digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Two Diggs One Cup

babblin5.com — An analysis of Digg, the recent change in popularity requirements, and my reaction to it. How do you feel? How long will it take for this to get buried? Should be interesting....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • digidigg, on 01/24/2008, -91/+26my blog won't get promoted so i must complain! whaaaaaaaaambulance
    • Babblin5, on 01/24/2008, -13/+55I honestly could care less about promoting a blog or anything else.... Digg isn't fun anymore. That's the real tragedy. Too bad you're too stupid to see that. I guess that's why you have so many friends
      • sockpuppets, on 01/24/2008, -5/+14Digg jumped the shark. If Kevin and Alex have any reasonable offers for it, now's the time to accept them.

        Anyone using friendster? Anyone?
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 01/24/2008, -2/+10Giving up already? Why not say it's time for Kevin and Alex to resurrect the awesomeness that was Old Digg?
          • thatsmyaibo, on 01/24/2008, -11/+15Because digg used to be an awesome tech site with important news here and there. Now it is a Left wing blog spam machine full of anti-American 12 year olds that think everything on the front page is a step closer to fascism.
          • onwardknave, on 01/24/2008, -11/+4@thatsmyaibo: So you admit leftists are antifascist. I couldn't agree with your point more.
          • sockpuppets, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6It's difficult to modify the personality of a site once it obtains a certain community feel, but sure, I hope they do.
        • theblt, on 01/24/2008, -4/+2Where in the ***** did you guys get the idea that Digg was started up by Kevin and Alex??
          • thatsmyaibo, on 01/24/2008, -1/+7True. Diggnation = Kevin and Alex. I worked with Kevin on G4 when he hosted TSS. It was started by him and Jay if I remember correctly.
          • sockpuppets, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5Kevin, Jay, Alex, Ron Conway, whoever has their feet wet in Digg. You get my point.
          • theblt, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5"Digg started out as an experiment in November 2004 by Kevin Rose, Owen Byrne, Ron Gorodetzky, and Jay Adelson."
            -wikipedia

            Alex?? I don't think so.
        • carpeclunes, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2I don't think Alex would get any money from a digg sale, or even has any real say in the matter.
          • Cwo655321, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1he'd probably get a few bucks from diggnation, most certainly would have to sell them to the same buyer.
      • jemka, on 01/24/2008, -1/+15*couldn't care less
      • ryborg, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6Dood, I thought you were done with this place. scram already!!!
      • inbred, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Right, because your Digg friends are honest to goodness friends that you constantly chat it up with. I deleted a bunch of people that had 500+ friends because I'm sure they just expect me to Digg up their lame stories.
    • ggfobster, on 01/24/2008, -13/+1You're a loser.
    • NebCanuck, on 01/24/2008, -6/+3Too bad these Diggers can't see the sarcasm in your comment...

      Unless you actually were genuine in your use of "I must complain" and "Whaaaambulance"... which I apparently am alone in doubting....
      • mem2, on 01/24/2008, -4/+2to bad you read sarcasm into a sentence where there was none, ***** try hards.
    • vondrak, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4I believe you meant to say that you COULDN'T care less.
  • lucutus, on 01/24/2008, -4/+199Has anyone else noticed comments and or threads of comments mysteriously deleted as well?
    • cococooky, on 01/24/2008, -1/+69I've noticed my comments disappear. What happened was I replied to someone who had their account deleted, along with all their submissions and comments.
      • lucutus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6Thank you that is probably what happened.
      • mem2, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6yes, if you slam digg to hard they will completely delete your comments.
    • SniperZero, on 01/24/2008, -0/+21Yeah it sucks. I have a comment in my profile that doesn't show up on the damn page >_>.
      • tgc1, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0This happens to me when I post a comment in the main thread, but somehow my comments show up ONLY in sub-threads like this one. Weird.
        • SniperZero, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah PEBCK
          You need to learn where the reply button is :)

          PEBCK = problem exists between chair and keyboard
          • tgc1, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0BTW -- It's actually PEBCAK. Just FYI and all that.
        • tgc1, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0Yeah, I know that smartass. The comments made in the MAIN THREAD do not appear. As in, when I check the comment that is in my profile, it doesn't show up on the thread. You know, shows up on my page, but not in the thread. Does that make any sense to you?
    • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -0/+13I think it is their cache system acting up. I run a website that used to do quite a bit of memcached, and let me tell you, it is really easy to screw up. People would post comments, but memcached wouldn't suck them up into the rendered HTML and so "the comment i just posted isn't showing up" was always a problem.
      • lucutus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5I wasn't concerned about a delay in showing up. I think cococooky hit it on the head because what I am talking about is a thread of comments being there and an hour or so later gone.
    • dn11, on 01/24/2008, -0/+20i don't think they are "mysteriously deleted" in most cases - I think it is just bugs with the comment system. I've left comments that are totally uncontroversial in any way that seemed to disappear
      • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6Something about the cache system isn't refreshing the story when you post. They'll show up once you go into your profile and click on the comment to get back into the story - at least that is what fixes it for me
        • dn11, on 01/24/2008, -0/+7not always. sometimes comments seem to be gone forever for no apparent reason. I can see them in my profile, but they are never seen again under the story.
          • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2I believe you, but from what I've seen based on my own experiences with similar cache systems (memcached + mysql), I really think it is a bug. Trust me, adding a cache layer and trying to keep it in sync with the database is really, really hard. Your comment is probably somewhere, just not where it matters :-)
          • phazon88, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1That happens to me too dn11
    • anononon, on 01/24/2008, -0/+32Yeah, I did noti
    • chrissandvick, on 01/24/2008, -0/+11Yes but I think it could just be buggy code. I've seen threads disappear where there was nothing really controversial in any of the posts and the posters are still around.
    • TypicalAfrican, on 01/24/2008, -30/+0shut up nigga
      • MacEnvy, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5TypicalAfrican is exemplary of the unchecked trolling he was talking about in the article.
    • theblt, on 01/24/2008, -14/+28It's ***** poor written blogs such as this making it to the front-page that make me want to leave Digg. On top of that, it's comments like these that make me want to leave. Nothing Digg has ever done has ever made me want to leave. I trust that Kevin & Co. are dedicated to creating a huge community of dedicated users.

      Why in the hell would they abuse us? Why the hell would they abandon the thing that keeps them alive? Why would they censor comments/articles? They don't have a ***** political agenda to push out on us.

