What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
110 Comments
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -7/+77This isn't about a certain group of users having the ability to monopolize the front page as much as it is about getting Digg back to intelligent discussions. I'm sure we all want some Scientology articles, but this is too extreme. We've lost most of what made Digg great. Certainly changes to the old algorithm need to be made. More people need access to the front page.
These are excellent, worthwhile goals, but the current changes are not working. They are having the effect of turning Digg into a ch.. ebaumsworld.
There is nothing wrong with Digg reporting on what happens there. It's good attention is being drawn. But it's becoming something closer to fark. You can go to Fark for that.
Digg is a place where people often have long intelligent discussions, and are generally respectful of people. That's fading quickly.
If you disagree. Digg me down. Bury this article. Make this a Democratic Choice.
If you agree. Digg up. If the user community is happy with the changes, consider this request null and void.
Thank you. - blindhammer, on 01/25/2008, -5/+49I've seen a massive increase in Bush supporters as well as scientology posts. I have no idea if this is democracy in action or something else is going on. Digg just doesn't seem like digg since the change :)
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -4/+43The top diggers are still able to get things to the front page. All of the middle level diggers are not now, unless they game the system.
What this means is, the majority of old users cannot get anything to the front page. Ok, that's fine. That leaves new users. So who are the new users now.
They are on the Scientology quest. Well ok. That's great. I support them. I think most of us support them. But that's the majority of the site now.
That isn't any fun. Conversations are going to hell with leet speak, and general rudeness. There were always trolls on digg, but they were dugg now. Now they are dugg up.
And for those of us with friends, you'll notice that friends aren't even coming around as much. People just aren't participating because it's all chaos.
I am all for digg changing the system the way they want, but I think these have been unintended consequences, and they need to rethink the algorithm. Ultimately I leave it up to us to decide on this. You decide.
If I'm buried fine. Then this is what we want. But it should be up to us and discuss and decide. - notque, on 01/25/2008, -2/+25I'm not asking to please everyone. I'm asking for us to vote, and appreciate your vote of no.
These aren't demands. It will be a request if enough other people digg and support. If they don't, then it should stay the way it is.
Understand? It has nothing to do with me. I'm bringing the question to the floor for us to decide.
I dugg you up for speaking out against this message, which is important. Thank you. - parabolee, on 01/25/2008, -1/+20Hmm, I'm undecided.
How can we be sure that it isn't just because the majority of digg users want to see these Scientology stories?
I know I do, I have dugg them all, I also have not seen the alleged Bush supporters posts. But I have noticed a lot less Ron Paul posts, so is this more democratic or less?
Explain the new system and why it is unfair more. I am unaware of the changes and how they might negatively effect the system. - commernie, on 01/25/2008, -2/+21Since you bring up the doubt of something else gong on, I have something to report. I have tried for a couple of days now to submit articles from Infoshop News (http://www.infoshop.org/inews ) and Digg keeps telling me that the links aren't "working links", when, in fact, the links are fine. This behavior has been corroborated by another user, who I won't mention but can back me up if they want.
It just so happens that Infoshop is a leftist news site. I don't want to seem paranoid, so I won't accuse of censorship, but this is very strange. What are we to make of things like this? - FyreGoddess, on 01/25/2008, -4/+22Honestly, I think that the Digg community needs to take a LOT of responsibility in the inundation of Scientology stories hitting the front page. A really big part of that is the overwhelming number of people who Digg *every* duplicate story on a single topic or who don't use the bury button to help manage the duplicates.
Frankly, I think that influx of a million copies of, essentially, the same story speaks out against the censorship that a lot of people claim. If there was active moderation going on, those duplicates would not exist.
It's really time for the greater Digg community to use the tools that have been provided to us and to pay attention to BOTH the Front Page *and* the Upcoming areas in order to make the whole site a more pleasant experience.
You simply cannot have it both ways. You can't claim censorship and anti-democratic practices and then hold TPTB to task when the COMMUNITY fails to take on that mantle of responsibility.
I'll tell you, THIS is what the whole Ron Paul Bury Brigade has been fighting for the past year. For every person who complains about the inundation of Ron Paul stories, we have already buried probably 10 that didn't get seen. Scientology is actually a much less polarizing topic, since most of the Digg community views the entire organization with scorn and disdain.
