Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jen Burton
4714 Followers
Rich Schumacher
1281 Followers
canyoucount
331 Followers
Jorge Gallegos
163 Followers
Jared Grabill
57 Followers
Teodora Calantog Gapal
134 Followers
toonOct 26, 2010
"Test accounts." Mmm hmmm.
c_calienteOct 27, 2010
Right. They think it's the perfect excuse.
The program that generated the fake diggs is probably the same they use for internal testing on their dev/staging environments.
So I'm guessing they decided lately to use it on their production environment out of desperation, in order to promote articles and to create a phony sense of user activity. ( think of all the articles hitting the FP with only a handful of comments. Those are harder to fake).
No competent developer would consider running persistent tests on a production environment. Period.
Now Digg is acting as if it's the most normal thing in the world, so they can deny their act of desperation.
They just hit a new low.
richmomzOct 27, 2010
Riiiiight...
kevinroseOct 26, 2010Staff
We've never taken a single dime from a publisher for any activity on Digg (outside of standard ad units). We've used test accounts since day one and will continue to use them as we validate our various spam/promotion algorithms.
clan57Oct 26, 2010
I recall you mentioning something like this on Diggnation as well...anyway I thought it was odd when I first saw the story on reddit, glad things have been cleared up
funkeepickleOct 27, 2010
Sorry to disappoint you, but Kevin's not going to be your friend no matter how much you kiss his ass.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
lolwut?
chaulisOct 27, 2010
You people are paranoid idiots. If the who made the thing and hasn't ever betrayed the community says it was testing and such then it was for testing. In order to test anything with any level of accuracy you need live, real data. Otherwise any tests that go on are pure speculation. Quit whining and go use reddit if you don't like it so much here. You won't be missed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rufiohoOct 26, 2010
You don't receive money, but you want the publishers to keep those banners up that say, "follow us on digg"
So in a way you do receive money... you receive their traffic.
Don't play it like that kevin. Why would "test" accounts only digg publisher stuff?
gvoakesOct 26, 2010
Wow that's such a one-sided insult. First of all, how many sites have received MILLIONS of page views from Digg? I could list them to you all day long. A simple "follow us on Digg" is hardly a way to gain traffic in leaps and bounds.
Secondly, if you knew anything about Algorithms, you'd know that they need to be tested so that the system cannot be gamed as easily. Publishers stories are the perfect way to test, because there is usually great content being submitted through these accounts. Digg has shown favoritism in the past (to TRUSTED) sites, not just your typical steal-content-from-reddit-and-push-on-digg style blogspam sites.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
Wow! You are a f**king idiot begging to suck KEvin's sock. You don't run these tests on the ACTUAL SITE. Well...no one who has ANY idea who to run a website (or any business) would do that.
then again, no one has ever confused Kevin Rose or anyone at Digg of knowing how to run a business.
So Kevin...how many more weeks do you have left before the investor's ultimatum runs out? Becuase you sure as s**t are not going to meet their demands.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
endersgameOct 27, 2010
I am sorry but I just don't quite buy it. Why would all these accounts have been created so recently? Why were so many accounts created and why was the digging activity so much and so consistent? Why was the digging enough to affect the promotion of articles to the front page on such a large scale? And finally, why were the "test" accounts deleted immediately after the digg staff was emailed about the discovery, before it was made public?
It sounds like a phony excuse to me. Why can't we see who dugg a story? Why would you take that feature away? Why would you take away the bury option? How stupid do you think we are?
kevinroseOct 26, 2010Staff
I know you love a good conspiracy but it was honestly a developer testing a slew of different things. To think we would have to "game ourselves" is silly, we'd just write code to put a story on the homepage, we wouldn't need test accounts.
rufiohoOct 26, 2010
So do all those big sites that picked up the story of digg gaming themselves =)
Secondly, if you need to tweak the algorithm so much... why again did you switch to v4 and to cassandra?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
casspaOct 26, 2010
| To think we would have to "game ourselves" is silly, we'd just write code to put a story on the homepage, we wouldn't need test accounts.
..This much is obvious. People just love a good witch hunt. I think it could probably be stopped almost immediately if someone pulled an example of accounts being used like this in the past to tweak the algo. But, at the end of the day why would that even matter? Its obvious that your devs were testing, I don't know why people are so quick to burn you at the stake.
tsirhcitnaOct 26, 2010
If they were just harmless test accounts why were they deleted so quickly once discovered?
Why weren't they deleted before they were discovered?
badqatOct 26, 2010
Greg is correct - Digg provides more traffic than it receives in return. You can Digg a story directly on a third party site without ever coming to Digg itself.
However, I do believe testing within a live environment isn't exactly in the realm of a best practice. The stories that were artificially promoted to Top News got there without actual diggers digging them. And they remained there, despite the fact they were not promoted by diggers.
Kevin is telling the truth - if Digg wanted to "game" the front page, they could do it without the need for fake accounts. If you can remove stories reported as spam, you can certainly promote stories automatically.
I keep hearing how the move to Cassandra is the worst thing ever. But that simply doesn't hold water. That database is used on many sites, including ones that are much larger and dwarf the traffic of Digg. That indeed was a matter of scalability and site operation. LAMP stacks are great, but Digg was seriously creaky due to its reliance on it.
Casspa - it's easy to take up the pitchforks and torches and join the mob. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years, and we're such simpletons we'll continue to do it for thousands more.
gvoakesOct 27, 2010
I agree, and a few changes I'd also like to see are which friends have upvoted certain comments. That was a really constructive thing about V3 that has been removed. I know there has been a firestorm with V4, but improvements are slowly happening.
