thelittlelog.blogspot.com— It's the only way to make things work for Political Diggers Mr. Rose. We must be able to "Trust but Verify." Bipartisan support of this request is hereby requested.
Feb 23, 2007View in Crawl 4
I completely agree. If you don't agree with the posting, because of political beliefs, don't automatically bury it. People see Diggs from sites that contradict their political views, and immediately bury it. Try commenting.
or alternatively, now that i think of it - maybe an article should be *immune* from being dugg off the front page, once it reached the front page. if an article has scraped and clawed its way out of the mudpit of upcoming articles, maybe it should simply wear the crown of the frontpage for as long as new articles don't bump it off.
Another idea might be to allow each of us to to choose to ignore buries made by certain people. That way, over time we might find out who buries articles they don't agree with as 'spam' or 'inaccurate' would not affect our personal viewing pleasure.Of course giving each person their own personalized # of diggs/buries/main pages might be too cpu intensive to work.
PRC, that is rude and unnecessary. I have not seen anyone degrade a group up to this point in the discussion. Liberals, Conservatives, Christians, atheists, nudists, flautists, secretaries, and lifeguards alike are concerned with this issue. Aiming the blame at one group is neither fair nor productive.
Which seems to be a very good idea. I for one don't want to know who buries what. I very much have a liberal bias but that's not why I bury something down. I bury things down when a google search shows data to be slanted or misrepresented or just wrong. Then it usually gets a "this is lame." Not to say I bury many stories but I have buried some.I've also dugg articles from traditionally conservative blogs such as lewrockwell and the von misses institute. It's not about silencing an alternative view for me because I come to digg.com to discuss ideas I don't need to agree with everybody but I do try to listen. My concern is with vigilantism. There are many polarizing issues posted here. Get the wrong person to become offended and It's not a leap that a dns attack, spam attack or physical assault could occur.Digg is about it's user base if enough people are interested in an article it will get to the front page regardless of those who bury it. IMO if you have to concern yourself with who's burring an article you might also have to consider the value of the content of the article and if the content can't stand the scrutiny of the process maybe it's not of interest to users. Now if specific users or groups of users are consistently burying other specific users than that can be addressed by a change in the engine that runs the site.
littlebylittleFeb 24, 2007Submitter
OMG. Hilarious! Well, I've never accused the Lizards of being timid.I Love It.
amerpunFeb 25, 2007
I completely agree. If you don't agree with the posting, because of political beliefs, don't automatically bury it. People see Diggs from sites that contradict their political views, and immediately bury it. Try commenting.
Closed AccountFeb 25, 2007
Interesting story from Sept. 2006:<a class="user" href="http://bokardo.com/archives/diggs-design-dilemma/">http://bokardo.com/archives/diggs-design-dilemma/</a>
anastropheFeb 25, 2007
or alternatively, now that i think of it - maybe an article should be *immune* from being dugg off the front page, once it reached the front page. if an article has scraped and clawed its way out of the mudpit of upcoming articles, maybe it should simply wear the crown of the frontpage for as long as new articles don't bump it off.
reaganomiconFeb 26, 2007
Keep whining, Lizardoids.
blogagogFeb 27, 2007
Another idea might be to allow each of us to to choose to ignore buries made by certain people. That way, over time we might find out who buries articles they don't agree with as 'spam' or 'inaccurate' would not affect our personal viewing pleasure.Of course giving each person their own personalized # of diggs/buries/main pages might be too cpu intensive to work.
horsedreamerMar 2, 2007
PRC, that is rude and unnecessary. I have not seen anyone degrade a group up to this point in the discussion. Liberals, Conservatives, Christians, atheists, nudists, flautists, secretaries, and lifeguards alike are concerned with this issue. Aiming the blame at one group is neither fair nor productive.
jonathan70Mar 27, 2007
Nikita Khrushchev declared, "we will bury you," and his sniveling little commie moonbat admirers are doing just that.
axeswingerApr 14, 2007
Which seems to be a very good idea. I for one don't want to know who buries what. I very much have a liberal bias but that's not why I bury something down. I bury things down when a google search shows data to be slanted or misrepresented or just wrong. Then it usually gets a "this is lame." Not to say I bury many stories but I have buried some.I've also dugg articles from traditionally conservative blogs such as lewrockwell and the von misses institute. It's not about silencing an alternative view for me because I come to digg.com to discuss ideas I don't need to agree with everybody but I do try to listen. My concern is with vigilantism. There are many polarizing issues posted here. Get the wrong person to become offended and It's not a leap that a dns attack, spam attack or physical assault could occur.Digg is about it's user base if enough people are interested in an article it will get to the front page regardless of those who bury it. IMO if you have to concern yourself with who's burring an article you might also have to consider the value of the content of the article and if the content can't stand the scrutiny of the process maybe it's not of interest to users. Now if specific users or groups of users are consistently burying other specific users than that can be addressed by a change in the engine that runs the site.
doubledohMay 29, 2007
I would at least like some stats:How many buried it as "spam"?How many buried it as "Ok, this is lame"etc.I want to see the numbers.
Closed AccountDec 22, 2007
IF I comment in a story I digg it up all the time! Even if I disagree, I want my voice to be heard in the stories I discuss.