andy-owen.info — The recent story at http://digg.com/technology/The_Truth_About_GoDaddy_s_Economy_%285GB_250GB%29_Plan has been removed from the front page and removed from the search database. Turns out Digg isn't run by the users after all.
Dec 19, 2005 View in Crawl 4
ultimindDec 19, 2005
the story was already taken off the main page
kengDec 19, 2005
wait a minute i did a search AND looked under his "stories submitted" and it didn't appear in either place! even if it was "lamed" it should still show up under stories submitted.dugg.
icecoldfeverDec 19, 2005
it's not that great of a story. The arguements in the emails were off base.+lame
kengDec 19, 2005
the story does not appear under user's "submited stories" link<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/users/dee-vee/submitted">http://digg.com/users/dee-vee/submitted</a>
Closed AccountDec 19, 2005
haha submitter is a noob with an agenda and no clue!as we say in barrens chat.. reported!
kevinroseDec 19, 2005Staff
Where do you see it missing?
tobeyDec 19, 2005
Godaddy doesn't sponsor digg.com. And the story was removed because people reported as lame, and rightly so!
junk92Dec 19, 2005
You know in order to be more transparent I think it would be great if digg will display also the negative diggs beside the positive diggs, this way people will have a better understanding of the system
maverick999Dec 19, 2005
Say it ain't so digg...---<a class="user" href="http://www.caseypicker.com">http://www.caseypicker.com</a>
kengDec 19, 2005
it aint so. see Kevin's response above.
badnewsblairApr 20, 2006
Thanks Kevin.I was wondering if you were just going to let this all slide by and let the digg users keep modding this crap down without any official response from someone in charge.Since the system will be changing soon, I think this misconception will be cleared up.You can tell by the way some of the users that are involved that this is just a play for attention. But you can't blame people for questioning a system that they participate in but had no hand in creating or any way of verifying it's validity.The real digg users will continue to kill crap like this.
brickballsApr 20, 2006
godaddy sponsors diggnation. And downloads craping out more than 1% of the time is a signifigant problem.besides that though, you do have a point that the bandwidth limit wasnt the issue.
xyl3neApr 20, 2006
Kevin Rose is a douche.
tetherApr 20, 2006
I am pretty new to Digg.. but before I even registered a few weeks ago I did see some stuff negative about digg or its sponsors removed.How about making a category "anti-Digg", and by default stories in this category are not displayed. You'd have to set a preference. That way you can let people speak against digg and stop bothering you. You could still take down things that are just like "digg sucks" or are otherwise counterproductive.
andirApr 20, 2006
You're all retarded. You know that, right?Digg is a biased news site becuase you make it biased. If "x" number of people vote a particular way on a story it will disappear. We are back to the original problem with digg when it hit the first popularity curve. People post stories. The story links to their own personal blogs, or some redirector to track internet movement for advertising or whatnot. If that link doesn't make it to the front page, they cry foul and post an article pointing to their own blog on how Digg censors. Every single one of you that dugg this story are blind to this fact apparently.Digg has gone to hell because of it's users. Not it's host.
snowman11Apr 21, 2006
this really is silly.... Go to another site if you don't like it. Again really silly...
patjamasApr 21, 2006
what?
philoviveroApr 21, 2006
"Everything that gets voted off the front page is also removed from the search. There aren't any editors to delete stories from the history, because all the editors are Digg users! There aren't admins that patrol the site to find offensive stories because that's supposed to be up to users to do. So, when they decide that a story shouldn't be on the front page and vote to remove it for one reason or another, it gets deleted."Thanks for the defense, Percy, but that's not entirely true. We do have admins that patrol the site for articles that violate TOS. Usually they notice because a story has a few reports on it, and they go check it out and see it needs further action. But you are sort of right, in that a vast majority of stories that "disappear" are disappeared by the Digg users themselves.Back in the day, when Digg was small and low-volume, maybe the disappeared-by-Digg ratio was 1-5%, but now it's probably more like 0.01-0.1%. We have two (sometimes three) Digg admins. If they tried to patrol all the stories all the time... well, they'd have to work three shifts a day, which just doesn't leave a lot of time for sleeping.As for this "The truth about godaddy" story, I doubt it was deleted because of a sponsorship agreement. More likely because it was lame and contained baseless accusations. I'm sure Godaddy does some shady stuff (I went to it yesterday with a non-Firefox browser and was attacked by popups), but if you're going to attack the company, you need to have some evidence.Digg users aren't very forgiving of shoddy journalism.
frenesiJan 21, 2007
Can we Say "Clique"?
Closed AccountMar 1, 2007
All I can say is that I do think something fishy is going on with Digg or even the Internet in general. The only story that I can relate that I think got pulled was the BBC Reports World 7 Collapse 20 MInutes before it Falls. I tried an in-site search just to see what the hoopla was and couldn't. I had to find the page by using Google. On top of that the BBC and Google pulled the video in question. Seems to me that if it was all harmless that the BBC and Digg wouldn't go to lengths to censor the information. If it was just from the algorithm than I would understand the page being lost over time but to not be able to do a search for it is just plain weird. Do I cry conspiracy? NO. Just something to think about.
psamathosJun 5, 2007
Oh no! Editors have removed articles "just because [they] don't like them"? That sounds almost like they were doing their jobs as editors!