Does Memeorandum reinforce hierarchies?

<![CDATA[I'm skeptical about Memeorandum's algorithm. It has picked up on Jeff Jarvis’ comments about my idea of paramedia, but does not provide links to my posting, even though Jeff links to it.
Is Memeorandum really just a mechanism for reinforcing blog hierarchy? It’s picked up my postings before, but never picks up my postings if I am not responding to someone in the “top 100.”]]>

5 replies on “Does Memeorandum reinforce hierarchies?”

I posted on this over at – the short answer is yes, it reinforces hierarchy – check their blog. But remember, there’s no dishonor in asking for links…

It’s not links I need, but money. Great piles of it, in green Grantie and Franklinie goodness. Ah, money, I remember you, you used to be my reward for writing and now all I get is links, but can you eat links! Oh, no, you can’t. And I’m supposed to ask for them????
(Now. we’ll see how many bloggers have enough sense of humor to see this comment as the joke it is intended to be and how many accuse me of whining.)

Mitch, I’m skeptical too. This isn’t perfect technology, and I’m always thinking of ways of better capturing the conversation.
Now I think extreme skepticism is called for when reading “Is Memeorandum really just a mechanism for reinforcing blog hierarchy?”. JUST that? Only that? Are you serious?
BTW, Jeff’s post was about a bunch of things and linked to three other sources besides yours.
I answered Greg’s point on his blog.

Gabe—I’m not saying that Memeorandum was designed to reinforce existing rankings, just that it does, for whatever reason that may be.
Yes, Jeff’s post referred to several others, but if Memeorandum tracks conversations, it had several data points to indicate which was the starting point of the conversation: the posting date (mine was first by a day or so) and the use of the word “paramedia” in the headline, which relate the two postings thematically.
I’m just not very impressed with the representativeness of the conversations “tracked,” as it is far more like that only certain conversations are featured. And featuring is perfectly okay, if you represent it that way. You could easily make Memeorandum a Vanity Fair based on your ability to pick great sites to feature—editorial functions, whether automated or human, make a big difference.
That’s not a criticism of the intentions behind the site, and I’m sure Memeorandum can and will get better. In the meantime, though, it’s important to point out reality, especially when it contradicts the marketing statements made by a service that people are beginning to rely on for information.