digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Digg's Design Dilemma

bokardo.com — This past week ’s Digg controversy is one in a growing number of incidents that suggest that a small group of users are having an undue influence on the promotion of stories. In response, Digg is changing the way that it handles votes by adding complexity to its ranking algorithm. I think that’s the wrong approach, so here’s another idea...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42You seem to be discussing 'feature' issues as opposed to actual design issues. Digg is extremely well designed. It's very clean, understated, and enjoyable to use. They've done an excellent job of keeping focus on the content and making it easy to get to the content that is relevant to the user. Ultimately that is what is important.

    I do see your point about the issues with ranking users. It's a catch 22. On one hand it provides recognition for contributors and motivates them to feed the system with content. On the other hand, some users become so wrapped up in the 'top user' status that they care less about the content and more about their ranking which leads to the natural exploitation or 'gaming' of the system. Luckily, Digg is usually very responsive to make the necessary adjustments to ensure the integrity of their system. And that makes for a better digging experience overall.


    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I think the term "design" still applies here, although I did think the story was going to be able the layout, colors, etc.
    • InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5We need more social stigma attached to a 'top user' status.
    • epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@InternetUser

      Oh Please. There are enough people that kneejerk hate on stories submitted by top users (first comments being things like "stop digging each other's stories you little *****"). So advocating this need to be vicious to people that just have more time and find semi-good stuff just enforces this silly "there is a caste system in place and there needs to be a revolution" notion.

      I like my digg without whine.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You can design anything from a plane to the layout of a website. There is back end software and it has a design too.

      There was "design" before web 2.0 you know.
    • MobbyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think there is something to the Digging of stories to "bookmark" them for viewing later. Yes, you could undigg a story later after you have read it and don't agree under that premise, but I think a bookmark with say a limit of 100 or maybe less would fix that. IMO people are inherently lazy unless well motivated.

      You wouldn't be able to add any more saved stories till you went through and either dugg them or removed them. The My #1 feature is nice, but I don't think it's design was for this kind of situation.
    • MrBrightside, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree, digg is kinda losing its appeal with me too. I like using it is a source of opinions on current news, but as for submitting content myself - well ive given up trying! - when ever i find a story and try to submit it it seems someone has submitted like a day or so ago! - Then if it finally does get posted, it never gets more than a few diggs! - therefore I let the sad bastards that seem to control this site submit the stuff and I just post sarcastic comments like this!
    • jriley101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg needs to allow users (top users) to edit or modify content like the http://www.techtagg.com site allows their top users to have a bit more control over their site. That means that a group of diggers can't always pump up crap to the top. Some users will have control over what is displayed.

      I agree with RegisPhilbin on the comment below as well.
    • garraeth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Someone (whose on Digg a lot) needs to set up a site that lists all the abusers so we can all know which articles to bury based on who submitted it. It's hard for the casual reader (me) to know whose on the ***** and whose ok. I do know to bury this guy, however:
      http://www.digg.com/users/supernova17
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks for the agreement, jriley. Now, garraeth, just go to http://digg.com/topusers and your eyes will pop out.

      StellarBay has submitted 28 and gone front page with 27. Ya. Like that's likely.

      frgmstr is 40 out of 50.

      Both sahaskatta and DarkHack are in the hundreds and well over 60%.

      p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 has submitted 1344 and gone front with exactly half.

      CLIFFosakaJAPAN has submitted 4118, which given that Digg was launched in December 2004 means that he has submitted more than 6.5 stories a day since Day One! What the hell, does this guy never go out for noodles?

      This is the profile of a scam...
    • garraeth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thanks for the link!

      So everyone bury any posts by any of those people!

      *oh, and "those people"...don't forget to bury this message*
    • glych002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0all they have to do is link the digg button to the story. then the story opens, and if you digg a story from a friends list, then its worth half a digg. forcing them to get 2x more people or search for every story.
  • AdarshMZ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I think Digg has been designed quite well overall. IMHO, it's the good content that we are trying to separate from the bad.
    • MrStylz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree, and will get dug down with you.