To keep an active and healthy community, we need to see what our peers are doing.
I'd really love to see which of my stories go popular as well, there was always such a rewarding feeling after getting one of those emails. Seeing as the front page (/news) is still universally seen, it wouldn't hurt to have a "made popular 15 minutes ago" in the classic red text that we saw so much of in V3.
swansontomOct 27, 2010
Why would you do it on a live site? Why not mirror it to another server and play with test dummies on it? Something smells weird. Like animals from the ocean.
HoopDoctorsOct 27, 2010
I agree with Cass and Greg on this one. What does anyone have to gain here by attacking Digg for doing testing? Although I understand Badqat's points, I think sometimes to get things just right you need to test in a truly 'live' environment. Everyone on here ripped digg for Digg V4's bugs, and now we rip them for doing testing to correct them? C'mon....
All that said however, I would have liked to see some testing done on my submissions! Or even any sports subs in general. Make me your guinea pig Mr. Rose. (wow that sounds gay doesn't it)
A.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
c_calienteOct 27, 2010
So, let me get this straight. You guys run tests on your production environment?
Wow.
What a convenient excuse to deny the fact that you are adding fake diggs to promote articles and to give a phony sense of user activity
digidaveOct 27, 2010
My favorite consipiracy theory about Digg was its first original power user: AlbertPacino - which is pretty much erased from the system. Only super old-time diggers might remember. I suspect it was Kevin Rose. No harm there - the site was small and needed a champion. Besides - why would Digg need to game it's own system - there are plenty of spammers that get paid to do that outside of their staff. Trust me - they STILL contact me every single day "can you digg this bro."
JohnTomMarkOct 27, 2010
Running tests is understandable but the main issue still needs to be addressed which was the effect noticed that caused some one to look into who was digging particular stories.
A. Did this testing cause large numbers of stories to be elevated, that otherwise would have not made the top stories.
B. Were all those stories affiliated with the same particular sites.
It would seem to me, as the guy who noticed the particular trend also could clearly see the manipulation. The test was successful, over and over again in manipulating the stories significance, and has been doing it for a while.
e3winterOct 27, 2010
Can you explain how the test accounts had such a large impact on front page stories? What criteria was used o determine what the accounts dugg? And what measures does Digg take to ensure the integrity of the front page? It's not the accounts that trouble me, it the content they dugg, it's effect the test accounts had on what I see, and Digg's slow response and swift deletion of the accounts that Jen didnt even talk about. Good luck, you're gonna need it.
btw. read 'bout the story on Reddit... sad that it takes this to bring me back to Digg.
arbiincOct 27, 2010
@kevinrose
As always, thanks for addressing this issue to the community. My questions are:
1. From what it seems (based on LtGenPanda's investigation), only the mainstream publishers were targeted (promoted); not the smaller blogs. Is there any reason behind this?
2. After LtGenPanda went public with his investigation, why is it that all the test accounts got deleted? Was the testing ended?
3. I understand these are test accounts but these test accounts are in violation of digg's TOS:
ARTICLE 5. User Conduct:
...you agree not to use the Services: ...with the intention of artificially inflating or altering the ‘digg count’
I understand these were test accounts but they did artificially inflated the digg count and because of it, mainstream publishers got promoted.
I support digg and I want nothing more for digg to succeed. Many of us core users spent a lot of time contributing to this community. LtGenPanda has done a great job with his investigation and I want to thank you again to digg staff for addressing this issue.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
badqat...if LAMP was so bad then how come when Digg was using it..and getting about 40% MORE traffic, Digg was slow, but rarely broken. And now they tey are using CASSANDRA, the site is STILL broken over 2 months later despite getting FAR less traffic?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
Isn't it convenient that after the pathetic 30 something frat boy wanna be KEvin posts this, he has since ignored all the very relevent follow up questions people have had, like why would they test the live environment, why wouldthey only test it on publisher's submissions, and how they thought t could be a good idea to promote so many articles that CLEARLY would not have made it to the front page without...and they said nothing...nor would they EVER had said anything if they didn't get caught.
Ever since those questions have been caught, KEvin has been off...probably thinking he looks clever becuase he is drinking a beer whenever is is seen by hte public...saying "See all you frat boys?! Remmeber when you refused to let me in our parties! Well I am drinking now!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
themachine1Oct 27, 2010
@regulatorguy Testing in a live environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
"The disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near the town of Pripyat, during an unauthorized systems test."
rowjimmyOct 27, 2010
except a story just jumping to the frontpage for no particular reason would be very obvious, whereas a story being dugg by a bunch of "test accounts" requires a bit keener of an eye to detect foul play.
this is either a case of you guys being absolutely incompetent (testing on a live production environment? wtf, seriously?) or absolutely retarded (gaming your own system when you already have 90% of your original user base pissed off at you and looking for any reason possible to laugh in your face). in either case, you lose.
ryandfaOct 27, 2010
I work for a company much larger than Digg, and i've never heard of developers "testing" something on a live product. You have sandbox and test environments to test these sorts of things
scottixOct 27, 2010
@arbiinc
Truth, its not whether there are test accounts or not, the testing that occurred affected the credibility of Diggs and possible TOS stated. I wish all the luck with Digg, and think it is a good site. If you just become an aggregator of mainstream news sites, then what is the point.
harrisbradleyOct 27, 2010
Kevin, the closest some of the guys come to working on a website is clicking a 'digg' button. Anyone who works with a website (that utilizes accounts/authentication) from the back-end understands what you're doing. No reason to defend yourself, but I understand where you're coming from. Haters gotta hate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
useraccessOct 27, 2010
Still no answer to why the accounts were deleted immediately. Why won't you answer this? Kevin, did you intentionally violate the Digg TOS to run these tests?
