"For the average editor, that analogy might seem abstruse. But what it means in practice is that if you run a website, you would be wise to learn more about exactly how interest in your stories cools off, if you want to display those stories in a way that will entice the largest number of people to read them. You digg?"
Isn't this exactly what the folks at digg have dug? And haven't the redditors made alternative, but related, decisions?
That's not to criticize the story, but can't a writer at the Economist get someone from any of the companies on the phone to discuss exactly these strategies? Seems like a weird place to end things.
Fair enough. But the sub-title leads with "How" and the review of research goes into a bit of detail (for a popular account). How hard could it be to get a few quotes from Rose or Steve, esp for a writer at the Economist?
Isn't this exactly what the folks at digg have dug? And haven't the redditors made alternative, but related, decisions?
That's not to criticize the story, but can't a writer at the Economist get someone from any of the companies on the phone to discuss exactly these strategies? Seems like a weird place to end things.