      I like a LOT of the content that gets dugg up. I think that a lot of the complaints are by whiners whose story doesn't get promoted. Ya, so I won't see stories about Britney's baby (see below), but I will also ignore the stupid ones. If anything, Digg v3 has made it much easier to find stories I'm interested in.

      I am sick of hearing about the "Democratic Nature" of Digg. Part of the reason incumbants win year after year is because of thier *name* and that they were in office before. Sometimes it doesn't matter if they do a bad job, if they've been in office for years, they'll get votes.

      Digg is still Digg and if a story is GOOD ENOUGH it WILL get promoted...who cares by who?

      I only have like 6 "friends", so my stories stand less of a chance, but I won't sit around and cry b/c they don't get promoted...or even if a dupe gets in and goes up. I found them, liked them and shared them. As far as Digg is concerned, I care about the stories, not the people who submit them.
  • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40Better Digging experience? Are we on the same site???

    Look, you or I can submit a world scoop on Britney's baby having 666 etched in its head and we're gonna get five diggs and disappear. Any of the Digg 1337s can submit a story about the new Manhattan telephone book being six pages longer than last year and it's gonna be on the front page in a couple of hours.

    Digg is a crooked casino. They'd have to have to algorithmize themselves into a coma before it would be fair.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Why can't you just ignore the stories you are not interested in?
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -14/+42ICSU, you're missing the point. Digg is Rigged. The 1337s can submit a big steaming pile and all their compadres will digg them into the stratosphere. Us regular guys can submit the first eyewitness report of the Second Coming and get a handful of diggs that will never make it to the front page. If you don't believe me, go to the coverage of, say, yesterday's Apple announcements. Must have been half a zillion Diggers submitting the same story. The only ones that made it to front page were the 1337s. Even though they were not the first submitters or even linking to the more indepth stories. Now do you get it?

      Digg Is Rigged.
      Digg Is Rigged.
      Digg Is Rigged.
      Digg Is Rigged.
      Digg Is Rigged.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38I really don't give a damn who submitted the story. All I care about is the content. If the content is ok, I'll digg it no matter who the poster is.
    • kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Nobody cares who posted a story or who dugg it, if someone likes the topic or story he will digg it as well.

      The digg model works perfectly for a userbase of an optimum size. Digg has increased in size in the past few months and the model is breaking down so changes must be introduced. For example if you check the article queue through the cloud view you'll see that the articles no longer fit in a single page, many stories get burried before the majority of the users have the chance to check them out while some manage to get to the top even if only a very small proportion of the userbase has seen them. I believe the designer(s) noticed this and tried to fix it but what happened is that a lag was introduced, digg's front page had the latest articles moved to front page lot quicker than it does now - although stories do get posted multiple times in the queue it sometimes takes 24 hours or more to see them on the front page which spoils the whole experience of being the most up to date source.
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12You wanna fix Digg? Here's how you do it. Easy.

      1) Throw the submission algorithms in the friggin' toilet. They were an idiotic idea to start with.

      2) If you submit a story that fits X number of terms used in any other story in the past week it doesn't go on at all. Period. First one up's best dressed.

      3) Once you digg a submitter's story your subsequent diggs on that same submitter's other stories are blocked for a random number between 5 and 15 stories. This way you can't just submit 5 junk stories knowing that your 6th is going to get the diggs from all your adoring fans.

      If anyone needs this explained further, just ask. And this can be implemented by Digg for the token royalty payment of one million US dollars. Thank you.:)
    • kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4why's everyone digging down my post? is it above the max number of words per post threshold and you can't read it?
    • SpeedyG, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Why is this such a big deal?

      EVERY story on Digg is submitted by multiple people. Why the big uproar because people digg the more popular users' submissions (after all, they HAVE been around the block at Digg, so to speak)? Or are you just interested in whining about things like the Friends system without justifying why it's The Downfall Of Digg?
    • smokester, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"I really don't give a damn who submitted the story. All I care about is the content. If the content is ok, I'll digg it no matter who the poster is."

      The problem is that the people gaming the system are keeping stories which you might genuinely be interested in away from the front page by getting their stuff up there
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I have a much simplier solution. The problem is that the same users are always getting promoted by the same people. Just make it more difficult to do so.