This isn't about the algorithm. This is about the "top users" not being in touch with the other niche users and screaming about things that are WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE COMMUNITY.
I'm not going to bury this article or your comments, notque, but I really think that all the regular users of Digg really need to rethink the way they use them and whether or not the tools are available to combat the problems that they see. Instead of making a claim that you should be allowed to retain your celebrity, how about doing something for the good of DIGG and trying to understand the whole site, instead of just your piece of it? - weirdralph, on 01/25/2008, -2/+19I'd be fine with having the old algorithm back, period! Well, except for the autoburies. That stunk.
- malaak, on 01/25/2008, -1/+16I also can back you up on that.
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -2/+17I don't think I should be able to retain my celebrity. I don't think I have celebrity from getting 47 articles popular. I think if people know me, or like me, it's because of the content of the 4,272 comments I've made. What percentage of time do I spend the most doing?
Adding to discussions. Talking to people. Working things out.
Here, I'll make a pact. No more submissions from me regardless of what happens. I'll share and shout other people's stories, but no more submissions. Let's remove me from the discussion.
You are right. There are tools that are not being used. That's on us the community. I agree with this.
But the articles that are getting to 150 and dying while others get to 18 and go front page. What about those? Not my articles, or your articles, but just articles.
Why do 17 people matter more than 150? - notque, on 01/25/2008, -1/+14No problem. You should question my intentions. It's a healthy discussion.
I don't know about you, but I am enjoying digg much less. I've been reading through upcoming more than the front page, and upcoming isn't even as entertaining as the front page used to be. And discussions have taken a huge hit all over the site. - Burento, on 01/25/2008, -0/+13I want to get my 2 cents in on some of the algo changes that people have not touched on.
Digg has mentioned they want mre diversity in the diggs that a submission receives. The problem is that there are not near as many people in the upcoming section of Digg as there are on the main page. So when you have a limited number of article movers then how can you get past a certain limit in diversity.
An article in upcoming may take up to 20 hours before receiving 100 votes. That is on pretty generally accepted news stories as well. You will also notice that any decent article that hits the front page can get up to 400 in an hour at times. That is clear indication of the location of the majority of digg users.
So if we said there was 200 people that were really the article movers and they all liked MrBabyMans submissions because they are always good generally liked articles, then they would vote on them all the time.
The problem is Digg ups the number he is going to need based on the fact that those 200 people are voting his submissions all the time. BUT if there are only 200 people really in the upcoming sections moving articles than how and where is he to find another 50 diggs.
The problem is he cannot. There is a limited number of people in upcoming and thus a limit to the amount of diversity any submission can get.
Digg has obviously not taken that into account.
my 2 cents - BabyWookie, on 01/25/2008, -2/+14I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed the Bush supporters. Something is very off when you have a story about Rush Limbaugh and all the comments criticizing him get buried to hell.
- blindhammer, on 01/25/2008, -0/+12Opposing viewpoints are always needed and welcome in a free society but I am not seeing the sort of debate that would qualify as constructive.
Case in point was the Saddam WMD article that recently popped up. I actually made the mistake of saying something like "as many of us know, we had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11." I made this statement since, in my experience, Digg generally has more "liberal " (and/or educated) posters.
The first response was something like "Do you really hate your country so much that you want to believe conspiracy theories." Okay. So I post a source from CBS news (the same news site that the Saddam story came from) which had an interview with Paul O'Neil, former Secretary of Treasury, stating that the adminstration had plans to invade Iraq on Day One. I mean, even Clinton had plans to deal with Saddam.
What happens? Massive buries. I'm not whining. People are free to bury me -- my point though is that the FEEL of digg has changed. Now even the most basic comments that are tangentially related to Bush are met with calls of being a "libtard" or questioning my patriotism.
Again, as I said in my original post, this may just be democracy in action. And I need to deal with that. But Digg was always a place, for me, to get discussion about political issues outside of the context of mainstream media. And I sense that may be ending. - CaptainNoPants, on 01/25/2008, -3/+15Sorry if I came off as crass, I'm just tired of all the "digg is censoring me!" stories that are submitted because someones 8th Ron Paul submission of the same story isn't front paged. I don't think they're going to put this to a vote because I don't think a lot of people see the current algo as a problem. Kudos to you though for being cordial and trying to create change.
