What is Digg?71 Comments
- attila, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45I think this is a brilliant IDEA ( I emphasize idea because I don't think this is much of a solution). I doubt it will be a cure all by any stretch of the imagination.. there will always be instances where people don't use the tools afforded to them correctly, but this will definitely help to some extent.
I want to better understand how it will prevent people from submitting Dupes.. or is the idea to just offer them an alternative to duping by contributing to an already submitted story... I think this needs to be bantered about some more. As I understand it, this proposal relies heavily on the time and effort of the original news posters to hunt down every perceivable link available relating to the story they are contributing (highly unlikely). - curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33I had discussed this with others a while back, and a fellow digger who I'd talked with recently...had the same idea in a post on his blog recently, and had an image for what it could look like as well which i though was cool.
How I always imagined this is, that anytime a users submits a story, any digger, including the poster can add alternative sources attached to the story...now when other diggers go to post the same story from another source (that is linked as an alternative source) they would be forcibly directed to the original, just like it works with identical URL detection for duplicates now. I think it would help prevent duplication submission, both the intentional, and unintentional and would also hopefully see less complaints and flaming about credible blogs and news source biased....as people wouldn't be limited by a single source for the story necessarily.
It would basically be the method Google News uses to group stories that relate and are similar/same in content. I've actually hoped that Digg would implement a feature like this, as I think it would definitely be useful and help solve some of the problems on Digg right now, that I mentioned above. - msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34This is exactly what Netscape does. And it works quite well.
- theojanke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Yeah, have "Digg Up" and "Digg Down" buttons next to the sources, just like there are next to comments right now.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I think it's an idea that has fantastic possibilities to put a little control on the duping problems. However, I just thought of a couple of scenarios that might turn out to be negative.
For instance, using curtissthompson's model above, where an alternative source(s) can be posted under the original submission and any submissions afterwards would be forcibly directed back to that original post...I can sooo see the original submitter posting his story, then quickly linking what HE thinks are all related URLs to "protect" his story. Would this "lock out" anyone else from submitting similiar links? Would that submitter then be flamed for editorializing content? Who gets to decide what is similiar and what is not? Right now, the auto-dupe page "suggests", but gives the person submitting the choice to dupe or not. People abuse the hell out it...but digg likes to keep their site "democratic"...and democracy is sooo ugly sometimes. That's why only identical URLs are rejected...by an algo, not a person.
And what about "glory submitters"? The ones who only care about front page status. Nothing will stop them from duping anyway.
Occassionally, digg users policing the site and self-editorializing does work perfectly, though. The day NKorea tested their nuke, I must've seen 25-30 dupes of the original story submitted within 20 minutes on digg spy. I also saw 98% of them get buried as duplicates by the users in the next 15 minutes. I wish it always worked like that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15This is a great idea, and possibly allow others to add sources, if it get x diggs it will be removed and or added?
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Good idea. I'm not a dupe nazi but something really needs to be done to cut down on the problem.
- Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Can someone create an Improve Digg Wiki? I've read a lot of great ideas for Digg, but there should be one central location that everyone can discuss them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11i think it would help when a site is getting diggraped on the front page...
- ipodman715, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yeah, -diggs on stories!
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@tomboy501
Your definitely right, as with any feature/tool that diggers receive, there is always the possibility for it's abuse. This idea would definitely needs a form of moderation by either the digg team through algo, etc. or through how such a feature (if implemented) would be used and work.
This would further clear up the digg upcoming significantly, making it easier for diggers to "digg" for interesting content, rather than sifting through duplicates. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10if it's dupe submission, it should be auto-plopped into the same 'digg thread'. this is a great idea. i wonder if netscape's patented this 'social networking link duplication marriage' concept. this idea is hotter than those chicks on 'deal or no deal.'
- latour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8slashdot does the same thing too, hope this gets implemented soon.
- stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ theojanke
That was exactly what I was thinking. Kind of like how the thumbs up/thumbs down in the comments. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I can do one better: Why not allow Digg users to point to the duplicate article, and after so many submissions the later submission will fall offline and refer to the original submission forwarding all previous comments and such as well. Somewhat similar to how flagging works if you get my drift.