      Limit the number of submitted stories per day. There's no reason that anyone should be submitting more than 1 story per day, given the extremely large user base of Digg.

      Combine this with the suggestion that you can only digg a certain user's submission once every 7 days, and presto, you will impose a very difficult restriction on particular users to influence digg.

      Its very possible that these ideas are being used in the recent changes. But there are almost an infinite number of ways that you can limit the influence of small groups. Never 100 eliminated, but even 95% elimination would be a great assistance to the rest of us.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Think it over folks, who's the REAL Digg riggers? Is it the accused, or the accusers? Look at how every single day we have a new bitch post about Digg getting modded to number one. Look at how chaos has spread on the Digg system - two weeks ago, weren't we all just coming in here reading good news stories like usual? Now Digg is only a soapbox for agitators. Look through the thread and see the hundred or so comments saying "Get a Life!", all modded down.

      I think we know who our conspirators are, now. This is the oldest trick in the grade school playground book.
    • johnnyrocket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Right on! I just don't get the story submissions. Hundred and hundreds of stories are submitted every hour...so how could ANY one of them just pop up to the top without some coordinated scheme, its ALL rigged, and it's NOT generally user driven.
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hey MaddDog, I like your suggestion. If you check out some of the 1337s history there are some of them submitting scores of stories a day. Let's blend your concepts and mine together and I'll split the million with ya! ;)
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@RegisPhilbin

      Ha. Funny stuff Regis. Whose to say there isn't some validity to your argument. I'm averaging about 5 diggs per submission myself, and that's on a good day. But I know one thing with complete certainty. I would never, never digg anything that has to do with Britney Spears. Period.
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kbarrett, you're right. Besides, if there's one kid with 666 on its head it's Suri Cruise. :)
  • ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3more diggnaval gazing. *yawn*
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14In the end I don't think it's even worth talking about ditching design features like the friend's system, ranking, "who dugg this story", etc. Kevin/Jay seems to have their minds made up about the matter, and God himself couldn't couldn't sway them.

    Last week a lot of people were calling for an end to the friend's system, and it was probably the #1 solution people came up with to end gaming on Digg. But just today the "My #1" feature was added, which makes it even easier for your friends to spot the articles you really want dugg.

    This shows that Kevin/Jay are going to do whatever they want regardless of how the broader community feels about it. Rather than taking everyone's suggestions into consideration, and possibly trying to curve friend auto-digging, they are reinforcing it.
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Why the hell should we have a team of "friends" to digg our stories??? Wasn't this supposed to be based on the merit of the story, rather than the hyperthyroid high school clique system? Look at me! I'm captain of the football team! I get all the chix! I'm ultra-popular! I get all my stories on the front page! GAG!
    • cragga, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5so kevin should refer to you before doing anything?
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"so kevin should refer to you before doing anything?"

      When a site like Digg claims to be user driven... then yeah, I would expect them to listen to their users when making decisions.
    • cragga, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3everyone says , get rid of friends..

      kevin says no, retains friends, and alters algorithm to fix badness.

      all is good.
      kevin didnt need your help. get it?
    • Frebis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The only reasons the friends feature is here is because some people don't have any friends outside of Digg (other than WoW).
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Instead of ending the "Friend" system, what about adding an "Enemies" or "Foes" section? That way, you could quickly see which stories are submitted by people that you suspect as "gamers" and their friends - if you see a story being submitted by the same Enemies, and being dugg by the same enemies, then it would be trivial to bury the story... and a thousand angry digg users burying their stories is all you need to combat the problem.

      We just need the tools to do it.
    • AdverseE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Instead of ending the "Friend" system, what about adding an "Enemies" or "Foes" section? "

      Or maybe a category for "Asshats" or "KiddieDiddlers" ... or how about we have a 'digg down' button so that we can subtract diggs from a story, much like the comment system. Then the front page could look like the Digg spy page only with dozens of stories appearing and disappearing every second as the Gamers wage war against the Diggocracy Believers!
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"or how about we have a 'digg down' button so that we can subtract diggs from a story, much like the comment system"

      Thats not a bad idea. Currently all we can do is "bury" which does some unseen voodoo magic, e.g. who knows.
  • PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10Jesus Christ on a stick. Can we move on?
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Ah yes, there's that short attention span that prevents anything worthwhile from every happening, or changing.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5There's only some hundred comments in the list echoing that sentiment - yes, for God's SAKE move the ***** on, before some of you lose the ability to think about anything else and get carried off to a padded cell.