      All of you morons spewing out this nonsense are what destroys this site. You all think that "The Man" is out to get you guys, and you're constantly being censored by some authority. I don't know if this is just the general personality of a geek, but it's quite apparent in most of the users here. Maybe if you'd start giving Digg the benefit of the doubt, and stop assuming they're trying to "manipulate" us, maybe you'd see things in a different light.

      Then you all speak about democracy, and how Digg is no longer a democratic system. Well...wait a minute. I've had many of my comments buried by the Digg community, simply because I support some conservative views. The result, a comment that displays in a gray box that most won't even see. I'll make legitimate arguments, showing sources, yet get buried, without any responses.

      Hypocrisy? Maybe. Stupid? Absolutely.

      [Now watch me get buried for simply stating my opinion.]
      • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -3/+14"Now watch me get buried for simply stating my opinion"
        That is what is wrong with digg. You cannot state your opinion if it goes against the "bias" of an article without getting buried into the ground. Do you want to voice your opinion, even if it is well reasoned and well written only to see it get -20? What is the point of debating, even when you know you are right, when you know you'll just get -20 for daring to question the bias?

        How to fix?
        *Limited moderation points.*
        - Daily kos gives you a limited amount of "recommendations" per day and only those with enough recommendations can downrate (bury) a comment.
        - Slashdot dishes out moderation points at random. Like jury duty, some people get them a lot, some never get them.
        - Kuro5hin would average all comment ratings (dailykos and slashdot both are additive). Dunno which is better.

        *Better comment formating*
        - Please let me bold text and format URL's the way I want. Even a minimal set of formatting lets me express myself better.
        - Please fix the way this place does linebreaks. No other site manages to add weird extra paragraphs in my comments.

        *Plesant threading*
        - comments are hard to follow
        - There is an "invisible" limit to threading. Even though the system tries to let me reply to deep comments, it never lets me post them.
        • theblt, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Although it looks like you're starting to get buried, it's refreshing to see that there are still people in this community that see it for what it really is. It's sad when you can't have a reasonable debate here anymore just because you speak, as you called it in another comment, "against the grain". I can't stop thinking of the "***** in an ocean of *****" analogy when I read the comments here on Digg.
          • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1Good analogy. It feels like a tide goes through here.. once guy reads the comments and buries all the "pro bias" comments and rates up the "anti-bias" comments. Another guy comes in and does the reverse. If "pro bias" has more people reading an article, "pro bias" will "win" the debate, no matter now moonbat it is.
        • Raian, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1I learnt the hard way this week: don't try to start an intelligent debate about Cloverfeild. And yea, I have been on digg since it started... I registered in 2005-- and I have to say it really has become exponentially worse in recent months.
        • mem2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1soooo, just finish ripping off slashdot and be done with it hey ?
          • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Slashdot had its 10 year anniversary a few months ago. Name a single forum that has been successful for as long as them? You can't knock on them too hard man.
      • hilo4321, on 01/24/2008, -4/+4if people disagree with you they bury you, it's that simple... adding "[Now watch me get buried for simply stating my opinion.]" is not a good way to get your point across, and it doesn't add any validity to anything written before it
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+7"if people disagree with you they bury you, it's that simple"
          That is *****. What he really means is "why do I bother to even try because I'm speaking against the grain". Is the rest of his comment valid? Do you think it is a good idea to have a system that encourages people to *not* speak out against the groupthink? Do you want this person who writes reasoned arguments that you disagree with to leave digg forever? Do you want digg to be nothing but an echo chamber? If so, keep burying the guy down...
        • Bamborzled, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2The original point of burying, from the Digg About page:

          'Bury. If you find stories with bad links, off-topic content, or duplicate entries, click “Bury.” That’s how we get the spam out of the system and let the good stuff rise to the top.'

          Note that it has nothing to do with opinion. Unfortunately, 99% of the time people are buried because of precisely that-opinions that conflict with the "norm".
          • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Well, the about page should be corrected because the about page is wrong.

            If the designers of this comment system thought we'd all by hippie nice and just bury "really bad" comments, they were wrong. The comment system they designed encourages people to vote based on nothing but opinion. Comment moderation based on opinion will kill this site in a very slow, painful way until one day the digg designers wake up and this place is nothing but tin foil hat trash.
      • lucutus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Hey man calm down a bit. I said nothing about censorship. I asked a question because I have seen threads of comments disappear and I did not know why. Cococooky answered and that probably is the most likely answer. (TY Cococooky ) because they were not comments or threads that were "just posted". Obviously the submitter is displeased with the recent changes so 700+ people digg this up to the front page and everyone chimes in in the hope that they're opinion is noticed / heard. Just like you! PS: I did not Bury you. I never Bury anything for opinion alone.
    • pjpark, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1I have posted comments that never appeared but still got dugg up and down--so apparently someone saw them for a while. I wonder if it is related to the 2 minute edit period. I could see a comment getting lost if it the user edits it while another user is digging or burying it.
  • doublehead, on 01/24/2008, -2/+99Great! Just when I get heavily involved here the whole place goes poof
    • ggfobster, on 01/24/2008, -2/+8Yeah, same here.
    • max420, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4I know what you mean. But at the same time, lets see where it goes. Who knows Digg might just get better...
    • borez, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Digg's addictive.