- rpi22, on 01/25/2008, -4/+16I, for one, welcome our new overlords
- Albionshores, on 01/25/2008, -2/+13Well I shared it with all my mutual friends for you Notque. Only thing is with this algorithm that might mean by inviting friends to participate I've just given your thread the equivalent of FrontPage Leprosy! There's no way of knowing anymore.
I do know my adverts are back :( - FyreGoddess, on 01/25/2008, -2/+13I think that you're a lot less "average" than you think you are. Most people don't spend time in the trenches, using Digg to its fullest extent.
"I don't like you, so everything you say, I'll bury."
"I hate [political party] so I'll bury anything that comes from a [orientation] source."
"I love [topic], therefore I must Digg every submission that relates to that topic, even if there's nothing to it."
These are common lines of thought around here and those are not the kind of people who bury a friend or digg up an "enemy" or whatever. I suspect that canewediggit probably isn't burying this story, for the same reason that I'm not. It's not distasteful and it's a worthy argument to have and open up to the greater community. Maybe I'm wrong, as I'm not (despite speculations) inside his head with him, but I know that there is a group of us that stays fairly well within those parameters.
For you, it's not a revolt. For those who have been claiming censorship and creating conspiracy theories about TPTB at Digg, it really is, at least they hope it will be.
The way I see it, it's an argument that the community as a whole really needs to have. What are we doing here, anyway? Is it a democracy? And if it is, then what the hell are we doing with Top anything? What are we doing looking for supervision and parenting from the developers? - BrapAllgood, on 01/25/2008, -0/+10@notque:
I liked Digg a lot better back when I joined, too. I just haven't participated as much lately because I draw trolls like flies and have been busy in other realms of activity. Digg used to capture my attention easier....
As for the scientology thing, it seems like rather a new phenom to observe (or participate in, should you enjoy such mischief), hence lots of excitement. As with all phenoms, tho, it'll pass. Right? o-0 - notque, on 01/25/2008, -1/+11I do all of that. Why assume we aren't in the "trenches" performing our duty regardless of who is it.
Some of my favorite people have posted comments on this thread.
Alibionshores. I love your submissions, but I've buried an article you've submitted. Same to you rpi22. And others.
I digg what I like, leave alone what I don't, bury something If I have a particular problem with it.
Friendship doesn't matter, although I am like to see my friends stories more, and thus digg them up a whole lot more. But I read upcoming too.
And this isn't a revolt. Bury it. If enough people do, obviously it isn't that important. - Albionshores, on 01/25/2008, -3/+13I would say forget the Scientology thing - it is a one of event and just as when that bridge collapsed or when Ron Paul doesn't get invited to a debate the threads light up because of it. What is most worrying for Digg is that a social network site is actually punishing people for social networking. Your diggs are worth less if your friends are of a similar opinion to you and provide you with support because of the calibre of work you submit. That is what guantees a level of quality. Regular users setting a bar and being judged favorably by their peers.
This algorithim isn't about making it fairer for people - I get my share of Front Page stories and I'm nowhere near the top 200 diggers. Last time I looked I was around 650. Anybody can get front page with a little work. Post comments, digg stories, pose informed arguments and bite your tongue if you can when people troll you, find good stories and submit them and keep repeating the process and eventually you build a reputation. Establish relationships with co-diggers and find your niche. It is not rocket science.
What this algorithim is about (and it is not the top diggers because they all have no worries still getting FP, it just takes a little longer with a slightly lower success rate) is smashing the social side of it to make Jonny come lately just as likely to get FP as someone who is genuinely working on developing a mutual friend network.
If you want a Digg that has a lot of new visitors but with a high user turnover where people come for a short while quickly get FP status and then go when they start having to develop a socialnetwork to 'progress' when the system is geared against such, then vote for this algorithm.
If you want a system were 40% of submissions come from well regarded top posters and 60% come from others, some of whom have had to work for a few weeks to get to a position of FP status, behaving themselves and working on their reputations and networking then vote for the old algorithm.