      The people raising rabble are the REAL Digg cabal. Check out all the people in this thread saying we're sick and tired of hearing about this non-existant non-problem - we're the real audience who misses the days when Digg talked about something besides itself. And we're the ones getting modded down! Who does that tell you the real "voting block" is? If there really were a Digg conspiracy, it would have prevented news of itself from getting to the front page in the first place.
  • Ninjamonk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7I think its interesting that digg seem to be using a page rank type of system for their users. As we know from Googles efforts over the years these type of systems are open to abuse either intentional or unintentionally. I think digg have most likely done a lot more work on this than is known. I don't buy the conspiracy theories on front page rigging.

    There really is no point.

    I think the title of this is misleading also. I too thought that it was to do with Diggs Design I.E front-end design not the in workings of the app.

    • amnezia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The title's perfectly appropriate. Systems are designed, applications are designed, engineering is designed, etc, etc, not only visual layouts.
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Ninjamonk. If you don't get the page rigs then this must be your first day on here. You're right. There really is no point. You'd have a far better chance succeeding bigtime at the 3 Card Monte game on the corner.
    • Ninjamonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2no you misunderstood what I said.

      I do not believe the digg company is involved in front page rigging. I have heard Kevin saying that they have done alot of work to stop it. I do believe it was interview on DL.TV sometime back.

      I also can't believe I got dugg down for my comments there are some real trolls on here. what in my previous comments were bad???? This is getting like /.
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@amnezia

      You aren't a designer, obviously. I am. This is should be in programming or industry news. It doesn't really belong here. I am so tired of having to sift through content like this just to get to the handful of meaningful and relevant articles for this section, most of which never make it to the front page. You know what does make it to the front page of the design section? I will tell you. CRAP like a graphic of star wars characters imitating the last supper and a freakin article about a bike helmet that helps you avoid potholes.

      end rant.
    • loudawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Right on Ninjamonk - Totally agree that the article is about design. I'm shocked to see that people think otherwise.
  • GravisZro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3why not just bury the gamers? this whole "lets make it hard to digg a story!" idea is retarded. you would end up losing users that arent die-hard which would ultimately play into gamers' hands. if you get caught cheating at a casino, they take your chips and throw you out on your ass. it's simple.
  • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Just ignore posts you don't like and digg the ones you do. It's that simple.
  • bonzooznob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4All very good, but where is your "cool as digg" site?... they worked hard at this... give them some slack, it takes time for changes to take place, but in time, this site will only get better and better.
  • stephaneg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The design is pefect, the users are who make it
  • mtek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9im sick of this moaning, digg is fine and so is the design.
  • PJBonoVox, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I'm so tired of articles about Digg, 'Kevin' and 'Alex' on Digg. I don't care about this stuff or those guys, can't we just see real news and articles?
    • COBOLdinosaur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"can't we just see real news and articles? "

      Sure as soon as "WE" have the site instead of a handful of elites who put whatever crap they run across on the front page. The good stuff gets buried if it is not submitted by the inner circle; except when one of them hijacks a story that was posted by someone else so they can give it a different title and have the KR cadre Digg it to the top.

      If you don't want crap then get rid of the crap mongers. Maybe it is time of a real revolution. A thousand non-elite little guys monitoring a list of stuff posted and giving it hundreds of diggs within minutes of being posted. Any kind of crap will do do perhaps a demonstration that if it is going to be mob rule, then mob rule by the inner circle can be countered by a bigger mob of the outsiders.

      Maybe the only way to settle this is with a Digg civil war to see which side can raise the biggest army to post the most crap to the front page.

      OR...

      They fix the design; kick the gamers in the ass; and give the site back to all the users, not just a handful of freaks with and aggregator on their Blackberry.

