What is Digg?42 Comments
- geedeck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9While I can understand concerns in regards to "gaming" digg, I think those who would make such claims should give further thought to the issue before climbing the slippery slope of accusation. What is Digg? Well, it's a information distribution community. Shacknews is a gaming news site that has information ready for distribution. Therefore, shacknews community members will be the ones who first notice when information is ready for distribution, and thus their (somewhat) heavy early influence. But generally, that's just to establish the article, and then it has suffient digging to enter general digg circulation. Past that, it should be up to the digg community to consider it's value, which I believe is fair and benevolent interpretation of digg's goals.
I would be hesitant to use the term spamming in regards to shacknews, as there's one article at most a day, written by a paid journalist. If one were merely farming for google ads, this would not be an efficient means to it. And it can be said there is a large number of people only digging shacknews articles. However, this is to some, their first encounter with digg and as such, everyone has to have a starting point. Myself, I've used digg for quite sometime but less so for a while, and the shack articles has me again paying attention. These aren't zombie accounts in the hands of one person. These are all real people, many of whom I have met. To call these new users names, to cry out for burying of what they have tagged, is an extremely negative contact to a new community and in my eyes, a detriment in attracting new, positive and worthwhile users to digg. - Tikkimann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You might want to post a picture of this on the front page, like the guy who broke the Destructoid embargo.
- davidallen72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Uh, internet experts would prefer more top ten lists than actual articles and content. Only people who enjoy quality articles are digging this stuff. For example, Nomu and SnakeOfSilver have never dugg a top ten article. Please bury this as spam, we need to keep quality articles out of digg. Think of the children. Perhaps submit a top ten children article?
- Jujubes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah! How dare these vagabonds defile the glorious digg with actual news posts instead of a pointless "Top 10 List!" They should be ashamed...
- Klerk2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3these storeys get digged because they ask them to be not cause they have fake accounts
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=15012866#itemanchor_15012866
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=14997837#itemanchor_14997837
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=14939073#itemanchor_14939073
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=14895833#itemanchor_14895833
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=14852576
Anything wrong with that? - Moleton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I am one of those users who has only dugg Shack articles, and I'd like to explain myself and see what you have to say:
I am a casual Digg user. I read the front page occasionally, and click on interesting links from time to time, but I'm not particularly motivated to digg things that I find interesting.
On the other hand, I read shacknews.com regularly, and am interested in their articles. When the shacknews.com community finds something interesting, or when the site owners promote it with a "digg this" link, I am much more motivated to respond than when reading about Owen Wilson maybe attempting suicide or whatever.
Is there something wrong with this behavior? I'm voting for content I find interesting. I am participating to the degree that I care to participate. If digg's algorithms can't distinguish between stories that are highly interesting to a small subset of people and stories that are moderately interesting to a larger number of people, then that's the algorithm's problem. But it isn't gaming.
(on an unrelated note, why do I get digg's captchas wrong half the time? Apparently I am part machine) - mittense, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5This may be due to the fact that Shacknews regulars read the page frequently and want to digg the interesting stories?
No. That couldn't possibly be it. Too common sensical. - excessdan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You shouldn't abuse the mark as spam feature. The article is clearly not spam.
- SnakeofSilver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So just because I don't read Digg since it's so full of garbage and happen to only read one or two sites that post Digg links, my opinion on "this is an interesting article" isn't worth anything?
- feek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Are you the self appointed digg Gestapo?
- Hassassin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah don't digg things you support, just because you support them. That would be stupid, and go against the whole purpose of this site. .
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Therefore, shacknews community members will be the ones who first notice when information is ready for distribution, and thus their (somewhat) heavy early influence."
But why would community members from another site create a Digg account and then use it *solely* for the purpose of promoting that site on Digg? That's unusual behavior, very similar to what you'd expect to see from fake accounts for site traffic generation. If they're only interested in promoting a particular site, then I'll do my best to balance that out by burying those submissions. Then everyone else can digg or bury based on whether or not the content itself in interesting, and not simply because they have a vested interest in that content hitting the front page. - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If the only reason you subscribe to Digg is to promote Shacknews articles, then you, I'd say that your opinion isn't worth anything, as I'd consider that borderline spamming. You're one of the few that I listed who's ever dugg anything *other* than Shacknews submissions, so you're not as bad as the rest of them, but if you have little-to-no motivation to actually participate in Digg, then why are you even bothering with digging stuff?
in the end, I feel that submissions should hit the front page because *Digg users* think they're deserving, not because the submission source can get a bunch of people who couldn't care less about Digg to generate a throwaway account for the sole purpose of digging their site. - graceofdragons, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Do you even know how the system works? Someone who writes an article puts a "Digg It" link, so that people that find the article interesting may, "Digg It". Is that not what the feature is there for? I apologize if I don't find the majority of the contrived crap that appears on Digg Interesting, but then, that's why Digg is the way it is, so that other people can disagree with me and bump those top 10 lists to the front page anyway.
- Jujubes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dugg down for not being a top 10 list.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, since there's no "possible fake accounts used to disproportionately digg up the submission" reporting feature, it's the best alternative.
- Stobber, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Then everyone else can digg or bury based on whether or not the content itself in interesting, and not simply because they have a vested interest in that content hitting the front page."
Why don't you do the same, and just judge the content on its merit? Why do you have to take a vigilante stance against a _perceived_ aggression? If you need a hug, I'll be happy to give you one. - aaarrrgh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You do know, nobody is forcing us to digg the shacknews articles, right?