I might be being sceptical but there is one very strong reason why Digg HQ might be willing to sacrifice quality of posters and the social aspect for a high rate of quick turnover fly-by-night posters. Adverts? - FyreGoddess, on 01/25/2008, -2/+12The "celebrity" statement I made wasn't directed specifically about you, notque. It's about the indignation that the "top users" exhibited yesterday and, frankly, the entitlement I've seen in the "How to use Digg effectively" articles that they have written. Every single time the topic comes up on how to be a good and productive Digg user, it all comes down to How To Get on the Front Page to the exclusion of everything else.
I, like you, am primarily a commenter. I, like you, spend a lot of time in Upcoming, but I fail to see how so much of the community can scream about autoburies and super users and invisible moderators only to turn around and complain about a LACK of oversight when the *community itself* fails to do the job.
Even those 17 vs. 150 articles can be salvaged by using the TOOLS. Why are the majority of shout links sent from the content submitter? Have we stigmatized the shout to the point where, for example, I can't send my friends a shout about an article that they would really enjoy? I think for a lot of people that really is the case.
Further up this thread there's someone who admits outright to having Dugg every single popular Scientology story that was submitted today. Come on! Is anyone really THAT interested in how much Scientology sucks? Why aren't people burying in force by reason of duplication?
We're arguing different points here. Your question is why stories aren't making the Front Page, I'm asking why we aren't stopping the ones that ARE. Why aren't we recruiting people to come to Upcoming and see what's not making the Front Page? Why are we digging EVERY DAMN STORY on a topic that we like maybe 2 stories worth?
What are the articles that are getting 150 diggs and dying? Are they polarizing? Because I'll tell you, a lot of those are the ones that have a huge force burying them, whether they're newsworthy or not, if it's a polarizing topic it's going to be hard to get it FP'd.
I have to say, I hate when these topics come up because I believe VERY strongly in the idea of a community-driven news source. The real problem comes in when community members jump to enlist the help of the navigators. It's been too short a time to really know what's going on. Let's see what WE, as a USER-DRIVEN COMMUNITY can do with the tools that we've been given. Give it a week, FFS.
If it's still not working, then let's talk about a rollback.
It's not broken, it's just different. - notque, on 01/25/2008, -3/+12@CaptainNoPants
They are still doing that. That hasn't changed. It's being drowned out more by Scientology Articles (everything is), but that's still occurring.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I like hearing about him. I don't mind it at all. Maybe just me. I think his policies are horrible, but he's one of the few honest ones, and he is being isolated by the mainstream media which I think is wrong. - somespecial, on 01/26/2008, -0/+9It CAN be used for social bookmarking too! Social bookmarking is popular, I bet a lot of folks use this site for social bookmarking. Who cares how people use it?
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -0/+9I don't agree with that. I think every community user that wants to vote should be able to vote on all digg issues.
Leave it up to the community. - rpi22, on 01/25/2008, -4/+12How to get on digg frontpage;
1) Create brand new account
2) submit story on scientology - ladybroadoak, on 01/25/2008, -0/+8I find that digg is wasting my time - of which I don't have that much if I continue to write for OpEd News as a primary outlet. My stories don't get dugg. Why? They don't fall into a convenient "niche" for people
One problem with digg is that if you REALLY like a story, you don't have say 50 points you can divide up and use as you wish. See, if a certain (non scientology, non Ron Paul) story comes up you can't put out a daily allocation of points. Instead, we delute our interests with having to digg and blog articles we don't really give much of a damn about, while the ones we really want to see are not being seen at all. So for instance, if I Had 50 points I could give them ALL to a story I want to see get headlined ..
With comments no one can detect if a STRONGLY agreed or did not agree and those who POST FIRST COMMENT are the mostly likely to get thumbs up and stay on top.
Two - well, three other points. One is that the Ron and the Paul Bearer crowd is very very computer/tech savvy and they try to overwhelm all social networks. Two, is that scientology crowd is computer/tech savvy and and they try to overwhelm all social networks and
3 - what people do NOT know is that many scientologists are behind the fundraising for Ron Paul - and try to get that across is taking your life into your hands, so to speak. They'll harass and ruin you if you try.