    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I'm with you, CobolDino! :)

      Let's storm the Digg office! Hang Kevin in effigy! Vive le Digg Libre! :P
    • Eddy3oy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I'm with you too COBOL!

      It wouldn't be that hard to do, would it?!

      Hmmm....will you be my friend?
    • bewarethejubjub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Sign me up to this revolution!

      Let's start a megagroup posting stories about kittens in trees and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

      Yeah!!!! That'll show 'em where the real power is!
    • Frebis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I dugg your comment, just because of your name.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I offer my sniper skills to this Revolution ! Viva la voz del pueblo! Viva!
    • t4k3n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm in.. haha

      This site is on all day every day for me home and work..

      I vote that we get rid of these Diggtators, and that my cat smells good and is pretty!

  • xiralc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The only people this really matters to are the people who care about how high they are on the ranking.

    The focus should always be on the content not the user, who cares if you're the top digger or if your user name is read out on Diggnation?

    If everyone focused on content and not the status we'd all be happy campers
    • RegisPhilbin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Xiralc, that's the point. We are focusing on content. Can you honestly say after checking out all the great stories that get 4 diggs and go out versus the 1337s who have mindnumbingly old/meaningless/irrelevant/justplainstupid stories and pwn the front page that content has anything to do with anything on Digg???
    • ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regis... the logical conclusion is that the majority of the users of this site (over half a million now) are just like the marjority of the general populace. They like american idol and all that drivel that you and I don't like. You and I are in a minority. That's why there's a friends feature, so you can stay off the front page, and just digg for the good stuff.
  • Klitzy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Hell, I dont even care if it's rigged....Im still enjoying front page stories
  • smedrick, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Forgive me for being so blunt, but...

    Who the ***** cares?
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4As of this comment, 155 people. Welcome to Digg!
  • misteral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Exposing who diggs what

    That's already visible. I think adding a "who buried" what may help those sites on the far right who keep getting persistently burried.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He's saying Digg shouldn't be showing who diggs what, to prevent “social proof” as he puts it. I also think a who buried what would be a great idea.
    • SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How would that help them? And why should they be helped?
    • garraeth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah but I'm sure some of these guys are getting paid a nice fee to get "Apple Releases New IPod", and ***** like that, to the top of digg.com. I know guys that post like mad on message boards who have been approached with offers to plug a specific product -- and, of course, they all take the money and plug the product.

      It's not just about popularity, it's about wads of cash.
  • M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2There aren't enough people "gaming" to influence the home page by themselves, other, un-influenced, people MUST be digging the stories (gasp, they might even be worthwhile stories) to get them to the FP.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I don't think you understand who the system works. Once a story has about 10 diggs, it starts to sit pretty high on the "Upcoming stories" list, and it starts to get attention. It snow balls. So it only takes you, and nine other people to influence the system.

      You have even more influence when you, and those nine other people, are very highly ranked, because then your diggs count more than most other people's diggs. That means it takes even less diggs for your story to hit the front page.

      It really only takes a dozen high ranking diggers to push a story to the front page.
  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6For ther most part I have never concerned myself with learning who posts a story. Over time I have learned about the status factor on digg and it has caused me to to hand out very few diggs for popular stories. My ranking algorithm says why should I help someone who does not need help.
  • uselessexpert, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Big ***** deal! Let these assholes with no lifes sit there and submit stories all day. They have nothing better to do. Their lifes evolve behind a ***** computer screen, scraping the internet for stories all day long so they can post it on digg a be recognized as a top digger.

    And at the end of the day, what do they have to show for it?
    Not one single ***** penny... Just recognition. And from who anyways? It's not like that certain "top digger" knows everyone digging or burying stories on this website.

    I just get amused by some of the things that make some of these eless computer embedded fools get mad.

    STICK YOUR DIGGING UP YOUR ASS AND GET A ***** LIFE!
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"STICK YOUR DIGGING UP YOUR ASS AND GET A ***** LIFE!"

      ....he shouts from high atop the digg comments...oh...the....irony
  • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Some people just don't seem to grasp the basic idea behind digg.

    If you don't like the way digg is being run then simply quit using digg for a month or so (would it kill you to do that). Find your news elsewhere, really sometimes I think that some people never read anything before digg and could not survive without it.

