daringfireball.net— John Gruber at Daring Fireball is pissed about the diggbar, and wrote some code to share with the world on how to block anyone visiting the site via a Digg.com/ short-url. How meta!
Apr 10, 2009View in Crawl 4
"this story was buried yesterday when it had a much lower Digg count. As always, once a story is buried, even if it gains traction, it won't hit the homepage."That's a f**king great algorithm you retards got going on there.
I would appreciate it, Jen, if you can quantify the amount of buries it takes to permanently ban an article from the front page. Is it a certain amount of buries within a time-period? What exactly is the over/under line? The ideal scenario, which I hope Digg would go by, is that the digg to bury ratio should be considered when there is an article that begins initially buried and later increases in diggs so much that it outnumbers the buries overwhelmingly.But, call me skeptical, I think this article was very likely admin banned. Personally, if I owned digg, I wouldn't want this critical article on the front page, either.
LRN2RREPLYIsn't it ironic that even admins have to use '@' sytax to reply to people.... on a system where it is built in? If the comment threading was made properly (see: reddit)... that symbol would never have to be used. Ever.
Right. And someone not looking closely might miss that it's a digg.com URL and assume that gruber (or the owner of whatever content) is explicitly allowing this. It's theft of trade dress and runs afoul of the Lanham Act.
Gruber isn't really that aggressive, mad guy as he seems on that single page. Trust me, it is really hard to make him that mad.Congrats Digg for doing what was impossible until today :)
When I am on my netbook it wastes to much screen space. Next they will be inserting their own ads or content into web pages, once they are the ones loading pages for you they can do whatever they want. Digg has now sold out, anyone got a new site ?
Closed AccountApr 11, 2009
"this story was buried yesterday when it had a much lower Digg count. As always, once a story is buried, even if it gains traction, it won't hit the homepage."That's a f**king great algorithm you retards got going on there.
Closed AccountApr 12, 2009
I would appreciate it, Jen, if you can quantify the amount of buries it takes to permanently ban an article from the front page. Is it a certain amount of buries within a time-period? What exactly is the over/under line? The ideal scenario, which I hope Digg would go by, is that the digg to bury ratio should be considered when there is an article that begins initially buried and later increases in diggs so much that it outnumbers the buries overwhelmingly.But, call me skeptical, I think this article was very likely admin banned. Personally, if I owned digg, I wouldn't want this critical article on the front page, either.
Closed AccountApr 12, 2009
LRN2RREPLYIsn't it ironic that even admins have to use '@' sytax to reply to people.... on a system where it is built in? If the comment threading was made properly (see: reddit)... that symbol would never have to be used. Ever.
thecaptainApr 12, 2009
2330 diggs, and still only an "Upcoming" story? This is ridiculous!
andremaApr 14, 2009
Right. And someone not looking closely might miss that it's a digg.com URL and assume that gruber (or the owner of whatever content) is explicitly allowing this. It's theft of trade dress and runs afoul of the Lanham Act.
ilgazApr 15, 2009
Gruber isn't really that aggressive, mad guy as he seems on that single page. Trust me, it is really hard to make him that mad.Congrats Digg for doing what was impossible until today :)
bobjr94Apr 16, 2009
When I am on my netbook it wastes to much screen space. Next they will be inserting their own ads or content into web pages, once they are the ones loading pages for you they can do whatever they want. Digg has now sold out, anyone got a new site ?
kolyanych30Jul 29, 2009
i dont need to block digg bar :)