      I know this because I dumped my girlfriend the other day by telling her she was buried??
  • natdowner, on 01/24/2008, -2/+105It does make it harder for people who aren't top diggers to get stories to the homepage now. There's no way people who aren't top diggers are going to have 200 people just happen upon their profile, see the story and vote for it. And I think it's pretty well known that if the same people vote for your stuff over and over then you need more votes, so you can't really rely on the same network of friends. It doesn't make a lot of sense to make it harder to get things to go popular. I mean, the point of digg is to let the diggers decide. So in my opinion as much stuff as possible should be put infront of the diggers and they can decide whether it should be dugg or buried. By making it even harder for people to see your stuff, I just don't see how the helps anyone.
    • boojoy, on 01/24/2008, -2/+7There's a story that just appeared on the main page with 31 diggs. I think the 200+ diggs theory may be inaccurate.
    • moojj, on 01/24/2008, -0/+20It's 200 diggs for regular users. Newcomers still have the lower threshold.
      • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3why oh why did I have to become a regular user?!?
    • sobe86, on 01/24/2008, -2/+15I dunno about you guys, but I actually don't mind about the threshold changes that much, because I hardly ever submit stories. Why you ask? I had a few stories make it to the front page when I first started, and looking back on it, I have no idea how they got there, they weren't even that great. It was nice seeing something I'd submitted get to the front page, but to be honest, it didn't feel like THAT much of an achievement, because I had had nothing to do with any of the things I had submitted, it was just me posting someone elses video, and getting some sort of reflected glory off it. I get a lot more satisfaction when a comment I submit gets more than 100 diggs, or if I get people leaving nice replies. And it doesn't feel like blind luck either.
    • Tomholius, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1I disagree that it is impossible for people who are not top diggers to get a story to the front page. Infact this here is a perfect example: babblin5, who submitted this story, has only been apart of digg for about 2 months and has only sumitted 3 stories all of which went to the front page. Top diggers my ass.
  • fthead9, on 01/24/2008, -3/+46Great post, I'm seriously disappointed in this new development. It makes no sense from either a user stand point or from a business one as far as I can see. Maybe Kevin and the gang have just spread themselves to thin with all of their projects and now it is starting to show.
  • lucutus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+47Heh, And I was so excited to get my first front page story just a week or two ago. Thanks for the Bury stats link. Quite some statistics available if you look. Seems like political submissions call out quite the bury count. I think it's to bad you can see who diggs but not who hits bury. It's not quite as transparent as one would think it should be. If a bury has more weight than a digg you'd think it more important to know who hit bury and if someone buries everything should theirs count less?
    • brentinkc, on 01/24/2008, -2/+21The bury process should be as transparent as the digg. The Yin and the Yang.
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -1/+8I don't know. Sometimes I think this. Other times I don't. I think the number should certainly be transparent. Who buried what, I am not so sure.

        Mixx is a good test case for this. If you bury things there, they call you out. I don't like that. Why should you be redflagged for burying something you think is factually incorrect, or something.

        I don't know though. I'm up in the air with it.
      • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -0/+12I agree that it should show buries. Honestly this place is to impersonal for people to call individuals out. The biggest insult would be "OMG, notque is a bot!" or "notque always buries articles about de-meowing cats"
        • notque, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Do you know how many of us know each other from being on here? I know like, half the people on this thread so far.

          It does actually matter.
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2You know what, you are actually right about names.

          On kuro5hin, the names of people who voted against stories in the queue were public (as were all moderation points). Nobody there complained about other peoples votes. I dont think there is any problem making such info public. You bury all my pro-meow articles and I know it, so I bury all your de-meow articles in retaliation. Politics will fix it :-)
      • billbillbilly, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9well if you bury someones article they shouldnt be able to go around are bury all of yours for revenge.
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -3/+2No, actually let them bury yours... all you will do is bury theirs in retaliation. Worst case is you cancel each others vote out. In other words, politics will sort it all out.
        • lucutus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1superawesome, Troubble is you don't know who buried you to retaliate aginst.
          • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Indeed, but I was operating under the theory that buries would have names on them
  • lucidguru, on 01/24/2008, -4/+89Yeah the number of burys required to nix an article is absurd. Digg needs a much more lenient system like reddit where a downmod (bury) has the same weight as an upmod (digg). The current system of burying puts too much power in the hands of trolls and the bury brigade. This system encourages only generalized material to make the front page, while interesting and controversial material appears only rarely. Digg is becoming nothing more than a sensationalist hub for the mainstream media. (It's not surprising that articles about Britney Hilton and Brad Gibson and articles from ABC, Fox, etc.. now appear much more frequently than before.)

    Even the [Reported by Diggers as Possibly Inaccurate] frustrates me because legitimate opinions are now taken out of context for the effect of discrediting websites and bloggers. (The straw man argument is ***** lame).

    The worst part is that digg now loads at a snails pace and frequent diggers are dropping like flies... Way to alienate your base and sell out digg! I can only expect this to get worse.
    • dotlizard, on 01/24/2008, -0/+16i couldn't agree with you more without spraining something.
    • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -3/+6If they would fix the comment moderation, it would improve this site quicker than fixing how stories are selected. It is far to easy to silence critics - witness anything about tasers or republican presidential candiates. You cannot go against the bias of the article and have your voice heard. *That* is far more frustrating and a turn off then buried stories. If you cannot tell somebody they are, in fact, full of ***** because a bunch of weenies always bury you, you just leave the site. Since anybody who calls out truthers, moonbats or RP supporters gets buried to high hell and thus never visits again, all we are left with is truthers, moonbats and RP supporters... it is a vicious cycle to the bottom depths of stupidity.

      Fix the comment moderation and watch this place become full of smart discussion again.
      • argusbargus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3You had me following you until you said "If you cannot tell somebody they are, in fact, full of ***** because a bunch of weenies always bury you, you just leave the site. Since anybody who calls out truthers, moonbats or RP supporters gets buried to high hell and thus never visits again, all we are left with is truthers, moonbats and RP supporters... Fix the comment moderation and watch this place become full of smart discussion again."

        How is telling someone that they are full of ***** or calling them names a smart discussion? Quite frankly, if that it is your logic, then there is no change to the comment moderation that will fix your problem.

        It is the stated objective of the Bury Brigade to censor Digg from discussion of Ron Paul or 9/11, so please stop blaming the victim when you participate in a campaign to abuse them, that's just pathetic.
    • brettmurf, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1To be honest I see [Reported by Diggers as Possibly Inaccurate] on opinion articles seldom if at all. I see it on articles that usually require it, and the first 200+ diggers always seem to take it as fact. If you look at the comments on articles with that, the first 30+ comments clearly feel a false article is true. Although, it is very unfortunate when people abuse it, so I am glad it at least is just a disclaimer instead of a delete.
    • nicolasavru, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5I agree with your point about a digg being counted as +1 and a bury as -1, however I believe that in addition to the "sum" of the diggs and buries, the individual number of diggs and buries should also be displayed. Example: an article shows up on the digg.com as 100 diggs. When you go onto the comments page, you see that the article has 200 diggs and 100 buries.
  • hoopajoo, on 01/24/2008, -1/+99I think there should be a way to unbury a comment if you accidentally hit it instead of digg.
  • puto, on 01/24/2008, -5/+72digg censors, and that is a fact
    • bs0l, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6Dan Huard needs to make money somehow.
    • coder_cotton, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1proof, or it didnt happen (if true, i'd love to see some)
  • msaleem, on 01/24/2008, -1/+130Top user or not, it should be an equal playing field. Doesn't matter what your standing is, every user should have an equal chance at the front page. Though the system pretends to be helping new users, it hurts them even more.
    • notque, on 01/24/2008, -2/+23Agreed
      • sockpuppets, on 01/24/2008, -1/+21I stopped submitting stories. It's just not worth it.
        • notque, on 01/24/2008, -0/+13And you call yourself a sock? For shame...
    • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -3/+20Well, under the current system, top users get an average of 80 or so diggs for every story they submit, vs 5 - 10 for typical ordinary users. I'd love to say that this is because top users are ultra clever but you and I both know that's not the reason :)