Knowing how dangerous the scientologists actually are is why SO many try so hard to get the scientology info out there as they pretend that scientologists are so benevolent. It's a very hard thing to counter.
I think it's gonna take a while before the infiltration of the Ron Paul campaign by scientology becomes known very widely and don't expect Ron Paul to tell anyone about it!!
The republicans and the democrats are all morally bankrupt and they rely on these religious blocks to get their little "Racket" going .. Digg is just reflecting that sad and profound truth right now.
Cointelpro has worked and worked at keeping divided and they've done a tremendously good job - which is why we so NO IMPEACHMENT proceedings. The impeachment stories don't make it to the top - it's taboo! and ron Paul has helped make it that way.
As for me, I can only do what I can to expose the TRUTH as I see it, that's all anyone can do. But it just takes way too long here to build up a social network that will allow people to see the real THOUGHT going on, imho. I am about to give up. Few people on here do blogs and I have wasted quite enough time (i think) trying to get alternative ways of looking at things front page attention. It ain't gonna happen.
I found a good half dozen GOOD diggers here; for the rest . well, it just eats up my time.
And to some who think that digg's techology is good - I think you are incorrect. I have lots of technological difficulty posting shouts to people, etc. On OpEd News I don't have these problems; I don't think digg does such a very good job myself. - CaptainNoPants, on 01/25/2008, -6/+14I'm enjoying digg less because the RP supporters are trying to overwhelm the site and make it diggronpaul.com. They yell at the top of their lungs that they're right and everyone else is wrong and it's just obnoxious. A group of spoiled bratty children find them obnoxious.
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -3/+11Well, the Scientology stories are obviously popular. But if you watch upcoming, a lot of articles on a lot of topics now cannot get to the front page. So what would have been
1 Scientology article
10 other articles
1 Scientology article
Becomes
1 Scientology article
2 other articles
1 Scientology article.
So the voice of those people are not heard. I've been voting up Scientology articles as well, but that's not all I want to read about.
The basic concept of the new algorithm is to make it harder for people who have been around and built up friends.
When you build up friends, and you aren't gaming the system, they like what you like.
So the new algorithm punishes non-gamers the same as gamers. This has the effect that by just using the socializing features of digg, you've not only screwed your articles, which is fine. Who wants to read my ***** all the time, but every single on of our friends.
And this isn't just about me, and my friends, but anyone, and their friends.
Now, I know how to counter it if I wanted to. I could be on the front page with all of my same content. It set a bar at 200. All the "Top" diggers are able to meet that. MSaleem, ToeCracker, MrBabyMan are all still on the front page. Everyone a notch below them are not.
So I have a list of non-gamed friends that will get me to 150 because they are honestly interested in the content I submit.
I have what, 600 fans that I don't add because they are just gamers. They just want to trade diggs because they get paid to promote websites.
So I could add, or shout them, and get to the front page like nothing happened.
So what changed? Forcing me to game if I'm interested in the front page.
Now, I'm not particularly interested. Forget me. I have a high percentage of frontpage stories, why should I get anything else up?
But some of the content should still make it. Watch upcoming, and you'll see good content never make it.
Is that unfair? If it more fair? And further, what is more entertaining?
I don't know. I can't answer that, because I'm biased. Obviously it's hurting me, because I allow it to. I won't put in the effort to game it.
That's why I want to leave it up to you.
I think a new algorithm with the same goals is great. Make it harder for those of us who have been around. But so far, it's been much worse to read.
Now, there's a secondary (and more important to me) point about commenting. Look at how much I comment versus submit. I comment a lot. I like to talk, and submitting isn't nearly as important to commenting to me. My profile stats clearly show my allegiances. Anyone who reads digg and remembers sees me comment often.
So, is commenting negatively effective?
Submitting Articles, Articles on the front page isn't really important, but what it does is Frame the debate. It is like, a discussion topic.
Before, we had all sorts of different discussions. You could pick one, and talk about what interested you.
Now we have lolcats, trick pool shots, mma tattoos, and Scientology.