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
harrisbradley...don't mock others if you are going to turn around and prove o the world that you are an idiot. No...a SMART person does not do what Digg did. So strop trying to get Kvin to stick his penis in your mouth. Website designers that know what they are doing would NEVER test something in their live environment. And if they absolutely HAD to, they would disclose to their visitors that they were altering the very rupose of Digg with those tests.
nickconferOct 26, 2010
It would be nice if you brought back the "See who dugg this" to all stories. That would make it much easier for the community to know the site was open and willing to show it flaws when they exist.
mrswapOct 27, 2010
Nobody cares if you have test accounts, but when they artificially alter what is hitting the front page then people have a problem with it on their "social" news site.
jcimsOct 27, 2010
I think the issue is that the test accounts are operating at a level that used to fall into statistical noise, but now actually influence the operation of the site. Kind of like the last cricket keeping you up at night.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
No. The issue is that they are using those test accounts on the LIVE site. They are also using those test accounts to digg very specific sets of submissions. (Conveniently publisher's submissions.) rather thanrandom one. They could have easily tested Digg by digging up a random submission made by a real digger. But they didn't. And they didn't tell us either. They allowed users to think that thosestories made it to the front page naturally.
RobertHillbergOct 27, 2010
Digg's 3 point business plan: Lie. Deny. Repeat.
If you honestly think you can get away with cheating your investors and driving your employees into poverty while forcing this mess you call "Digg V4" on users, you are sadly mistaken.
Dozens of employees just lost their jobs thanks to you Kevin and all you can do is Lie, Deny and Repeat.
"Test Accounts" ...you've got some nerve.
themachine1Oct 27, 2010
Digg employees talk in doublespeak when they refer to V4. They absolutely refuse to say in simple clear language that V4 is nearly a
total failure.
mahlerOct 27, 2010
Well I think for employees V4 is a lot easier to manage. Issues can be fixed faster and costs less to implement. V4 gives them more control and costs less resources. So it's only natural that they don't see it as a total failure.
And if you compare V4 of 27 Oct to V4 of 27 Aug, you'll agree that it now looks a lot more like V3 in terms of functionality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yodacolaOct 27, 2010
@mahler
It is certainly a lot easier to manage a lower volume of users.
afizzledbearOct 27, 2010
I didn't know anyone was forcing you to the users to come digg.
zyceOct 27, 2010
Dude, there's absolutely no legit explanation for what was being done with those accounts. Your PR department is ruining this too; how on earth anyone let this get publishes is beyond me.
Why the hell were you testing ways to discredit yourself? Makes no sense, and it's not like there's a lack of data on what happens when you click "Digg".
newbs.
zionicionOct 27, 2010
There are actually plenty of good explanations. Who would Digg go thought the trouble of creating accounts to game a system they control? If they were gaming Digg you would never know.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nicklo06Oct 27, 2010
stfu kevin, you ruined digg.
zionicionOct 27, 2010
Wow, bitter much? What happened? Did Kevin not reply to you on twitter or something?
davidtcOct 27, 2010
"We've used test accounts since day one..."
Day 1 of what? Of the new algorithm on October 15th? Of V4? Day 1 of the last 4 years?
"Most importantly, we should have been forthright with our community about our testing efforts and we'll certainly do so in the future."
So lets hear it. Be forthright about what I am asking cause it doesn't add up to what you are saying. Here is why.
I ask this cause on V3 we could see the "who dugg this" list (btw, bring it back). This would have been easy to spot with that list. These are obviously new accounts, so this leads me to believe this is a new thing you guys are doing which doesn't help with your story. Why would we believe you have to make 100+ new accounts each time to test stuff?
Now that you are being "open" about it, why were the ones caught deleted? Going to make new accounts again? It doesn't make sense to make new accounts to test a mundane thing like mass digging to see what breaks. The best reason to delete the accounts is so they can't be monitored anymore. Now since you are going to "continue to use them" that must mean you are making more new accounts to do this. Again, deleting the caught accounts while saying you are going to continue to use test accounts is a big red flag that you don't want them to be monitored. Why wouldn't you want them to be monitored if you are going to be forthright about them?
It doesn't makes sense when you look at what was found and what you said when Digg is going to be "forthright" about it now. Sorry, I'm not fully buying it.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
You are wasting your breath. No one at Digg wil ACTUALLY answer any questions. They just make posts in which they answer their own questions to try to fool the morons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
RmoboBrownOct 27, 2010
Using the test account policy is good one but sometime it gives some information about you. like ip address etc
wildOct 27, 2010
Great Kevin. So when are you going to address the fact that you turned digg into a giant RSS reader, trading power users with avatars to power users with company logos?
The bugs were what they were, even the destruction of the community is what it is. But you made your site a dupe of other services, and one that is controlled by content creators and not the community itself. When are you going to include that conversation in your digg nation without Leo telling us how great it will be for us to have the content providers tell us what should be interesting?
Sorry man, this controversy was the last nail in my coffin. If you had been open and transparent from the beginning, instead of only when you got caught, digg wouldn't be in this mess. Also, if you had listened to the community screaming during the beta that the new site direction was a HUGE problem the people you just fired might still have their jobs. (I am not saying digg didn't have issues to correct, you just picked the way wrong solution.)
You didn't lose us because of the bury button, or the bugs, or the lack of upcoming. You lost us because you changed the fundamental purpose of the site.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
What is hte difference if hte s**tty spam articles are submitted by accounts with avatars or with company logos? The amount of paid for submissions was JUST AS HIGH before.