      is that a level playing field? definitely not. However, diggs attempt to 'fix' this is making things even more screwed up than usual. But that's how digg works

      personally, I've seen hundreds of links I submit cheerfully linkjacked and submitted by popular users. I'm not complaining, but it would be cool to have a level playing field. I doubt that will ever happen here though.
      • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -2/+10take this very comment. It's being dugg down because I'm saying something that could be construed to be 'against' you, instead of just saying 'agreed'.
        • notque, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5Hey, don't insult my agreement because someone buried you. I really agreed. I didn't find anything wrong with what you said.
    • FatLoser, on 01/24/2008, -0/+17I don't submit stuff because I know it won't get any attention at all. No point in trying to compete with MrBabyMan or any of the others. They could submit 2girls1cup, goatse, lemonparty, etc. and it would get more diggs than if I submitted the cure for cancer.
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -2/+11Do you have self esteem issues, FatLoser?
        • FatLoser, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I do. :( But I don't think that's related to the topic we were discussing.
      • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -6/+6I disagree. MrBabyman makes a lot of effort to submit good content and he is probably the most ethical user on digg.
        • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -0/+7And I think this is the point. Does it suck that when a new user comes in they have to build a network? No, not to me. Personally, I'm getting tired of the new users coming in and befriending hundreds of other users without even having dugg one fuc*ing article. Take the time to gain trust in the community. Why should someone hit the FP right away? as soon as they join digg? Make us work for it.
          As for the algorithm, Digg's community would be a much more effective tool in identifying and ridding of spammers and crap submitters.
          • canewediggit, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5"Digg's community would be a much more effective tool in identifying and ridding of spammers and crap submitters" - join the brigade
        • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2You'd really hate reddit.

          Over there we have this absurd system we call a meritocracy where anyone can submit and stories reach the front page purely due to how cool they are, not who submitted them!
        • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1I'm not asking for stories to be dugg on the basis of who submitted them; I'm asking for new users coming in to take their time, digg and comment like the rest of us first. When you've established some level of trust from the community, then start submitting content. Perhaps, meritocracy can be applied to more than simply the content of the article. How about the time you contribute to a community? How hard you work taking care of it?
          Read my comment fully and you'll notice that I'm not complaining about the merits of an article; I'm complaining about the shout spammers, the users who spam the queue with every article they find, or just spam with crap.
          I don't have anything against meritocracy. I just believe that it should be extended to the user as well as the article. I don't know where you got that from or why you felt the need to accuse me of that based on my comment.
    • MH94, on 01/24/2008, -0/+10Thank you for saying that, even though you're a top user with many of your articles hitting the front page.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6I think you are an example of this. Don't get me wrong, personally I think you're a great person (speaking from our run-in last year). But what has happened is that people start digging up stories because of the user and not the story content. If digg wants to truly be a democracy, it should block the submitter's name from the submissions. That way content gets the vote rather than having a mass popularity contest. The way things are going now, digg seems like a fad that has passed it's peak.
      • canewediggit, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4i used to say remove the submitter's name as well. but with shouting, i don't think it would matter anymore.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1That should be removed too. Any element that makes it a popularity contest should be taken off. It makes digg lose all credibility. This isn't myspace.
    • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Actually, what's happening here is very simple. Digg is now popular, and they no longer 'need' their top users. By 'demoting' the top users who, lets face it, MADE digg what it is now, they can give an advantage to the unwashed hoards, who would otherwise not bother to participate here because they think its pointless and they have no chance.
      • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4Top users like MrBabyMan who trolls digg's upcoming section looking for stories he can resubmit under his own name (using the SAME URL and same title) and take away from honest diggers who submit things for the fun of it??
    • 07sheikh, on 01/24/2008, -3/+1Saleem, Bie! Read your gmail...I sent you an e-mail...Help me be on top in Digg lol. For real.
    • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2All that had to be done was to not list the submitter's name till 24 hours AFTER the story is submitted. That way EVERY new submission would start out the same, but people like mrbabyman who game the system through their large friends list would have their submissions stand out like a sore thumb as they shout to their friends to digg up their stories.
  • Burento, on 01/24/2008, -4/+31If you are a top user it is because have proven to provide the overall collective of users material they are interested in. Msaleem has always provided top notch high quality material. Now they have to get 2 times as many votes for that same high quality material and someone submitting crap content and has not proven themselves can get it to the front page easier...
    There has been quite a few changes at Digg lately and they all have seemed to take us further and further from a fair and interesting Digg.
    • FatLoser, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1How do you think somebody is going to submit crap and get to the front page unless a) they buy the diggs or b) they're popular already? I'd say 1/100 front page stories are by people who haven't had at least 10 front page stories before. The system favors the status quo. Unfortunately some of the top submitters seem to have rigged up some sort of autosubmitter right from the same old websites. If I want to read the Consumerist I'll go to their website, thank you. Why should digg be a duplicate/second repository for 10-20 regular websites' stories?
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -2/+8How do you think people get popular? I'll give you a little secret, they submit stories that are not common in the mainstream media about topics that interest others.

        Here's another just impossible tip, they comment. Often. They care more about discussion that submitting.

        And magic happens. People start becoming your friend to read your comments.

        Suddenly, you can get things to the front page based on these people that you know from commenting.

        And then, you're popular.
        • FatLoser, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1LOL, you forgot the /sarcasm tag there bud.
          • notque, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4I was being serious. Look at my profile.
    • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Actually (no disrespect to mrbabyman and msaleem who are both awesome people) but being a top user is mostly to do with how long you have been on digg and how many people have added you as friend. Definitely theres a heck of a lot of skill and ethical behavior involved on their part and they have earned their position, but lets be honest, an average user has no chance in hell of catching up, unlike at other sites like reddit where all are equal ;)
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -4/+2That isn't true at all. I could make a new account tomorrow with nothing connecting to my account now and be a top digger in a few weeks.

        Adding friends doesn't make you a top digger. Participating in discussions, and being a valuable part of the community does.
        • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6>That isn't true at all. I could make a new account tomorrow with nothing connecting to my account now and be a top digger in a few weeks.

