modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk— Stuart Brown set up a nice script that logged the average Diggs it takes to make the Digg homepage. The average was quite astounding.
Sep 8, 2006View in Crawl 4
What is this obsession with who's submissions get to the front page? I could easily make a news aggregation site which was 100% purely democratic and based on the number of votes a post gets, but I bet you people wouldn't like that either.
It's good to know I am not the only person who remembers that old commercial with the owl!! One, two, thrrrrrrreeeeee! =X Sometimes the stories on the front page are downright silly and have 20 diggs, but oh well. How else can I read obscure news?
@ pixelsoupFrom da5idblacksun's article:"Let's deconstruct this:"The war we fight today...": His so called "war on terror" is absurd. You can't fight a war against a technique. There have always been terrorists and they have always been dealt with as a criminal issue. Turning it into a war and dropping bombs clearly will never reduce the amount of terrorism - actually, it will only increase it as innocent people get killed."---Well there's a well-thought-out observation no one has ever heard before....the blog is nothing more than a regurgitation of everything that's been said since we wrongfully invaded Iraq. It's not well written. It's grossly redudant. It adds nothing new and doesnt properly analyze what we already do know. That was what i was referring to when i chastized its poor quality.
@zanky: Yeah, part of the algorithm is frequency of diggs. Why wouldn't it be? If you and your friends collaborate over the phone or IM to digg a story fast and hard to get it on the homepage, then yeah, it will help the story. How the hell is digg going to know? It wouldn't know your a group or just some people that liked the story. Would you prefer the algorithm work like our government and eavesdrop on your phone conversations and email to make sure you aren't gaming the system?If you take a look at the digg blog, you'll see that Kevin and gang are already on top of this. If you and a bunch of other diggers are friends and continuously digg the same stories together, then the system will see that and weigh your diggs lightly. Its in the works.
"You could get 50 diggs spread out over a day, and not get front page"Yes... isn't that annoying? The queue is dropping stories too fast, and it encourages dupes. People using Digg Spy to find stories see even less, only the absolute latest.So it comes down to the time of day you post a story, not even necessarily if you were the first to post it.This system should be revised, IMHO.
Closed AccountSep 9, 2006
"The world may never know"
nixfuSep 9, 2006
ok...thread over we have a winnar ^
puristSep 9, 2006
Service Unavailable
Closed AccountSep 9, 2006
Admittedly, this was a terrible joke.
orangetideSep 9, 2006
What is this obsession with who's submissions get to the front page? I could easily make a news aggregation site which was 100% purely democratic and based on the number of votes a post gets, but I bet you people wouldn't like that either.
qoogirlSep 9, 2006
It's good to know I am not the only person who remembers that old commercial with the owl!! One, two, thrrrrrrreeeeee! =X Sometimes the stories on the front page are downright silly and have 20 diggs, but oh well. How else can I read obscure news?
boamanSep 9, 2006
His math is way off. For example, right now on the front page4 < 1003 between 100-2002 between 200-3006 between 300-750No way the average is 512.
Closed AccountSep 9, 2006
@ pixelsoupFrom da5idblacksun's article:"Let's deconstruct this:"The war we fight today...": His so called "war on terror" is absurd. You can't fight a war against a technique. There have always been terrorists and they have always been dealt with as a criminal issue. Turning it into a war and dropping bombs clearly will never reduce the amount of terrorism - actually, it will only increase it as innocent people get killed."---Well there's a well-thought-out observation no one has ever heard before....the blog is nothing more than a regurgitation of everything that's been said since we wrongfully invaded Iraq. It's not well written. It's grossly redudant. It adds nothing new and doesnt properly analyze what we already do know. That was what i was referring to when i chastized its poor quality.
hergioSep 9, 2006
@zanky: Yeah, part of the algorithm is frequency of diggs. Why wouldn't it be? If you and your friends collaborate over the phone or IM to digg a story fast and hard to get it on the homepage, then yeah, it will help the story. How the hell is digg going to know? It wouldn't know your a group or just some people that liked the story. Would you prefer the algorithm work like our government and eavesdrop on your phone conversations and email to make sure you aren't gaming the system?If you take a look at the digg blog, you'll see that Kevin and gang are already on top of this. If you and a bunch of other diggers are friends and continuously digg the same stories together, then the system will see that and weigh your diggs lightly. Its in the works.
obkenobiSep 10, 2006
"You could get 50 diggs spread out over a day, and not get front page"Yes... isn't that annoying? The queue is dropping stories too fast, and it encourages dupes. People using Digg Spy to find stories see even less, only the absolute latest.So it comes down to the time of day you post a story, not even necessarily if you were the first to post it.This system should be revised, IMHO.