Seriously...why the f**k do you care if badwithcomputer or babyman lose their jobs?
wildOct 27, 2010
What? No, I dont give a s**t about babyman. I meant the people who work for DIGG who just got laid off this week.
It does make a difference, because Digg used to be about interesting content submitted by the community. Then the power users started mucking things up, and Kevin apparently said "f**k it, lets just go full RSS." In 2005-2007, digg was really awesome. I learned a lot because of the diverse story sources and found myself engaged in really interesting dialog. Then it slowly started becoming the same sites over and over, and now its the same sites almost exclusively. In order to find interesting content, you didn;t used ot have to work at it by following users. s**t just showed up on the front page and you thought, 'wow, thats really interesting!"
Not only is the current content not interesting, its just an aggregation from other aggregators. And top ten list after top ten list thanks to those being the only thing that could cut through the power user clutter.
(And seriously Kevin, put the edit time back to 5 minutes. This nerf'd editing s**t is awful.)
binaryechoOct 27, 2010
I don't believe you.
khsheehanOct 27, 2010
This entire thread is riddled with idiots. Here are the facts...
"We've never taken a single dime from a publisher for any activity on Digg (outside of standard ad units). We've used test accounts since day one and will continue to use them as we validate our various spam/promotion algorithms.
Everyone on Digg clearly wants to feel like they're apart of this stupid uprising. Get over it, it's a website. You have no proof that any of the information that Digg is releasing is false. You are not part of a revolution.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
So...people have no proof so they are not allowed toi speculate?
Holy f**king s**t. Even you can't think that was a smart comment.
khsheehanOct 28, 2010
You're not speculating, you're arguing an unfalsifiable argument. Nothing anyone says or does can prove you wrong.
Closed AccountOct 28, 2010
Most debating is over two sides that can't be proven, moron.
khsheehanOct 28, 2010
Yes, but this isn't up for debate. A fact is a fact. Speculation is hardly a good thing to start with in a debate. If you cannot back yourself up with any evidence, you're screwed in a debate, moron.
yodacolaOct 27, 2010
@khsheehan
You haven't known how the the front page used to be. When digg first started, it was a lot like slashdot. In fact, many stories were uncovered before slashdot was able to. We were able to find things on obscure sites, like university department student pages, and be able to submit content with a change that it would surface.
The site eventually got bigger, and many of the users that made digg possible left after it began to grow. The slashdot feel of digg vanished.
Digg then became a community-driven news and entertainment site, but better than most. Users were still able to find and submit unique content across the web.
Eventually the site became bloated and many articles were surfacing that no one cared about. We don't know what happened, but problems began to arise. Garbage features, like the digg bar and shout outs began to appear. Power users were a big talk around digg.
In the midst of all this, we found rumors of v4, an attempt to revitalize digg. Many new features were announced that wowed everyone. However, when many of us diggers were invited to the alpha testing, we quickly realized that the site wasn't nearly completed. The site was no longer community driven, and seemed to operate on it's own will. We felt shut out from being a part of digg dna.
That's where we are now. It is not a revolution. It is a few last breaths from an old, forgotten community.
khsheehanOct 28, 2010
No, I have known the front page. I've been on Digg since the beginning. I'm not here to argue that the front page is perfect, it's not. I am only commenting on the fact that people are making statements which, to the best of anyone's knowledge, are completely untrue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aarongadberryOct 27, 2010
Developers have access to production systems?!? Why doesn't that surprise me? Separation of duties, an independent Testing and Quality Assurance department, and release procedures are pivotal to maintaining a quality release schedule. Developers should have access to a development environment, not production and not testing.
mrcapoOct 27, 2010
I am sure your investors are reassured that things like QA, change management, best practices, and isolated production environment are all taken care of over at digg.
Wait .. what?
richmomzOct 27, 2010
Why wouldn't you disclose the fact that bot accounts were being used for testing, instead of waiting until someone called you out on it? Surely you understand how this looks to a community which already suspects that there's some "gamesmanship" going on behind the scenes which determines which content hits the front page?
seepromptOct 27, 2010
Kevin, Why does the site suck so much lately? I liked digg a lot more about 1.5 years ago...anyway you can do everyone a favor and upload the old site again? it was FAR superior
khsheehanOct 28, 2010
Haha, yeah just upload that s**t.
qxq_0o0Nov 18, 2010
Ronaldinho is the player of the decade, without any question
<a href="http://www.cheapwowaccounts.net&quot;&gt;cheap wow accounts</a>
<a href="http://www.wowgoldex.com&quot;&gt;buy wow gold</a>
<a href="http://www.belrion.com&quot;&gt;cheap Aion kinah</a>
<a href="http://www.belrion.com&quot;&gt;cheap ffxiv gil</a>
<a href="http://www.belrion.com&quot;&gt;buy wow accounts</a>
<a href="http://www.buy-aion-kina.com&quot;&gt;buy Aion kinah</a>
<a href="http://www.cheap-aion-kina.com&quot;&gt;Aion kinah</a>
<a href="http://www.buy-ffxiv-gil.com&quot;&gt;buy ffxiv gil</a>
<a href="http://www.ffxiv-gil.com&quot;&gt;buy ffxiv gil </a>
<a href="http://www.cheap-ffxiv-gil.com&quot;&gt;buy ffxiv gil</a>
<a href="http://www.cheap-ffxiv-gil.com&quot;&gt;ffxiv gil for sale cheap</a>
<a href="http://www.salewowgold.com&quot;&gt;wow accounts for sale</a>
<a href="http://www.salewowgold.com&quot;&gt;wow gold for sale</a>
<a href="http://www.salewowgold.com&quot;&gt;buy cheap wow gold</a>
games
[url=http://www.cheapwowaccounts.net]buy world of warcraft accounts[/url]
[url=http://www.wowgoldex.com]wow gold sale [/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com] cheap wow gold [/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com] wow gold [/url]
[url=http://www.buy-aion-kina.com]Aion accounts leveling [/url]
[url=http://www.cheap-aion-kina.com] cheap Aion kinah [/url]
[url=http://www.buy-ffxiv-gil.com]ffxiv gil sale [/url]
[url=http://www.ffxiv-gil.com] buy ffxiv gil [/url]
[url=http://www.cheap-ffxiv-gil.com] cheap ffxiv gil [/url]
[url=http://www.salewowgold.com] sale wow gold [/url]
[url=http://www.salewowgold.com] buy wow gold [/url]
[url=http://www.salewowgold.com] cheap wow gold [/url]
Check out the sites for the best bargain. You can buy the cheapest wow gold, wowaccounts
and cheapest Aion kinah,ffxiv gil at sale price.