          No you cant
          • notque, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2Yes I can. Want to have an experiment to see?
          • notque, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Actually, I take that back. It would ***** up the important work I do, and put my account in jeopardy. You're right, I couldn't. You're awesome.
    • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3>If you are a top user it is because have proven to provide the overall collective of users material they are interested in.
      Not necessarily. Being a top user here is mostly due to how much time one has spent here and how big one's network is. Obviously the quality of ones submissions matter but not as much as how many friends one has.
  • Burento, on 01/24/2008, -5/+25Sad thing is.. This will go front page and people will all bitch and yell about this and they are in the right to do so.
    Problem is Digg has and will always do whatever they want to do. Ever wonder why so much Ron Paul stuff can get through when they openly admit to spamming and gaming Digg? Cause Digg staff like Ron Paul.
    We will all say we hate it and we all wish it would change but in the end... it will remain the same... or erm.. it will actually probably get worse..
    • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -4/+8Because you can't fight them. The same people who get Ron Paul garbage to the front are the same people who bury all comments who say "the guy never will win". When you cannot debate without getting buried (and I've seen some *very* well thought out rebuttals get buried because they diss Ron Paul or say Tasers are legit), what is the point of even leaving a comment or visiting digg? Without fixing the moderation system, this place is a giant echo chamber that will just devolve into tin foil hat central.
    • leodavinci, on 01/24/2008, -1/+8What do you suggest they do? Digg is pretty damn close to a direct democracy, and what happens is that the 49% will get screwed over by the 51% EVERY time. Changing this would require a significant change, a moderation system more along the lines of Slashdot.

      I am a HUGE Ron Paul supporter, but I do Digg up well thought out comments questioning/opposing his policies.

      You guys are seeing one end of things, but some of the Paulites think Digg is censoring THEM. They see stories get buried immediately after submission and cry foul. It works both ways.
      • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -5/+4Ron Paul is a *textbook* case of how bad the current comment moderation scheme is. In fact, I dare say, the "Ron Paul Phenomenon" has probably made more people leave this website than any other thing that gets posted here (and I'll further assert that the rise in other moonbat articles is a result of all the smart people giving up and leaving). We cannot argue with you guys. It is impossible to hint at his questionable past in a Ron Paul article and not get buried to the floor. The only things that survive (at least on the top level of a thread... ie the one most people only see) are "GO RON PAUL 2008". It sucks that we cannot have our voices heard (even it we are telling you to go away). You, dear Ron Paul supporters, censor us by burying all our comments!

        Unless digg fixes their comment system so we can stand a reasonable chance of arguing you, you guys ruined digg. So... ***** you Ron Paul supports. In fact, I'd wager people are so resentful of your treatment of diggs comment and story system that they will badmouth your candidate everywhere they go. I know I do.
        • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2True, but one has to remember that RP's 'questionable past' is basically nonexistent and mainly made up by trolls and the MSM. Compare his past to Mr. Rudy 9-11's past and tell me whos is the one we should all be worrying about.
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -3/+2Dude, ***** you, I'm not arguing with you about RP. You bury our ***** and pretty soon this place will be nothing but you 13 year olds who cannot vote. Once all us adult people who can vote leave, what is the point of posting articles about Ron Paul here?

          You people have done *far* *far* *far* more damage to the Ron Paul 2008 campaign than anything he could say or do, past, present, and future. For every person you've converted to your team, you've made ten enemies who will badmouth Ron Paul until the end of time. In short, you've ***** of the internet. Good job.
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1ps... sorry to yell... it is very hard to argue with Ron Paul people
        • Bamborzled, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Bitter political infighting... BEGIN!

          I'm starting to hedge on the belief that the expansion of Digg outside of tech news ruined it. But hey, I'm one of those Digg old-timers (if you consider 2006 "old-time"). Maybe it's just nostalgia, I don't know.
        • argusbargus, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2I love how the Bury Brigade appeal to others as though they are victimized. And yet they embark on a campaign of abuse and taunting, all contrary to the terms of service. Furthermore, there has been organized libelous smear attacks.

          Want to see the history of a troll? http://digg.com/users/superawesome/history/comment ...
          Note that 98 out of 100 comments were posted in the last 24 hours. Note that many of the comments are either abusive replies or calling for action from other Bury Brigade members.
      • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -3/+1By the way, I rest my case about you Ron Paul Supporters
        http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=9917 ...

        "I guess we have to be a little more crafty in our DIGG endeavors, like the BARACKOBAMA2008.com scandal "
        http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=105802 ...
  • msaleem, on 01/24/2008, -5/+25Well this one has already been censored...
    • ggfobster, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2Care to elaborate?
      • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -2/+9It was temporarily" removed from the queue. Many of us saw it. You wouldn't know unless you were digging down in the upcoming sections with the rest of us.
    • dn11, on 01/24/2008, -8/+3oh noes! censored to the front page!
    • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9Before any of you digg msaleem's comment down, be aware that many of us saw this post removed from the queue only to be placed back a little while later.
      Digg does have censors and admins. They're just not out in public view.
  • DigiDave, on 01/24/2008, -0/+29I've been thinking of leaving for some time now too. Still haven't decided. A few weeks ago I wrote about Digg's IM epidemic
    http://www.digidave.org/adventures_in_freelancing/ ...

    This was a sign of the spamming and the trolls - it's gotten really bad. The fact is - unique hits is like red meat to a tiger. Even though Digg traffic tends to be low quality (locusts that eat up bandwith without actually reading anything), it's too attrative to people that can use digg as a tool to make quick cash. That has turned the site from good to bad to worse.
    • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -1/+6I just got here a few months ago and already I've been hanging out on Newsvine.
    • phnx0221, on 01/24/2008, -0/+12What's really frustrating for me, is that while I definitely spend a lot of time reading and digging articles, I also spend a lot of time discussing those articles in the comment threads. I have yet to see a place that is as active as digg, with the same type of comments and discussion activity that I see here. There are many articles of high importance, especially pertaining to politics, where people could really benefit from seeing and participating in the discussions in those threads. So while I loathe the new algorithm system, and I'm really frustrated with the censoring/burying/bans, etc, there just isn't a place that I've seen that is quite like this. I love this place, I love the community, and I love the discussions that I see take place. I love that it was democratic, and user friendly. While I am upset that it's changing, and I'm not sure if I'd like to leave because of it, I'd hate to see everything that I love about this place get flushed down the toilet of mainstream *****. So yeah...same boat.
      • DigiDave, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4Try Newsvine or Propeller - in my opinion those two always have good discussions going on. Just IMO
        • phnx0221, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Thanks I'll check those out as well. :)
  • notque, on 01/24/2008, -1/+24Discussion of these topics is important. You're not aloud to discuss banned diggers on digg, so the best we can do is talk about the algorithm.
  • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -7/+14I'm not sure exactly what is happening but I think digg is attempting to make it so that anyone can submit a front page story. If this works as it is supposed to, it will mean that ordinary people without teams of friends will get a chance to submit front page content.