    If everyone who is pissed off with how digg works walked away, digg would change how they do things. BUT, you have to walk away, using digg to complain about digg just increases the site traffic - the holy grail of sites like this.
  • Vandelay797, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I Sort of agree with this guy, there are a few good ideas. " Exposing who diggs what
    At the bottom of each digged entry is a list of people who have dugg it, "

    But he is just a cynical ***** . for the record> i dont digg this artical. Have you ever read a post that was about a something that make you angry, then gone ahead and dugg it? you dont agree with what the artical is saying but you want others to see it so they can be frustrated by it too. digg should add a rating sytem. a scale of 1-5 . this guy is a jackass
  • idiggmacs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3If you don't like it, don't use it. Vote with your money.
  • mason.parker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Man who ***** cares bokardo?
  • alonerawnut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree with ray901 - if you don't like the way digg is designed, then just don't use it. If there's a less-than-interesting story on the front page that's been put there by gaming diggers, rather than by mass opinion, just don't read it.

    I think that the ability to be able to check out what your friends have dugg is so useful that it outweighs any disadvantages.
  • redlaser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2anyone else get that green "MY=1" button alongside the title that chabges to "saved" when clicked. ?
    how long has it been there.
    • WoCoL33t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It went up just yesterday I believe.
  • SlackerCS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Can we get a "Digg.com" topic and dump all these stories in there so I can ignore them all at once? I come here to read the news, not news about the site itself.
    • TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Best idea yet.
      Now if we can get a filter for products you don't want to read that would be cool too! (my list would = ipod,apple,itunes)
    • SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm more bothered by all the USAian internal political stuff that fills up so-called "World News". When a specific topic dominates a whole section, that's when it needs a section of its own. Diggolitics hasn't nearly reached that stage yet - perhaps a couple of front-pagers a day. Easy to avoid.
  • WoCoL33t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Last time I checked, Digg was a site that allowed users to search through their large user submitted database for stories and keep up-to-date with what is happening in the world. I could care less about this "gaming" problem. Digg is not a "game" (you don't call sitting down at the dinner table a game..) Even if people are getting their stories sent to the homepage through their friends' help, you are still getting good stories on the front page..
  • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FYI: I am burying all stories pertaining to Digg politics from here on out on sight. Our passions are better spent elsewhere, and our minds are better devoted to real problems in the world.
  • ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So, democracy doesn't work. What else is new?
  • keeperofkeys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good article!

    It's intrinsic to a system that pushes forward the most popular articles that the most popular articles will become even more popular and the less popular will languish. Add to this the RSS feeds, which bypass the system of story discovery altogether, and Digg behaves exactly as you'd expect: a two-tier system of content-finders and passive receivers, who big up stuff that's already been Dugg. You only have to read the comments on this page to see that.

    My suggestion would be to offer RSS feeds, and other easy ways to browse, for un-Dugg stories (eg put the Upcoming Stories tab on the homepage, rather than the Popular Stories one), but I agree that removing the digg button from the summary page would be a good idea, especially for users arriving from lists of Popular stories.
    • ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Remove it from the main page as well. Only enable it after the user has taken a simple written test showing that they have read the story and understand all aspects of it.
  • Qtip42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm so glad everyone has an opinion on this, that doesn't mean it needs to be headline news. Nobody really cares cept the folks who work for the company.
  • MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think Digg knows what they are doing.
  • apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I HAVE THE GREATEST SOLUTION TO DIGG GAMING PROBLEM...

    If you digg your friends submission... it doesn't affect the algorithm. Its that simple. The friends feature should not be there so you can help your friends get stories to the front page anyway. So how about you just make the friends feature available just so you can see what your friends are digging and perhaps add it to your list of diggs, just to have it dugg... not to get it to the front page. It will then be up to the real community to get a story to the front page... not your friends.
    • wanorris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Umm, no. If that happened, everyone would just treat the friends feature as if it were radioactive, and find some other way of monitoring each other's submissions.
    • apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What way would that be?!
  • eryx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it is a matter of how you use digg. I have an RSS feed ticker @ the bottom of my FF. It use to show me the main stories but by the time I read the story with all its comments no one was reading or commenting on them. I changed my feed to all the up coming stories but the stories I dugg never get past 3 or 4 diggs and I was the only one to comment on them. It feels good when someone replies to your comments I guess that is why people "game" digg.