25.54 usd/5000k Aion Kinah Fast Delivery @www.belrion.com Buy Safe !
yodacolaOct 27, 2010
Doing tests on a production server? I find that very hard to believe.
zwendkosOct 26, 2010
keep up the good work... you're almost there (back).
zwendkosOct 26, 2010
and today on digg: digg - http://digg.com/news/technology/today_on_digg_digg
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
WOW! Just come right out and say "Please Kevin! PLEASE let me suck your c**k!" Becuase this sure as f**k is not a thread that would merit pro-KEvin statements under normal circumstances.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
batonryeOct 26, 2010
This makes sense. You can draw up as many mathematical models and formulas as you'd like, and even test algorithms in smaller test environments, but the only way to really see how an algorithm will behave is to test it on the real site. Since diggs cannot be "faked" or "fudged" by just changing the numbers, actual accounts are needed to test the algorithms to see how they respond to various scenarios.
This explains 100% why the test accounts were activated on the 15th when the new algorithm was deployed. It also explains why they were being used in bursts of many Diggs- to see how a group or company attempting to "game" the system will influence a story's success.
Granted, the stories were mainly from publishers, but the sample *is* pretty random, and also reflects the type of stories that have been appearing on the site. The effects of these test accounts would probably not be so prominent if more people were Digging stories.
If I operated a website like this, I would defiantly be testing it the same way (and I'm sure that almost all social media sites use the same practice with fake accounts.) I also wouldn't feel the need to publish this fact.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rummeyOct 26, 2010
Actually this is the Wrong way to do it. The Right way would be to mirror all the realtime live activity to a test environment and do your testing there.
Here is a good litmus test. Are you doing formal testing in your production environment? If yes, you are doing it Wrong.
batonryeOct 26, 2010
I whole heartedly agree- QA in a production environment is WRONG, but I'm sure that they did *plenty* of testing of this new algorithm in smaller mock-up tests first.
The problem with a full mirrored test is that the resources need to mirror the entire active Digg website are pretty massive. Not to mention the additional load on the production servers that mirroring everything would have.
Also, by isolating the "test Diggs" on stories from the actual website, there is no way to see how the real users are responding to the artificially bumped stories.
These are interesting problems indeed. Making test accounts makes sense to me.
rowjimmyOct 27, 2010
if you are running a high-load web application like digg, you have to pay the extra costs necessary to have a full-load testing setup. doing testing that significantly affects content & quality of service on the production servers is at best incompetent, at worst, unethical.
rsterkenburgOct 27, 2010
No company should test on a live environment. Digg obviously had the capacity to host Digg V4 while V3 was still running, so they DO have test environments. Without anyone using the test site (except the test accounts) there wouldn't be any huge demand from the database, web or bandwidth side of things.
They just f**ked up and need a good excuse.
mhuntOct 27, 2010
The only testing the should ever be done on a production site is to see if you can replicate reported bugs. E.g. the system does X when I click on Y. If you can replicate it on the production system but not your test system, that gives you an idea that your test system is inadequate.
suganindiaOct 27, 2010
even a kid knows that , why didn't kevin know ?
yodacolaOct 29, 2010
See Business Week Cover: http://images.businessweek.com/mz/06/33/0633covdc.gif
silenttwitchOct 28, 2010
Correct. Most testing is done on a Test Server. Typically, the code is then taken to a Staging Server, which perfectly mimics the "Live" or "Production" Server. ONLY after the code has passed testing at that level, is it promoted to the Production server. Typically, from my experience, the only real testing that takes place on the Production server is when a new version is pushed to Production. Testers will run what is called a Smoke and/or Sanity checklist that goes over the major landmarks of the product to ensure its quality. On a Professional level, it would make no sense to run tests on Production that would be detrimental to the user base, unless it was an ABSOLUTE necessity and/or emergency. Any QA Manager that would have authorized such reckless actions would have been fired.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
I certainly doesn't make sense that they would use these test accounts to get publisher submission on the front page without telling users that that is WHY they got on the front page or removing them. It certainly doesn't make sense that they would delete these accounts if they were still planning on using test accounts in the future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beezlersOct 26, 2010
Cool, digg is awesome I really hope you guys find your feet on the ground soon the change seems to be shaking you as hell. Don't know why people don't love the new version maybe because it's a bit too web 2.0 which is something digg reallly wasn't all about or needed that much off. You made it too social and it wasn't meant to be. Anyways have a look at http://www.waaazap.com and let me know what you think ;)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
batonryeOct 26, 2010
You need to find a better way to promote your site ;-)
slightlyoffbeatOct 26, 2010
Digg is making a big effort to listen to user feedback. As a result, I hope Digg users will make an effort to invest in this community and bring it back to what it once was. Once the algorithm is fixed, and the bury button is back in place, it will really be up to us, not the staff, to revive this community.