    Countdown to todays most buried comment on digg begins now!
    • notque, on 01/24/2008, -6/+7Buried simply because you made the last statement. Stop complaining, and make your statements.
      • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6Actually, you have a point. Ok, here you go:

        I'm not sure exactly what is happening but I think digg is attempting to make it so that anyone can submit a front page story. If this works as it is supposed to, it will mean that ordinary people without teams of friends will get a chance to submit front page content.
        • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5OK, but would that not help the spammers?
          Say whatever you want about having to build a network. But, it shows trust from users and time spent into digg.
      • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -2/+8You want more statements? Fine

        Digg is a circlejerk masquerading as a social bookmarking site, where teams of friends play wars promoting their content and burying content submitted by other teams of friends.
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -5/+6Bingo. It doesn't help that if your "friends" are a smaller pool than the other guy, you'll get all comments buried even if you are 100% right. Then you all give up and never return. As a result, digg gets dumber and dumber because nobody keeps the idiots in check.
          • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5dugg down for being correct, AND not being part of my friends network
          • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -3/+0dugg you up because you are part of my friends network and I agree with you.
          • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4"As a result, digg gets dumber and dumber because nobody keeps the idiots in check."

            Kind of like Congress.
        • 808kick, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1so it's exactly like real life?
  • dotlizard, on 01/24/2008, -3/+16it would make perfectly logical sense to give some preferential treatment, algorithmically speaking, to those with solid reputations, i.e., the top Diggers. the reason i follow them is that i trust/respect their contributions and count on them to find and submit things that are interesting and relevant.

    and i'd think that having a number of these individuals who give over a significant amount of their time and effort towards building their reputations would be a big value-add to Digg, because dedicated users that work hard at making your website run better would seem to be an asset. can't really understand alienating your most valuable contributors, but maybe that's just me.
    • bs0l, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8What about those who are trying to become top diggers?
      • dotlizard, on 01/24/2008, -2/+11. read some of their blogs/articles on how to
        2. spend several hours every day digging and reading
        3. stay aware of trends, what's hot what's not (this is all in the articles)
        4. develop a strong network of friends

        you know. do what they did, and keep at it.
        • bs0l, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2Copy wikipedia articles, post on blog, add ads, and submit?
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4It isn't difficult to become a "top digger."

        You can't be a top digger and spam. You need to talk to people, discuss things, do it because you care about it, and comment often.

        It's not magic. People will like you if you participate and people start to know you. I've never heard of you before, so you don't talk in the threads I read, contribute.

        But I can tell you all the people, even that aren't my friends I know. Because I participate.

        Basically, if you're goal is to be a top digger, you've already failed.
      • QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -2/+31. Sign up to reddit's RSS feed
        2. Submit everything that gets popular to digg
        (success)

        works wonders for msaleem, mrbabyman and myself :)

        better yet, bookmark my reddit page and submit everything there to digg. Guaranteed to work wonders.
    • FatLoser, on 01/24/2008, -4/+4I disagree completely. I think the submitter of a story should be absent from all submissions. I don't think you should be able to see who submitted what; it turns this into a popularity contest. Doesn't the content stand on its own? Isn't that the whole point of Digg, that anybody can submit anything, and if it's interesting it will end up on the front page? The way things work are the polar opposite of that. Popularity rules the front page, not quality of content.
      • dotlizard, on 01/24/2008, -2/+2anonymous submissions would be a spamfest of epic proportions, and no one with any motivation to develop a good reputation and contribute value to the community. no reason to network, no way to ... oh never mind. it's obvious you don't get this at all.
        • FatLoser, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4People who digg spam submissions are the problem, not people who submit them. If you're unwilling to help separate the wheat from the chaff, then you're a waste of space here.

          If you want to keep digging the same users' submissions regardless of their content, go right ahead. Then wonder why things have been going, and continue to go, down hill.
  • Djokuuskaj, on 01/24/2008, -0/+17that wasnt as disgusting as i thought it would be.
  • iching, on 01/24/2008, -13/+6How much psy-ops activites are there on this site since it is world read? Not to imply that digg moderators or administration is implicated.

    The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.

    Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.

    Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

    "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.

    "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.

    The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

    "In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
  • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -0/+30The more they play with the algorithm, the worse it gets for all of us. Top users need so many diggs to get to the frontt page, but us new users need more and more just to gain visibility in the queue.
    Of the new users coming into digg, who do you think stands a better chance of getting to the FP?
    The spammers who are willing to game the system and f**k the rules sideways? Or the new users who are willing to play by the rules?
    • bs0l, on 01/24/2008, -0/+14I gave up on submitting, people see my stories for like 1 minute (if that) before 100 new stories are posted.
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -2/+1Good. That's step one to becoming a top digger. Stop caring about it.
    • chemdiva, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2I agree. I highly doubt that it will ever be worthwhile for me to submit. So I just sit around voting up stories i think are relevant and interesting, or irrelevant and interesting... but without being able to contribute beyond that, it's not really much better than just reading it all on techmeme and nytimes.com. (really, i guess i keep coming back for the comments)
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -1/+3Comment. That's participation.

        I mean, I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

        Commenting is more important than submitting. Repeat that over and over in your head until it sinks in. Ask yourself why that would be true.