    Personally I have no idea how these people even read what they comment on or digg. It took about 10-15 minutes for me to read the story, the comments and write my own; let alone see what my other friends were up to.

    I am sure there are faster readers out there then me but I am sure that no one can search for and read an article every 5 minutes on a continual basis. How in the hell can all these people submit, read, digg and comment on these stories as much as they do. I don' t know about anyone else but I can only do about 2 or 3 articles a day so that I can still get some work done.

    RegisPhilbin had a good idea about # of submitted stories also maddog's enemy lists is also great. I say if people are forming teams the expose those teams, if you digg more then lets say 40 articles as another person then you can join their team. Team articles will be shown so you can see which team is pushing the votes up. This does not stop the stories from being submitted but it does show how they are becoming popular. Also if you don't want to "play" the game you can sort by non affiliated submitted stories. I still love digg even though I am not one of the "Shovelers", I check it out now and then if something interests me then read it and if I makes me think I write comment. I do it more for myself then to win the "game".
  • ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Here's a good solution . . . just ignore the content you're not interested in, Digg what you like.
    Oh, and stop crying emo kids.
  • tdkme, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2i like you submit your blog as a digg. but i guess the Internet lets everyone have a voice....
  • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IMHO, the simple "fix" would be two pronged:

    1.to not be able to see who submitted a story until you either digg or down digg it.
    2.diggs from friends count less (this includes people who are on your friend list or who "always" digg your submissions)

    Another "fix":

    Of course, the other solution is to keep "top users" in place, but don't have their posts be more likely to make it to the front page. Recognize and reward them for their top user status, but not in a way that penalizes other users trying to get there.

    If one of the measurements of what constitutes a top user is how many stories they get on the front page... then the simple fact that they are a top user shouldn't be added to the weight of whether or not their stories get on the front page in the future. That creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Or am I missing something?
  • jls8705, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The basic idea of digg is for ALL users to have a say in what become the most popular and are therefore the best quality/most interesting stories.

    When you have a buddy system going, it discourages guys like me who know that our stories, regardless of how interesting they are, will never see the light of day. That's wrong. No excuses.

    If there were a way to level the playing field a bit, you would have more quality stories getting to the front page at a faster pace, which is the ideal for this system. And right now, with this system, that is not going to happen.

    The creators of this site need to figure something out to make it fair. It's their job.
    • WoCoL33t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I do agree with that.. I mean, I could have an important story that was cool, but it never sees the light of day. On the other hand, someone elses dinky story goes on the frontpage with 44 diggs..
  • estacado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nah... I think the ever evolving algorithm is the way to go. One of Digg's main attraction is its eas of use. I'm sure everybody has dugg a story before reading the actual article. Even Kevin has done so (he said it an episode of Diggnation, can't remember which one). It is expected these things to happen on Digg. That's why they're always updating the algorithm to make it more "fair".

    The site is there, how you use it is up to you. Don't expect others to use it the same way as you are. There's no rule when registering for a Digg account saying that you must only Digg stories you have read. If there was, they'd design the system differently.

    The improtant thing is to make noise when we feel the the gaming is to too rampant so that they don't get too complacent, and pay attention to the problem. This is what this very story is doing, and the users have Dugg this story. This is an example of Digg working.
  • laserone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is why I NEVER look at the front page anyway. The only pages I look at are the top stories for the day/week/month. The front page is useless to me.
    http://digg.com/topstories/today
  • meman2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stats on # of diggs that a story has received, who has dugg what, etc, should be reserved to the homepage. All diggs on the upcoming pages should be private in order to prevent group-mentality from affecting whether or not a story is truly homepage-worthy. Digging a story because it has a lot of diggs already or because your friends dugg it is retarded and is probably a big factor here in promoting stories.
  • Surreal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, the argument is to take out the very features that we use and appreciate the most!? No digg.
  •  

    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.