- fyre2012, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Dugg... great idea!
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Sure, make it possible to merge stories.. there's always a bunch of related stories that get stuck at 2 hits, with one making it to the front page.
But do we really care about all the other blogs that link to a youtube video? Most diggers seem to just want the direct link to YouTube, and skip the rest. Sure, sometimes the backlinks matter, especially on blogs, but there are other services that deal with that already. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ stevesearer
I can't see the above image; it says '403' forbidden. :(
I think these are awesome ideas though, and I also like the suggestion for a Digg improvements wiki. - stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I updated the entry and included a new image with a vote up/down like comments have. Here is the image:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1517/879360511864857/400/alternatesubs2.png - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Again, great idea. Unfortunately, though, users ignore the duplicate notices entirely and submit away. Systemic changes are great, but user behavior needs to brought in line first.
People who call out blatant dupes are usually heckled and modded down. People will brute force their duplicate submissions to the front page and most users will be too ***** lazy, unaware or stupid to bury it.
So, all the ideas and all the configuration changes in the world won't change the simple fact that the problem lies with the users first and the system second. We should all be more vigilant with our diggs and buries. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This is a retarded idea, because people would just submit unrelated spam as a "duplicate" link.
- pepsicola, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the best way to do it is when you usually submit an article, we follow this process:
Entry form - > Digg checks for related (duplicate) posts, then asks you to review the possible posts which are duplicate.
I Think on that page you should add an option to JOIN my article with the related article.
you could even go as far to allow us digg users to digg the "group" of related stories.
my 2 cents - xeno439, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Absolutely something needs to be done about this. I have seen dupes on the front page, different ones on each day mind you, for the last three days in a row.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most of this would be solved by simply following the submission guidelines:
"Link Directly to the Source: Save people time by linking directly to the original news story."
Instead we get endless submissions that link to blogs that add one sentence of original content to the story. - phro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It sounds like a kind of mini-digg for each individual story. Additional URLs posted for a given story could be individually dugg as people follow them. Then the most popular alternates could be displayed alongside the original URL. It would give us a fighting chance against the chain of bloglinks and news aggregators some stories come with. Unlike this story, where a blog referencing a news story is acctually adding to the content rather than repeating it.
- theojanke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's exactly what I was thinking, stevesearer.
And then, you could even rank the sources by the number of diggs.
Say if the original submitter had linked to their blog, but then the original source of the story was put in the list of sources later (or a duggmirror if the site goes down, etc).
If the direct link to the story gets more + diggs than the link to the blog, it would surpass the blog link, and become the predominant link. Or the mirror would become the main link, etc, so that people don't click on dead links or links to people's blogs. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Much of the value of a digg post is in the discussion that follows it, but this typically dies down when the article moves much beyond the front page.
If a duplicate submission links to an older one, would current interest in it bring back to the front? Sometimes an old article becomes suddenly relevant and worthy of new discussion. - mianos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have suggested this many times in comments (see my comment history) but kudos to you for doing a mockup! Digg overlords, please implement! Please please!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Reddit also does this. You'd find related stories under none other than the "Related" tab.
- NiX0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This comment will probably go unseen, but this really is a good idea. Without even seeing this when it hit frontpage, I came up with the exact same idea. To keep with the spirit of Digg, users should have control of linking stories as well. Diggs should be summed together as well.
- Jon20usa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds like a good idea. But might be hard to implement. Would the URL have to match exactly such as including index.html or index.php? Or would it just be by domain (certainly that wouldn't work ie blogspot.com and the likes)? Sounds good in theory but I don't know how well it could be done.
- Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I always felt that Digg should have an additional "hard-coded" limit as to what makes the front page. Not necessarily a hard number, but something a little more trying and less procedural than how some of the stories with 20 Diggs make it to the front page. An original story is likely to get more Diggs the first time than the second. The masses are not likely to Digg duplicates as much as long as other report it as a dupe, which hinders the probability that a certain "hard" number of Diggs will occur. This will also force people to browse the second, third, fourth (etc) pages more (and dig them), since it also means that certain stories are likely to stay on the front page longer.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's a good idea, but it needs to be more "diggified." Imagine an area like the comments section, but allowing diggers to post alternate URLs _and_ alternate descriptions. Anyone could add their own, but each item gets dugg up or down like individual comments.
