence making those sites "known recommenders") to screw up the system. But then I don't know the exact algorithm, so that might not be a valid point.

And yes: importing your OPML will clearly make Memeorandum much more useful and nuanced.

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

Hillnut — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:57:31 GMT

It looks like there was someone awake at Memeorandum, Your hack has been removed. Good Job for you two to have the weaknesses pointed out

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

Gabe — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:18:59 GMT

Alex,

I want to leave some belated comments here. Because I was mostly away from the Internet the first time around and even now your page ranks high in a Google search for "memeorandum".

I think you omitted, intentionally or not, touching on a lot of important points that undercut your assertion.

First, a memorandum “hacker” must be a blogger with an established reputation and in doing so risk their reputation and the prospect of future placement on the site by “hacking”. I think it’s mistaken to assume that lots of bloggers will do this.

Second, one needs to spam their own site to spam memeorandum. Your screencast asserts that we should expect Viagra ads on the site soon. It seems doubtful to me that influential tech bloggers will blog about Viagra to bring about this result. Remember, anonymous link farms which affect Web search aren’t seen by memeorandum in the first place.

Third, memeorandum can even be policed in real time. It’s just a page, not a search engine. It requires about 1/10 of a human to check headlines. I think you’ve applied a search engine mindset to something that isn’t a search engine.

Finally, I have a problem with some of the images you posted to document your efforts, since disappeared quietly. They were misleading, and had the effect of exaggerating the impact that the hacking had to readers not intimately familiar with my site. You even planted the words “Memeorandum hacked – the return” where there were none onto a supposed screenshot of my site. I think that was a low blow, and unfair for your readers too.

re: Hacking Memeorandum 101 - the screencast

alexbarn — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:17:38 GMT

thanks Gabe - my response here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/alexbarn/archive/2005/12/01/498888.aspx

Techmeme hacked (redux)

Alex Barnett blog — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 00:09:42 GMT

Oh no, so it's hapenning again...!

Alex Barnett s blog Hacking Memeorandum 101 the screencast | Toe Nail Fungus

Alex Barnett s blog Hacking Memeorandum 101 the screencast | Toe Nail Fungus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:16:23 GMT

PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=477

Alex Barnett s blog Hacking Memeorandum 101 the screencast | pool toys

Alex Barnett s blog Hacking Memeorandum 101 the screencast | pool toys — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:36:18 GMT

PingBack from http://pooltoysite.info/story.php?id=6061