Okay. Maybe all those things are good things and should be included, but what i'm saying is not at the expense of other content that people seem to care about. I want a medium between these two extremes.
So. I've been open an honest with you. What do you think? - BigManOnCampus, on 01/25/2008, -0/+7Reading the upcoming is all I ever do. Frankly, It's the most fun I have on Digg. Reading what is popular usually results in something amazing/funny/interesting. But a digg or a comment on those get buried fast. Participating in the Upcoming is what digg *SHOULD* be about. Instead, Digg has been about creating large nests of friends who digg articles that you don't and trying to get them to digg up your submissions.
People should instead be *READING* the upcoming submissions and digging or burying depending on how they feel. People don't do that. - canewediggit, on 01/25/2008, -4/+11digg what you want, bury what doesn't belong here, make good comments. who gives a ***** what else happens?
all of you that have all these problems w/ digg need to come spend some time in the trenches with the rest of us evil brigaders. find some good content submitted by someone not on your friends list. bury some ***** that has no business here, even if it's from a "top digger" or a friend. have conversations that you can follow before the front page flood. leave the front page to the nubs, but come down here in the belly of the beast and help shape the front page.
that's how you make digg better, not with stupid 'revolts' and endless whining. - BigManOnCampus, on 01/26/2008, -0/+7So... just a thought... maybe more diggers who actually want to have an affect on Digg should spend most of their time in the upcoming section and digg/bury as appropriate...
just a thought. - BigManOnCampus, on 01/25/2008, -1/+7Frankly, Albionshores, I think mr Johnny-Come-Lately *SHOULD* have just as good a chance getting an article on the front page as you or anyone else for that matter. Putting time commenting and digging shouldn't give you some kind of "senior" status that helps you get what you want on the front page. Digg was supposed to be about what the people want to read about, not about what a "small group" of people want to read about. I have done plenty of commenting on Digg, I have accumulated plenty of friends on Digg... I have *never* had an article make the front page, and I don't care. I don't come here to feel like a know-it-first person who had to tell everyone else. I don't think anyone else on Digg should cling to that feeling either.
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6I agree with you. It's a discussion we should have. I think this is healthy, even if the algorithm stays.
It's important that us, the participants talk about these issues. And it is an argument we need as a whole. What are we doing here?
Is it a Democracy? Should it be? What happens when it gets bought?
I agree completely. Well said. - BigManOnCampus, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6Digg has always had this effect you speak of. Trying being someone who disagrees with the media's bullcrap about human-induced global warming... you should have seen how fast people got buried with perfectly legitimate posts.
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -1/+7Also, read my above post. I explain openly and honestly my situation so you don't have to guess at my intentions, or feelings. If I wanted to stay where I was, I could. I could ignore this whole issue, and get more views for my stuff since it wouldn't fight for anyone elses attention who had similar stuff on the front.
But that honestly isn't what this is about. - canewediggit, on 01/25/2008, -2/+7why make that assumption? because most people don't bother, you happen to be an exception to that rule. but that's just the way it is. it's the same circle jerk digging submissions by the same people all day.
sorry, but i have no love for people overly concerned with what reaches the front page. and even less for those that feel the need to resubmit the same garbage from a different blog when their story gets buried or whine about 'conspiracies.' or stage some fake-ass revolt and submit ad naseum echo-chamber stories about it since it was obviously failing. i'm not pointing that statement at you, just stating my opinion. people need to drop their egos and lighten up, it's a website that none of us (should) have any financial stake in. people that care too much about being on the front page make me think they have more at stake than ***** and giggles. - FyreGoddess, on 01/25/2008, -2/+7Of all the things that Kevin and Jay said in the drilldown, the one thing that I really hope comes to fruition is giving the community a way to have discussions about Digg. I don't think that these meta submissions are really the way to do it, I think a lot of people get left out and can't find it when they feel the pressing need.
We ought to be a community, but instead, really, we're a whole bunch of small communities who don't necessarily interact or overlap much.
I'll tell you what. I think that if TPTB at Digg are doing to get involved with issues that center around the community and how the community works (which I really believe is what's going on right now), then they should form a task force and solicit people who have all different kinds of motivations and user history instead of the apparent focus on the handful of people who have become Digg's household names and tend to scream loud and assume an intimacy with the developers.