Closed AccountOct 26, 2010
true that
batonryeOct 27, 2010
Oh stop it, you're giving me the warm fuzzies.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
NO THEY ARE NOT! They are making a FAR LESS effor to listen to feedback than 99% of sites.
You act like they are this great site always trying to make things right whereas other sites don't. And that is SOLELY because you want o know what Kevin Rose's semen tastes like.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredOct 27, 2010
For someone who obviously loathes this site, you comment an awful lot. It almost sound like you don't WANT this site to succeed.
Also, your ad hominem attacks are getting gross.
doodirock2Oct 26, 2010
Finally hope for digg. It is a shame for those that left so fast without giving the community time to regrow. How fickle the internet can be. Good luck digg!
bigkahunadaddyOct 26, 2010
Yes, creating test accounts to ensure your algorithms are doing what you want them to be doing is critical. Even if that's what you were actually doing, testing the algorithm on the primary web-facing site is pretty dumb.
I'm sure that some testing needs to be done on the primary web server, but I can't imagine that what was being done couldn't have been done on internal development servers. Instead of doing that, you chose to change the user experience by promoting stories to the front page that weren't chosen by the users. Isn't that the whole point of the site?
Either you guys did something shady or you did something stupid. Either way, it doesn't endear you to the users that are already leaving in droves.
themachine1Oct 26, 2010
The fact that v4 is essentially a broken bug riddled mess lacking key functionality of V3 clearly makes me think its stupidity.
rufiohoOct 26, 2010
You don't receive money, but you want the publishers to keep those banners up that say, "follow us on digg"
So in a way you do receive money... you receive their traffic.
Don't play it like that kevin. Why would "test" accounts only digg publisher stuff?
kevinroseOct 26, 2010Staff
I know you love a good conspiracy but it was honestly a developer testing a slew of different things. To think we would have to "game ourselves" is silly, we'd just write code to put a story on the homepage, we wouldn't need test accounts.
veganvultureOct 26, 2010
I think the idea that you gamed it is silly as well but I think regular users should get test accounts as well (if it's true that only publishers get test accounts). I think you should pick the top 10-20 digg users and give them test accounts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rufiohoOct 26, 2010
So 63 stories were put on the front page of digg because of the test accounts. A story pops every 10 minutes, which means 11 hours worth of front page stories are solely from "testing" and keep in mind the testing just started oct 15th. 10 days ago.
In your blog post digg likened testing to a security firm trying to hack themselves... well I guess it was just a nice convenient by product to keep the fruits of your "testing" on the front page.
And kevin, I do believe you tried the part where you write code to get publisher's stories to the front page... just everyone got ticked when all those publisher stories were making the front page.
I don't blame you, digg is dying. You have pressure from VC and such. I just think you can come up with more creative and effective ways of giving publishers some sugar. Here is one idea I just came up with, you can expand the top stories of the week program to have like a hall of fame section of digg. This is where the most popular stories would be listed, then you could hand out nifty badges to the writers of the article that they than would put on the really popular article. The badge would say something like "MOST POPULAR STORY ON DIGG - OCTOBER". This way you can hand out prizes, ratings for good stories/writers and than the badge would lead back to digg for more traffic for you guys. Also, people would be able to go to the hall of fame and be able to read the cream of the crop any time they would want.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
It is pretty funny to watch Kevin Rose's desperation now. Knowing that EVERYTHING he has touched thus far as been a total failure financially.
boucheOct 27, 2010
I'll never understand why people feel so entitled for free services. When users start paying money to Digg directly, they should then be entitled to their say and feel free to say what they want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
badqatOct 26, 2010
I don't think I'm out of line in saying that Digg provides much more traffic to external sites than it receives. Kind of the point - it is an aggregator.
Sure, thousands of sites have Digg buttons, a few have the banners - but the reason why is because Digg offers these sites traffic on a consistant basis.
impressaOct 26, 2010
I logged in(hadn't done it since after using Diggv4) just to digg this, and it was just for one thing:
"3. Bury! We’re removing both “hide” and “report” from the story lists and permalink pages and replacing them with the bury button. "
This gives me hope and I wish to come back to see the real Digg back.
themachine1Oct 26, 2010
If Digg considered the accounts a legit testing tool why were they all deleted?
dralezeroOct 26, 2010
maybe because of the controversy. or because they want to try another type of test or create new accounts to see how quick fresh accounts can game it, etc.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
Because they got caught. I think that is what you are trying to say.
vtbarreraOct 26, 2010
I'd like to know more about how you guys chose which publishers to Digg. I know they're just "test accounts", but they seemed to have quite the impact given how much the Digg population has dwindled.
batonryeOct 27, 2010
Granted, the effort was to try to make sure that the artificial Diggs didn't effect the story's success...
sandertonOct 26, 2010
Under old Digg, such a test run would have been invisible as the sites being promoted are the kind which routinely populated the home page. Since Digg 4, the mix has changed, so the "old Digg" sites stick out like sore thumb.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fakerepublican1Oct 26, 2010
Have these "about.digg.com" stories always been on the front page like this?
badqatOct 26, 2010
Yeah, they have. In fact, I'd be willing to wager a majority of official Digg blog posts have hit the FP.
