What is Digg?59 Comments
- smithro1984, on 10/12/2007, -2/+59Shenanigans! What users on digg spend 69 minutes on a single article.
The articles get less diggs because they slowly get shifted to higher page numbers and don't get seen.
Simple as that. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Sixty minutes? try sixty sec...wait, what were we talking about?
- dgblackout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"Your"?
You're a retard. - anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Exactly. If stories could remain in the #1 position longer, they'd get a much different response.
I've seen this firsthand after Top 10 bar was added to the right. A few weeks ago a post from my site ( http://www.saynotocrack.com ) was dugg and made the #1 spot on the Top 10 most popular sidebar. Typically a post from my site would decay as the researchers mentioned, getting 10K visits an hour for the first hour, then much less afterward. However, this "Top 10" post received 10K visits an hour for about 10 hours straight, and never decayed until it fell off the Top 10 list. It received well over 100K visits (but luckily still didn't bring the server down). - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12If there were some digg conspiracy to suppress 9/11 stories, I'm sure they'd do it BEFORE they hit the front page.
- jesstech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12You mean quickly? Everybody wants to be internet(s)-famous.
"I submitted that digg article! That's me!" Great for you, collect your prize at the door. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I believe several factors influence landing on the front page, and being "newsworthy" is not one of them. Lulzworthy is a much more reliable indicator. Politicians or pseudo-authority figures making fools of themselves are sure winners.
Semi-naked chicks or references to porn are very popular.
I infer also that many Digg users use Digg as a bookmarking service. This accounts for the popularity of some types of stories that have many diggs and few comments, such as Top [x] List of Cut-N-Paste Web 2.0 Widgets.
Beyond that there is the flamebait category. Flamewar stories include typical fanboi ***** (Mac / Wii / Ubuntu / gun control), issues about people/things the Digg demographic hates (Jack Thompson, poseurs like Brad Burns, etc) and other controversial matters. These threads feature robust comment threads but virtually all of the debate is about the issue, not the article. From the context of the comments it's easy to see very few people actually read the article.
So, I think if I was in the Digg Traffic Optimization biz, I would have my sock puppets post articles like "Ultimate Top Ten List of Web 2.0 Hot Mostly Naked Chicks Debating Jack Thompson About Gun Control Using Ubuntu". - meez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Ahh, I see what you did there.
- reiner15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think the average digg story may get read, but not "dugg" by each reader. I know everything I read I don't digg
- impedance101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If u read articles straight off RSS feeds you'll most probably never know about the top 10 list.
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5True, but we repeat the same "news" every couple of days for up to a year. (Or in some cases longer!)
- acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Submitted: 8 hours 46 min ago, made popular 2 hours 1 minute ago
Meh, I was going to comment on this, but I'm not so interested in it anymore. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is just stupid. The submission on Digg may lose its appeal after 69 minutes. the story does not. Falling off the first page has almost EVERTHING to do with that.
- ffejrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49/11 stories are taken off the front page because us sane people here at Digg bury them as spam and inaccurate.
- scispaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Lame with an inaccurate title. The life of a digg post is not the life of the news story on the internet. Selecting a skewed dataset to come up with a sensationalist title in a science journal, now that is quality research. (I hate pop science.)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5unless of course you have fanboys and gurl Trolls keeping it alive
- TheFederalist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was going to read this article until I realized that it's been on the front page for over an hour. Eh... I'm sure it wasn't anything important anyway.
- pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'd be curious to read the research. Many of the factors that determine a frontpage story on digg have changed. I'm curious to see how this was factored into the study.
- kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hurry up and lose interest! we've only got 13 minutes left!
but in all seriousness, 69 minutes is probably the amount of time it takes to go to page 2 - gamasutra, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5My stamina also fades after an hour.
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm fairly sure there are bunches of sock puppets writing content specifically for digg. It's the only explanation why so few topics, regurgitating such little information (if any) can be frontpaged so often.
I don't believe the digg crowd is genuinely interested in 979* installation guides for ubuntu (what is that ... 100 "insert cd, boot computer" blog posts per version?), but I do believe there's enough retards on this site who'll consistently digg certain topics that digg can be gamed by any webmaster able to spot a popular topic.
* http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adigg.com+ubuntu+installation+guide+-%2Fusers%2F - cwt137, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The scientist actually did a write-up. The article didn't even have a link to it. But I found the abstract and pdf of the paper on Dr. Huberman's site http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/novelty/index.html
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Buried as inacc OH LOOK, BUTTERFLIES!!
- FluxHarmonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Weird, I thought stories faded because they got buried a bunch of times.
- Universal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A little off topic, but the title gave me an idea.
Instead of having to refresh digg in order to see new stories that appear, why not make the front page dynamic (like Digg Spy) where the stories show up on the front page in real-time. Fading on and off just like Digg Spy.... - capn_caveman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I find it interesting that there were a total of 5 submissions to digg today linking to this exact article and 4 out of the 5 were buried. Titles and descriptions were pretty much the same. This submission was the 3rd one submitted today and all of a sudden it's on the front page.
- hbeierg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i should have lost interest in this story 40 minuets ago
- gorilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@anitab83: Yeah, just post the link to your site again for even more hits..
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The reality for months now has been that DIGG sucks....about 90% of the decent content does not get dugg fast enough so it just goes to the wayside down to page 100002 with only 40 diggs because more people are digging the articles about boobies faster and push it to the bottom where no one can find it.
The whole "vote by the mob" thing is turning out to be a complete disaster and just turns the content of your site into a scene from "Idioitacracy, the movie"
http://www.cinemademerde.com/Idiotocracy.shtml - w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone forgot to tell us Diggers! Damn it!
Submitted:
11 hours 17 min ago, made popular 4 hours 32 minutes ago - ferrari_f50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well, this article was made popular 58 minutes ago (at time of me posting this). So the article about articles losing popularity is about to lose it's popularity.
- Thucydides, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They found that digging decays in a "stretched exponential" way and the popularity of a story fades after just 69 minutes."
69 minutes. Tee hee hee. - crucifiedpooh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem is that not everyone diggs at the same time. There seems to be two waves of groups, daytime and nighttime diggers. If I digg a subject during the day, inevitably I will come in the next day and see the same subject by a different poster. I don't know how many times I've seen the same Kucinich impeachment story with at least 500 diggs each. Posters need to be more responsible and not post the same crap over and over again.
- orabox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ gastrodamus "Digg.com reveals news stories demonstrating hatred for Republicans, Christians, and Windows users never fade"
That is funny, I was a Republican, Christian and Windows guy when I joined digg. - ashot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is ridiculous. Digg rate is influenced very heavily by the way digg displays stories. The amount of diggs an article is getting at any point in time is determined by digg_rate_per_view * amount of views.
My guess is that 69 minutes is the approximate time it takes an article to percolate through the first page of upcoming stories, and through digg's friend network. This has much more to do with the velocity of incoming stories than the time-sensitive nature of the article. Many articles are not time sensitive at all. - TopVNleser, on 12/27/2008, -0/+0Topvn.at reveals that certain newspapers can lead to... "Das Infokoma" (80% German words)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh really..
you mean like this one?
http://digg.com/politics/Why_scholars_are_calling_for_an_independent_investigation_of_9_11
the one that continued to get more and more and more and MORE diggs after it made first page, but was removed from the frontpage within 10 minutes
and anyone posting in favor of the story was banned?
go ahead and click on some of the names of people posting in clear favor of the content of the article
they are gone
do you agree with digg censoring political opinion from you? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Idiots. The media eye is but an eye, selective and temporary. It makes headlines and it moves away again, leaving the all important WHY and WHAT NEXT questions unanswered.
In my opinion, smart people watch as little news as possible. - erikerikerik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Also, there just simply too many story's to keep yup, too much information. think about how much info we as humans have had to learn to absorb in the past 100 years.
- tomaprik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0what are physicists doing analyzing digg stats?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'd poop on a man.
- leetdood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Is it a hour yet?
- Futurejunior, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Lets go dancing!
- macaca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I also think the democratic approach of Digg has been abused by cronies ( by Left and Right). I have seen stories which were submitted earlier but don't get popular or more hits cause same stories submitted little later by other digger and get more popular because of friends digging for friend. How about Digg makes a rule of either no digging of a friend more then once a day and no bury at all. So in that case story will get popular because of its "content" instead of it was submitted by friend. I know I might get dugg down here by cronies too but its just a suggestion to make Digg better.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3So I guess this comment won't be read often after 56 minutes.
- edesignweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0you're retarded
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I ain't no frekn Intnet phist bt I cn tel u d'm folks R wrng! Lky 2 gt 2 minITS frm a sUbMission
- Gastrodamus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Digg.com reveals news stories demonstrating hatred for Republicans, Christians, and Windows users never fade
- D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Haha; I get it, a short attention span jo
- lokimon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Get the brooms!
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is