The one with the highest positive count is shown on the main page as the "official" URL and description for the whole set of links. That way, anyone can add an alternate, but the digg model still works. And with the voting, people will be more likely to vote for the one they like vs. add their own.
And yes, I'd keep that separate from comments, since they serve different purposes. - miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2maybe im wrong, but i feel the place has died since submission got stricter. people come to the board at different times ( a new shift of readers). if a big story is on page 4 by then, it may be dead.
i get more annoyed at people saying 'dupe'. as well as new stories, i use digg as a place to find out about sites or programs.
threads that don't take quickly die-off. if a thread takes then people are digging it. i would like the ability to list digg stories by added comments. - barktwiggs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dupe.
Check this article submitted over 288 days ago for reference: http://digg.com/design/Digg_Proposal:_Combat_The_Digg_Effect_and_make_Digg_a_better_place
Haha, I kid.
His suggestion was similar except you could link related url's regardless of who was first. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree with mostly everything said; supreme idea.
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a good idea but dupes exist because everyone wants to hit the front page.
- jblade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Best way to implement this would be to allow users to digg the external link, so that for example the original article can be digged the highest, which will keep down blog spam.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm still waiting for the drunken kevinrose comment.
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This might lead to people "burying" stories by intention with a poorly written title and description.
Scenario: I don't want an article about XYZ on the front page, so I "poorly write" a title and description that I know will never get many diggs... All subsequent submissions (even with better descriptions) will get put under mine, thus I succeed in suppressing the story.
The point is that getting a front page digg is as much about submitting a well written title and description as it is the story itself. Many diggers chose to digg the related story with the best description. - Zero2aHero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is a tremendous idea. It would be cool to have a directory of sublinks where people can post "for more info" type stuff. As someone mentioned it would have to include being able to digg the sublinks as well for all the idiots who will inevitably post their blog links.
- SalinaWyldcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2When can we expect our checks from Digg for coming up with this stuff for them?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i agree a timer would be good
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Top idea.
It would also solve another problem where perhaps the news article linked to is not the best news article on the topic, just the one the original submitter discovered first. By allowing digging up and down of 'similar stories', you could quickly discover the best articles on the topic. They would need to flag the original story so comments about the specific article will make sense. - BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm all for reducing dupes, but I'm not sure how well the automated dupe-lumping idea would work. There are just too many sources.
For example, the article two positions down from this one:
"**Republican threatens opposition voters with criminal charges if they vote"
... has 518 news articles associated with it, according to Google News, which you cite.
In this case we wouldn't be able to rely on user volunteers to submit the mountain of related stories. And if only 10 or so related links were submitted, there's a very good change that duplicates would not be detected.
In some cases, this idea would work quite well. In many others, not so much. - silence7, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Site that works the same way..... http://folllow.com
- Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Forgot to add: How many times have people complained that users have probably dug stories without even reading them? Not sure-fire, but this would help: Digg should make sure that 1) users click on the link before being allowed to dig the article, and 2) a timer should be used, i.e. 30 seconds or so, after someone clicks the link, that limits when someone can dig a story.
- codercode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I seriously think that Digg needs some kind of 'dead link', 'site down' options. I've came across so many dead links, some of which are even promoted to the main page and keep getting diggs.
- Four20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bloggers who wish to spam will just type up their blog entry, publish it, and immediately submit it to digg, not allowing other diggers to be able to 'submit the alternate source'.
I don't see this working.
@jwyles
I do see that idea helping a lot more. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1great idea, but we would need to be able to bury the links. or if they get x amount of negitive diggs. then they should be deleated automaticly. aslo when submitting there could be a "submit alternet link button" where you would choose which story you were adding the link to. but i really want this to happen its great. aslo it would help combat the digg effect.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 