Some of the more niche posts don't, but wider-impact and breaking news announcements from Digg normally have made it to the front page the entire time I've been here.
fakerepublican1Oct 26, 2010
nice, i never paid attention to them.
chaslymunroeOct 26, 2010
smart to get this out before the bury button comes back
rufiohoOct 26, 2010
So 63 stories were put on the front page of digg because of the test accounts. A story pops every 10 minutes, which means 11 hours worth of front page stories are solely from "testing" and keep in mind the testing just started oct 15th. 10 days ago.
In your blog post digg likened testing to a security firm trying to hack themselves... well I guess it was just a nice convenient by product to keep the fruits of your "testing" on the front page.
And kevin, I do believe you tried the part where you write code to get publisher's stories to the front page... just everyone got ticked when all those publisher stories were making the front page.
I don't blame you, digg is dying. You have pressure from VC and such. I just think you can come up with more creative and effective ways of giving publishers some sugar. Here is one idea I just came up with, you can expand the top stories of the week program to have like a hall of fame section of digg. This is where the most popular stories would be listed, then you could hand out nifty badges to the writers of the article that they than would put on the really popular article. The badge would say something like "MOST POPULAR STORY ON DIGG - OCTOBER". This way you can hand out prizes, ratings for good stories/writers and than the badge would lead back to digg for more traffic for you guys. Also, people would be able to go to the hall of fame and be able to read the cream of the crop any time they would want.
ericschc1Oct 26, 2010
What I'd like to inquire about too, is the reporting of comments. Seems that no amount of reporting or burying actually removes any of them. The non-stop eRetailer spam is bordering on obscene in some stories.
warlordOct 27, 2010
New Digg Sucks
dvsbastardOct 27, 2010
These "test" accounts were the entire reason that these publisher articles made the front page (as suggested by ltgenpanda), and this has been going on for a while now. This suggests that the algorithm is completely vulnerable to such gaming (something you apparently learned)... yet you continued to run these "tests" knowing they were having a negative impact on the data making the front page of the site.
Long story short, your testing was dictating what was appearing on the live Digg front page...This hardly sounds like testing to me.
picklematrixOct 27, 2010
Here's what I don't get. Was there never a conversation that went like...
Bob: "Hey Jim, I need to start that security testing stuff we talked about. I'm gonna go ahead and use those 100+ test accounts to digg a crap ton of publisher stories."
Jim: "Well that's a pretty s**tty idea Bob. People might find it a bit fishy that so many publisher stories are dugg by what appear to be Digg drones."
Bob: "You're right Jim. When I use one of the accounts, I'll just put a note on it stating that it's a test account being used for security reasons only."
I mean, to me it really doesn't matter, cause I just browse casually for the most part, but it's just weird that you guys aren't treading lightly even with people left and right saying goodbye.
When you're in a cactus patch, don't act like all is well. Embrace the thorny agony and watch where you step.
specimen7Oct 27, 2010
Your hypothetical lacks racial and sexual diversity. Please stop contaminating the public with your white male bigotry.
picklematrixOct 27, 2010
Here's what I don't get. Was there never a conversation that went like...
Bob: "Hey Jim, I need to start that security testing stuff we talked about. I'm gonna go ahead and use those 100+ test accounts to digg a crap ton of publisher stories."
Jim: "Well that's a pretty s**tty idea Bob. People might find it a bit fishy that so many publisher stories are dugg by what appear to be Digg drones."
Bob: "You're right Jim. When I use one of the accounts, I'll just put a note on it stating that it's a test account being used for security reasons only."
I mean, to me it really doesn't matter, cause I just browse casually for the most part, but it's just weird that you guys aren't treading lightly even with people left and right saying goodbye.
When you're in a cactus patch, don't act like all is well. Embrace the thorny agony and watch where you step.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
QuentinMossOct 27, 2010
I don't have much to say. Uhh.. but kevin, good point, I take back what i said earlier about you being an ass hat.
That's all.
arob89Oct 27, 2010
That's gotta be the worst cover-up attempt ever. It actually hurts my intelligence. Ow.
zyceOct 27, 2010
Thanks for the complete load of bulls**t.
ltgenpandaOct 27, 2010
Not that it matters, for that I reported this - here is my response: http://ltgenpanda.tumblr.com/post/1413193597/in-response-to-the-digg-blog-post
themachine1Oct 27, 2010
I heard a rumor that future testing by Digg will now be done on prisoners first.
davidtcOct 27, 2010
There is much more that needs to be answered imo.
Since Digg doesn't directly link to the proper comment, only the first comment in the tree, I will repost my entire comment in this reply so it is easy to hide for scrolling reasons.
davidtcOct 27, 2010
Posted in response to Kevin Rose
http://digg.com/news/business/info_on_site_changes_and_test_accounts/20101026215948:163602c3200e4ba5a877f80e22915bc8#20101026215948:163602c3200e4ba5a877f80e22915bc8
"We've used test accounts since day one..."
Day 1 of what? Of the new algorithm on October 15th? Of V4? Day 1 of the last 4 years?
"Most importantly, we should have been forthright with our community about our testing efforts and we'll certainly do so in the future."
So lets hear it. Be forthright about what I am asking cause it doesn't add up to what you are saying. Here is why.
I ask this cause on V3 we could see the "who dugg this" list (btw, bring it back). This would have been easy to spot with that list. These are obviously new accounts, so this leads me to believe this is a new thing you guys are doing which doesn't help with your story. Why would we believe you have to make 100+ new accounts each time to test stuff?