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Because, in general, when you see multiple accounts all digging up the same site (and no other sites), the odds are that they're dummy accounts created by someone who has a vested interest (ad revenue, perhaps?) in seeing a particular site promoted to the front page.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"I don't think there's any problem with regular Shacknews readers digging stories, as long as they are only digging the stories they think others will find interesting, rather than indiscriminately digging everything"
If they only digg Shacknews stories, then I'd call that "indiscriminate" (to a degree). What it boils down to is that we have people who don't care about Digg at all (as evidenced by the lack of participation in Digg) digging submissions from a site that they *do* care about. We don't need stories hitting the font page because of people who are only here because they have an agenda. The *Digg* community should decide what hits the Digg front page, not the Shacknews community. - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Why do you have to take a vigilante stance against a _perceived_ aggression?"
I wouldn't call it a perceived aggressions so much as an *actual* imbalance. What we have is a group of people who, based on their digging history, don't care one iota about Digg, and are only interested in promoting a particular site. That basically amounts to artificially inflating the diggs on those submission to something above and beyond what the actual *Digg* community would have done otherwise. This ignores the community aspect of Digg, and brings it into the realm of "whoever can garner the most local support can override the Digg community." - crimsonhandhiro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Reinforce this behavior? You mean supporting a site you read with some regularity? I mean really, what a bunch of jerk-wads they are, digging like any other user!
- graceofdragons, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So, someone posts a Gaming article in the Gaming section of Digg, and you throw a fit because people found it interesting? Congrats on being everything that is wrong with Digg.
- mancide, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nevermind the small sub-set of the digg community that continues to override the community as a whole and push their own agenda.
- feek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2With astonishingly negative and accusational attitude, are you surprised that they don't participate in other ways? And you're not even the first to do this.
- feek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Then why does Digg allow Digg badges to be added to sites? This is what happens. It's obviously intended.
- cipherbob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1AnteChronos, why is this a problem?
- lakren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1take your common sense and bring it somewhere else
* B U R I E D * - lakren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Please explain this to me in top ten format.
Thank you. - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Not unless a substantial number of Shacknews readers set up Digg accounts for the sole purpose of digging *only* Shacknews submissions. In which case I agree with jermo: "Get this ***** out of here."
- Hassassin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I wanted to think of something witty. A subtle quip about a community being stupid for supporting something they believe in. Or maybe a comment in regards to most of the stupid “[PIC] included posts” that get dugg to the front page. Sadly though I can not, so with that said anyone who has a problem with shackers supporting shacknews articles can suck the pearly white strings of dna from my *****! [PIC] included.
- SockMonkeh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2plus me balls are saggy
- Hassassin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Digg user is defined as follows "A person or persons who without question digg and or support any post associated with a Top 10 list, and or [PIC] included"
- cipherbob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I can assure you these are not dummy accounts. I recognise quite a few of the names as people that post comments over at Shacknews. I don't think there's any problem with regular Shacknews readers digging stories, as long as they are only digging the stories they think others will find interesting, rather than indiscriminately digging everything (and that's unlikely since the Shacknews editors already only place Digg buttons on those articles they think will be of interest to the Digg crowd).
- Jayx77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Just so we are clear, I don't digg anything that I don't find interesting. Alot of the stuff there is interesting and they have a good competent staff of writers. That and the incredible community is why alot of people register their account there.
In most cases, they post in the comments to let us know new stuff is up to read. I have submitted at least one article to Digg because I found it interesting. - Hassassin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Can't you see we are just spamming digg when we digg awesome content created by shacknews?!?!?
- Jigsta, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1Digg is a tool to share information, not a puppy. If you find an article interesting, you digg it. Frankly, the words "caring about Digg" are creepy and irrelevant. You say that a few regulars of a site digging an article (that they care thousands of iotas more about than digg) upsets what the "Digg community" would have done? The digg community is made up of millions of users that supplied an email address and click a simple button if they like an article, and maybe troll in the comments once in a while. Dont read too much into it.
- SnakeofSilver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, you see. Instead of going to digg.com and read through a whole bunch of news and "news" that I'm not interested in. I instead read a couple of sites and then I find news that is extra interesting or fresh and they have a digg button, I hit it. Partly to support the site but just as much to spread good content, which I though was the whole concept behind this site.
But it seems the only way to be a Legitimate Digg User™ one has to find the news on digg.com rather then the sources, so I'm not sure how you intend for news to actually appear on this site if not found and dugg by users of the sites that have the content? The news stories doesn't magically appear on the digg front page you know.
If you are worried that it's only "zombie accounts" that digg these Shacknews stories, then you should probably read up on the Shacknews community, which has several thousand active users and many many more who only read the news there. So if a story gets 50 or so diggs from Shacknews people that means a small fraction of those who read the news item click that digg icon, some of who, like me, maybe don't visit digg.com that often, but keep logged in so that we can digg articles we find interesting when we stumble upon them. - davidallen72, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1This is in my top ten digg-downs.
- iareth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'd like to know what is your definition for "Digg User".
- jermo, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Almost all of the diggs this has are from people who have only ever dugg stuff from shacknews.com.
Get this ***** out of here. - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Looks like a concerted effort to game Digg. Currently, 10 of the 26 people who dugg this have *only* dugg stories from Shacknews in the past (* with a couple of exceptions)
mechanicalgrape
thebelal
jbury
klarin
megarust
Nomu * has dugg only one non-shacknews submission ever
SnakeofSilver ** had dugg only three non-shacknews sumbissions ever
Redfield4k
dynokill
shavenewok
Looks like some of them buried jermo's comment, too. I encourage everyone to bury this as spam. Or at least not to Digg it, as that would reinforce this kind of behavior.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is