        You don't understand the power you have.
        • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+0Why bother unless you agree with the story? Good like trying to tell a mob of people who watch 15 seconds of "Dont Taser me Bro" that the video they saw was almost a textbook case of good police work. Say "tasers are a safe replacement for the billie club in most cases" will get you buried into the ground. And before you even post the comment, you *know* it will get buried no matter how you write it so... what is the point? Why argue with people here?
    • bullcutter, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1there will always be people trying to figure out how to manipulate and abuse the system for their own ends; the easiest way to throw them off is to make adjustments to the algorithm, which might throw them off, at least for a short while...
      • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2No, what should be done is level the playing field and allow the community to identify and remove these individuals. Digg's community can handle these issues far better than some computer algorithm.
  • WordsnCollision, on 01/24/2008, -5/+7Why was this post buried? Anyone? Bueller?
    • Nomadelle, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3According to Ajoxonomy Bury Recorder, it was buried five times. This is when the post was submitted 7 hrs and 29 mins ago.
    • notque, on 01/24/2008, -0/+6And again it's revived! The system has stopped making sense!
      • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2It hasn't made sense for quite some time now.
      • WordsnCollision, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2So once buried, a post can get enough votes to be un-buried? That SHOULD be how things work, but is it? A Digg Search on the post's title turned up nothing, so either it WAS buried or Digg's search function is busted. Geez, what next??
  • Nomadelle, on 01/24/2008, -2/+24It is sad to see the veterans who have invested their time, effort, and energy into a community that isn't returning the favor. Problem is: Digg isn't defending itself. It isn't giving people ANY explanations as to why they are banning various strong Diggers and increasing the quota to reach FP. Digg isn't addressing the autobury situation adequately... It looks like Digg will implode if it continues in this self-destructive path and ignore this situation further...
    • phnx0221, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9Not even just the veterens. There are plenty of people on here (obviously, myself included), who really care about this community, and have found somewhat of a haven here with the democratic digging set-up, the comments, the digg/bury system (when it wasn't so strangely set up), and the discussions taking place. I've invested a ton of personal time, energy, and engagement in a place that feels like somewhat of an online home to me, and it's changed almost completely. It went from something that we all could actively participate in, and have some sort of control (amongst everyone, democratically) of what news stories were being heavily seen by everyone. It was like our own news source. And now, that feeling is completely changed. Like the article said, it seems like digg is making it harder for people to get great (unique, interesting, subversive) stories up, and making it harder on their users.
    • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Take a look at the Alexa numbers (Yeah, I know its not fantasticlly great, but its the best we have till digg.com releases its own numbers) and since the middle of 07 digg has been steadily losing ground.
      I can't see this trend reversing, at least not when the algorythm is so utterly screwed and while asshole users like MrBabyMan resubmit already submitted stories (even using the same URL and title) as their own and their little digg-armies digg them up onto the front page in 10 minutes.
  • dball48, on 01/24/2008, -0/+25Are my diggs gonna carry less weight if I digg this article?
    • brentinkc, on 01/24/2008, -0/+11Or will your buries carry more if you bury it?
      • notque, on 01/24/2008, -1/+11If a story is submitted, and there's nobody there to shout it, does it hit front page?
  • bingobongony, on 01/24/2008, -31/+3Now we have TWO sites who tihnk that a half a day worth of front page stories is enough to figure out the new algorithm.
    Get over it! You are not going to figure out the algorithm. It is not just how many diggs, or how often, etc.
    • ff4marvel, on 01/24/2008, -2/+38the best part is YOUR PROFILE is given as an example of a troll.

      did you even read the article?
      • bingobongony, on 01/24/2008, -20/+2Nope...why would I? I don't care about pathetic little bitches like you or the website.
        I have a real job. I don't write a ***** DIARY on the internet and then spam digg to earn a living.
        • ff4marvel, on 01/24/2008, -1/+24No, you just spam digg and don't earn a living for it. Congratulations.
        • benman587, on 01/24/2008, -1/+11Ahahaha, you're just proving them right
        • Nougat, on 01/24/2008, -1/+20But in the last six months you've posted 7600+ comments here? Seems like you not only care, but care deeply.
        • bullcutter, on 01/24/2008, -1/+11"I don't write a ***** DIARY on the internet and then spam digg to earn a living."

          Then what do you do it for??!
        • smacksaw, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5You're dumber and more delusional than you say Ron Paul is - two peas in a pod. Now I know why you hate him. Must hit close to home.
        • Brad324, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3you are one of life's losers.
    • SniperZero, on 01/24/2008, -1/+23ROFL WAFFLES. I think you just got pwned.
  • bs0l, on 01/24/2008, -2/+8I'd expect reasoning on this week's episode of Diggnation. We'll soon find out and if we don't, screw digg.
  • Skitzzo, on 01/24/2008, -0/+11Is this going to be like the night they tried to pull that hex code?
    • mikesbaker, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2that was super ghey - for me the "digg revolt" was the beginning of the end of the greatness that was digg
  • HardChargerxxx, on 01/24/2008, -2/+16I'm new to Digg, so these issues are a little over my head, BUT I can tell you that I really enjoy this site. I used to get updates from cnn.com, but I tend to rely more on digg at this point.
    • ggfobster, on 01/24/2008, -1/+5Me too, don't screw with Digg, Digg.
      • mikesbaker, on 01/24/2008, -2/+4are you joking? you both came here after digg got ***** with big time. ah the good old digg days - before the 'new comment system'
      • wolberwj, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Digg got ***** with? What happened? 'New Comment System'? Time to research some Digg history...
    • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5You guys should have seen digg when it was actually good. It was so much better than it is right now its saddening.
  • Clymer, on 01/24/2008, -10/+5Digg sux plain and simple. It's a great idea, and started out great but they have cratered to corporate elitists for the almighty buck. That doesn't even bother me so much - they act like we don't know it. How is it that when I post an article that states IBM is cutting the salaries of 7600 technical staff by 15% here in the states, at a time when they just made 11 Billion, it VANISHES? Anyone know any alternatives to digg?
    • one2gamble, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3reddit?
      StumbleUpon?

      a bazillion other ones....
  • JNudda, on 01/24/2008, -6/+3Dugg for title
  • madwh, on 01/24/2008, -4/+3They think people are pouring too much crap on THEIR website. A very Apple initiative.
  • rstarr, on 01/24/2008, -4/+12Oh man, anyone who's been on digg for a few years now is pretty much getting sick of it. Every once in a while some site does an expose about how digg is no longer a democracy and blah blah, people all complain and say they're leaving and yet the community continues to grow. Frankly, digg is just fine for what I use it for regardless. I get some under the radar news, some slightly radical politics, a healthy dose of tech news, and sizeable amount of laughs. When I don't like something I bury or ignore it, when I do I digg. To be honest I think that everyone is making a much bigger deal about this then they should. This is JUST a news site after all.
    • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Actually, according to alexa (yeah I know) digg has been shrinking since late 2006.
      http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ ...
      Scale it by '3 years' and you'll see what I mean.
    • vikki77, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Thank you, it IS just a news site.
    • Shenanigans, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2The thing is that it's a lot harder to find the neat tech stories and legitimate news nowadays. I've noticed I seldom digg stories now because there's nothing interesting though I keep browsing and reading. I still like it, but as bad as it sounds, it's not as cool when more people know about it.
  • dn11, on 01/24/2008, -5/+2i think people are making too much of this. I believe they fiddle with the algorithm from time to time to see what effect it has - I wouldn't take anything as permanent
  • onetrap, on 01/24/2008, -9/+3Inaccurate, http://i32.tinypic.com/ezjyqf.png
  • sherif2, on 01/24/2008, -15/+2I posted an awesome link on Digg and no one cared.
    http://digg.com/software/Oszoe_How_to_Type_Special ...
    • richmessenger, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Spamming it is not going to help your cause either, sorry.
  • Lacero, on 01/24/2008, -7/+2Does anybody read the upcoming stories? I don't. Start banning users who post duplicate stories.
  • coustoe, on 01/24/2008, -11/+1200 diggs? awesome, Fuuuck all you digg spammers, now decent stuff will get to the front page instead of the lame ***** thats been posted the last few months.