Now that you are being "open" about it, why were the ones caught deleted? Going to make new accounts again? It doesn't make sense to make new accounts to test a mundane thing like mass digging to see what breaks. The best reason to delete the accounts is so they can't be monitored anymore. Now since you are going to "continue to use them" that must mean you are making more new accounts to do this. Again, deleting the caught accounts while saying you are going to continue to use test accounts is a big red flag that you don't want them to be monitored. Why wouldn't you want them to be monitored if you are going to be forthright about them?
It doesn't makes sense when you look at what was found and what you said when Digg is going to be "forthright" about it now. Sorry, I'm not fully buying it.
eq2sOct 27, 2010
I hope digg responds to panda's questions.
specimen7Oct 27, 2010
Is Jen Burton really trying to pass this off as an "internal test"? That's like going on a narcissistic rant on a forum and then claiming it was a social experiment when you get called out.
Somebody needs to fire the s**t out of Jen Burton. You straight up lied in that pathetic article. PR people are supposed to be a lot better at lying than Jen Burton. Jen Burton should be deported to f**king VY Canis Majoris.
confuciussayOct 27, 2010
That's not nice dude. She's just doing her job.. no need to get personal.. and as they pointed out, if they really wanted to game their system, why bother creating accounts when you can simply write a few lines of code to do that for you.
javaroastOct 27, 2010
You highly overestimate their ability to write code. My proof digg v4. Really fake accounts to see if it's possible to game digg? That's something that any digg user could have answered for them in 2 seconds. The fact is they don't need test accounts... they have the algorithm in it's entirety. Speciman's comment is on the mark. The remaining digg user base is sick of being fed bulls**t and being told that it's chocolate pudding. They know it's a bulls**t explanation and so do we. Go ahead and keep eating the bulls**t, but the rest of us aren't going to join you.
greenmountainOct 27, 2010
They needed to test what would happen when lots of people digg a story.
Things are tough all over.
specimen7Oct 27, 2010
I didn't get personal. All of my statements were based on observations from the article she posted. Go ahead and quote where I supposedly 'got personal' No, really go ahead and do that right now. Where did I mention her private life or personal bias there?
Calling out a PR person's bulls**t does not automatically imply ad hominem attacks.
I'll repeat that again for the people who swear by the saying "if you don't have anything nice to say"
Calling out a PR person's bulls**t does not automatically imply ad hominem attacks.
one more time.
Calling out a PR person's bulls**t does not automatically imply ad hominem attacks.
It's merely an observation to counter the author's attempt at damage control.
If someone is not doing a good job, people should speak out out instead of being ineffectual drones afraid to hurt somebody's feelings.
This particular PR person made up a most ridiculous story about "internal testing" and got called out on it. Go call your mother if reality and brutal honesty offends you.
Did you grow up in the generation where everyone gets a trophy and the notion of losing has been censored political correctness or something?
One more time. Calling out a PR person's bulls**t does not automatically imply ad hominem attacks.
And one more.
Calling out a PR person's bulls**t does not automatically imply ad hominem attacks.
sickswaystopOct 27, 2010
She should serve the community, not the company.
Closed AccountOct 27, 2010
I agree it was one of the worst excuses possible to use... but I doubt she made that decision alone. I'm sure they drew straws over whose name was going to be at the top and she lost.
michigan85Oct 27, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
merelogicOct 27, 2010
I didn't sign up for any testing, and neither was I told that the useless stories I saw on home page were due to testing.
rooperOct 27, 2010
Okay, internal testing. Fair enough.
Why, then, did they appear to digg things only to propel them to the front page? Surely that means whether you label it as "testing" or not, you're still gaming your own system for the benefit of a few advertisers. Why did you "test" with those domains? Why pick large publishers, rather than something more obscure?
If this is indeed legitimate testing, then there should be records (accessible from the API) that show similar patterns from previous "tests". They're a needle in a haystack for us to find, but *you* should be able to find them and show us.
And probably most importantly, these "tests" appear to have been performed using 150-ish dummy accounts. Is Digg really so easy to game that all you need to do is create 150 accounts and use them to digg stuff? Really?
Something isn't right here.
beezlersOct 27, 2010
Cool, digg is awesome I really hope you guys find your feet on the ground soon the change seems to be shaking you as hell. Don't know why people don't love the new version maybe because it's a bit too web 2.0 which is something digg reallly wasn't all about or needed that much off. You made it too social and it wasn't meant to be. Anyways have a look at http://www.waaazap.com and let me know what you think ;)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cranelakeOct 27, 2010
Great to have an answer, and to see the Bury button coming back.
I did wonder why such a complex scheme would be needed to get pages to the front page.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shustoneOct 27, 2010
I'm glad to see Digg being more transparent and I'm glad they are listening to us users now.
But this all seems like disaster recovery and something that would not have happened if things were going very well at Digg. You listen to us now but what about back then? I think Digg v4 is a great indication of NOT listening to users. It was an amazing way to change a site in ways that most of us didn't want.
These test accounts were exposed and your response was to write a blog post and remove all the accounts. That makes it seem suspicious. The accounts should have been labeled as test accounts or something like that rather than being deleted. The timing of these test accounts comes right on the heels of the Digg staff reduction. That makes this look even worse than it probably is.
I'm still around Digg and want to continue coming here. I used to love the content and would be willing to come back if it gets better. I'm even willing to accept that these "test accounts" were used only for testing and nothing else. But it's just one of those things that is happening at the wrong time.
I hope you all start listening to the users and I mean REALLY listen. No more incidents like this, Digg v4, DiggBar, the decryption key posts or anything like that.
alanocuOct 27, 2010
This should have been done in DEV or CRP, not PROD.