This, from a user-driven point of view, is an excellent place to start, but it's not going to last and it's not going to work in the long-term. It will fade away like every other conversation anyone has ever had on the internet. - notque, on 01/25/2008, -3/+8I disagree with the Adverts thing. Let's not make up reasons, let's assume good intentions.
I agree with you. It was never difficult to get things to the front page. It's difficult to get spam to the front page.
You listed exactly what any person needed to do. Post comments. Digg stories. Post intelligent response. etc.
That's how you got to the front page. It could be on any topic, from sports to politics, to Scientology. If you do that, you're dugg up.
Then your next question is, do you accept the trap of digging for pure diggs. Many people do. Some people don't.
Obviously some people make money submitting stories from this site. I bury all those stories. I don't like them, and don't want them around. I don't accept digg trades, although I like have SOME friends who are digg traders, and I don't know it.
I vette my friends though.
Even a middle ground between now, and then would make sense. So far, I don't like things at all. That's the result. I don't like digg. Not because I'm not on the front page, but because the stories are all radically different. With a ton of Scientology.
Can we have a medium ground? - FyreGoddess, on 01/25/2008, -2/+7Like I said, give it a week. Let's see how WE can remedy that.
To veer slightly off topic, I hope that you're watching how this goes, where those who agree with you are getting dugg up and CaptainNoPants is already below the default viewing threshold.
The more we get into this, the more I'm seeing that, while you have decent motives and what appears to be a sound set of personal digging/burying rules, those who are allowing you to represent them are exhibiting many of the most noxious qualities this community has to offer. Specifically, suppressing open debate when it disagrees with their viewpoint. - canewediggit, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5re: cos overrun of late- let it pass. i'm not thrilled with what it is doing to digg either regardless if i believe in the cause, but i find it best to stay out of anon's way. this too shall pass.
- sbader, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5since we have so many members of the upcoming trenchers and the bury brigade hanging out in this thread, maybe another branch of this discussion should be how to make the upcoming section better? what's the best way to help filter out the trasha nd better yet find the trash? When you browse the upcoming section do you do it by newly submited, most popular, most commented, oldest first, etc.?
One thing that always bugs me is I get started going through by most popular and then when i get 5 to 10 pages deep i have a tendency to loose my spot, close my browser or something, and then i come back and it's like i don't want to go through 5 to 10 pages again just to see what might have been changed.
And i think sometimes the upcoming section is a bit intimidating to new users and can be really hard to find things in. - notque, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5most popular, then most commented. I get several pages deep on each, then do something else.
I agree it can be hard to find things. The upcoming session isn't even as valid now as things past 1 day have a higher likelyhood of hitting, and things with diggs that won't be in upcoming.
You used to be able to tell, now, the front page doesn't represent it as much. That's probably a good thing. I really don't know anymore. - inactive, on 01/26/2008, -0/+5in a democracy, issues must be addressed. nobody twisted your arm to view this thread.....
- Burento, on 01/26/2008, -1/+6Digg is not a social bookmarking site.. It is a social community.
- inactive, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4I have an article that has 164 diggs and 48 comments and it still has not hit the FP.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Did_Rudy_Guilian ...
Should I just digg scientology articles or Ron Paul articles and that is the only way to get to the front page. I just dont get it. - notque, on 01/25/2008, -2/+6Ah, I agree with you. Apologies for misconstruing your argument.
I agree we should be stopping articles, I still have a problem with 150 old users < 17 new users - LaerrusFish, on 01/26/2008, -0/+4Why can't there be an option to click on and get the old algorithm?
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -2/+6I said it was hurting me, but that's wrong. I've had more frontpage articles in a smaller time frame with the new algorithm. I'm still for going back to the old one.
- canewediggit, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5yes, those of us that care about seeing digg maintain it's standing should have a discussion. but let's have a discussion like adults, not scream bloody murder and threaten revolt and yell about what we want before an inclusive discussion has been had. just because one digger or a small group has an issue, that doesn't mean all decorum needs to go out the window.
perhaps next time we can do a- "digg's xxx changes what do you think? open thread" type of submission before making lame demands and threats. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is