    The only people bitching about this are the digg spammers posting crap that no one cares about cept their circle of retarded digg friends.

    oh ya I buried this for being lame!!! ***** ya!!!!
  • Misinformant, on 01/24/2008, -6/+52Wanna see buried? Watch this...

    1) Ron Paul is an imbecille*
    2) Wii is overrated*
    3) Halo is overrated*
    4) Linux is worthless
    5) I hate Macs*
    6) Fox News rocks
    7) Religion is better than sliced bread...
    8) ...especially scientology
    9) Thank "god" for the Bush family
    10) Liberals are devil worshipping fags
    11) Pot turns your kids into crazed fiends...
    12) ...but alcohol is a-ok!
    13) Jack Thompson is right about video games

    * = I'm dead serious about these ones
    • phnx0221, on 01/24/2008, -2/+6Dugg purely for spite. ;)
    • magicaltrevor, on 01/24/2008, -2/+5I dugg you up to be ironic.
    • gbarberi, on 01/24/2008, -2/+3What she said :)
    • moocow1452, on 01/24/2008, -0/+5You forgot, "09-f9-11-O7..."
    • 4Paws, on 01/24/2008, -0/+4Pot turns your crazed fiends into kids.
      • banmaster, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1That would by ritalin though, right?
    • shadeOfGrey, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Oh no! I can't tell if he's using reverse psychology.
    • leodavinci, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3I agree with you that those things would very rarely ever get to the front page, however, do you really think it is because of some kind of top down conspiracy by KRose and company? Or is it a well organized bunch of people who happen to have the same ideals and want to push an agenda? OR could it be that most Diggers are in the 15-30 year old white male range and have many of the same tendencies; then, once a few things are Dugg up for being cool group think starts to set in and anything outside of what the group likes gets buried.
      Then, after awhile the top diggers stop submitting content contrary to the group think because they like getting stories that get lots of Diggs... almost like a politician for votes.
      • superawesome, on 01/24/2008, -1/+0"could it be that most Diggers are in the 15-30 year old white male range and have many of the same tendencies"
        Granted, I'm an adult and dont ask me why I'm trying.... but given how you dont stand a chance of fighting "contrarian" articles without getting your comment buried to -100, why should I, an adult who values my time, bother with this site?

        You know what? I'm almost embarrassed for the people who invested real cash money into this place. If I sunk a million into this joint and all I got for it was a lousy "The TRUTH behind JFK" article, I'd be pretty *****. If *anybody* who is part of the design team for digg is reading this, please, please, please bring in a consultant who knows about building online communities and have them fix your comment system. Your comment system has deep flaws in its design and is killing this place!
    • bullcutter, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Hilarious!

      Pretty spot on, but you forgot that

      14. Dennis Kucinich probably didn't see a UFO and definitely won't become President.
      15. Cracked is the unfunny, mutant e-spawn of Mad Magazine and the Huffington Post
      16. Global warming is a religion/cult, and Al Gore its High Priest/James Jones.
  • magicaltrevor, on 01/24/2008, -3/+13http://i3.ahpic.com/2xtkr.png

    How many diggs to become popular?
  • WhatsUpWithJack, on 01/24/2008, -4/+5i'm going to take a ***** on digg if they don't stop making stupid decisions.
  • TokyoPoliceman, on 01/24/2008, -1/+2Good comments and good story but I have to say if this story wasn't popular it would've been hilarious.
  • handler, on 01/24/2008, -1/+4Digg has to conserve space on there serverz somehow. :-)
    • therernospoons, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2Speaking of conserving space, I noticed that I can no longer go back more than 15 pages of my digg history. I used to rely on digg to bookmark good stories. I miss the times when you could go back to your first digg :(
  • GregZor, on 01/24/2008, -6/+2If Digg didn't blatantly censor stories and make it so positive stories about Ron Paul actually MADE it to the front page, I might think this place was pretty fair.
  • knobtwiddler, on 01/24/2008, -5/+4digg is totally moderated by favored users, and manipulated by corporate bury brigades.
    still better than watching fox news or cnn though... slightly.. for the time being.
  • elitexero, on 01/24/2008, -5/+2Finally, now random crap doesn't make it to the front page with 19 diggs only to waste everyone's time and have to be buried.
  • mweels, on 01/24/2008, -5/+2Digg is broken. LAMP just cant handle. Its that simple.
  • 07sheikh, on 01/24/2008, -3/+3I bet you all If I gave any stupid article that didn't even make sense to MSALEEM, Skore, Or Babyman for one of them to submit, it would be an instant hit with in 30 seconds with a thousand diggs...Digg is a popularatity contest...hahah now digg this post hahaha
  • DigiDave, on 01/24/2008, -4/+14http://revoltnation.blogspot.com/
    • seanc6610, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2There's a couple of big names there, at least digidave and msaleem are pretty significant. Wonder what MrBabyMan thinks.
      • AudioPhil3, on 01/24/2008, -0/+3What about the other BIG name: Smiles


        There is like, a whole mile between the first and last letter.
  • MarkusGarvey, on 01/24/2008, -1/+8Diggers made Digg what it is,and if Digg wants to start treating us as a commodity, Digg will disappear...i expect to have an equal say on what gets posted here, that's the whole reason i joined Digg, but it seems that it's becoming more homogenized, and i am finding myself more and disappointed with Digg lately.....oh how i miss the good old days.....you can sell Digg, but you cant sell Diggers!...
  • minorthreat, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1The amount of diggs it took for a story to reach the homepage 2 years ago was based on how many users digg had. I would assume since then it has grown.
  • jaymulder, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah digg is lame! They are like controlling everything we put on here and filtering stories! I love when Kevin and Alex make fun of these articles on diggnation. Yall are teh_dumb.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.