What is Digg?158 Comments
- kevinrose, on 11/12/2007, -22/+500Thanks for the post. Big changes coming soon...
- blitzer, on 11/09/2007, -4/+151In an ironic twist.. this blogger likely got his friends to digg this article up the list.
- HunterTV, on 11/12/2007, -9/+152Dugg up for Kevin's politeness.
"Dude, you site ***** SUCKS! FIX IT!"
"I will do that. Thank you for your input and have a most excellent day. Best regards, Kevin." - blitzer, on 11/12/2007, -4/+104What about a profile based ongoing point system so I can be recognized for my consistently brilliant comments...
- meman2, on 11/12/2007, -7/+96Do those changes have to do with this rumor:
"Digg is close to announcing its sale to a major media player for $300 million to $400 million, according to sources close to the company.":
http://valleywag.com/tech/rumormonger/digg-close-t ... - Okari, on 11/12/2007, -6/+60Pic section and comments now. Wasn't the pic section supposed to be up in Oct?
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -4/+45"lets just hope that it doesn't get screwed up and forget its roots."
You haven't been here long, have you? - lolhax, on 11/12/2007, -3/+44Please make a seperate category for Ron Paul articles. Thanks.
- ricree, on 11/12/2007, -0/+41Something tells me that he probably wouldn't be able to talk about it if it were true.
- ophello, on 11/12/2007, -1/+32Furthermore, spam that gets buried upon being spotlighted should have a lower chance of being spotlighted a second time.
- Harbinger67, on 11/12/2007, -1/+29If he did sell it, I wouldn't blame him at all. Hell, if I were in his shoes and someone offered me 300 mill for a website, I'd take it in a heartbeat. He'd be an idiot not to and you know it.
- meman2, on 11/08/2007, -3/+30maybe, but that's how the system works for nearly all promoted stories and it's the point the guy is trying to make.
- ch33sehead, on 11/12/2007, -2/+28If only the comments section could be changed so that diggers can't see how many diggs/digg downs a comment received until he/she voted. That way, people won't be influenced by the comment's current ratings when voting. How many times have we seen a really inaccurate or stupid comment get dugg up or really good/insightful comment get dugg down because people just go with the flock?
- JMArchilla, on 11/08/2007, -1/+26Things only get better with constructive criticism, looking forward to the changes.
- Nerfdude, on 11/12/2007, -1/+25$300 million... that's a lot of organic vegetables and VW Golfs.
- vwvan, on 11/09/2007, -2/+25people with large networks of co-diggers get their stories dugg. others don't.
the usual corruption ensues. - gotamd, on 11/08/2007, -1/+24That's an interesting idea. I remember back in the good old days™ when it was possible to actually use the upcoming stories section to find a decent number of worthwhile stories to digg. I haven't tried it recently, but I stopped doing it a while ago after I found myself flipping through pages and pages of junk. I don't know if this idea will fix the problem or not (I doubt it will because the majority of stories submitted to Digg are still crap and the good ones wouldn't get a lot of exposure in this system anyway). If I was Digg, I would figure out a way to look at a digger's history and friends and intelligently present stories that the user has a high probability of finding interesting.
- TenebrousX, on 11/09/2007, -6/+25What makes you think it needs to be sold to forget its roots? HD-DVD key, anyone?
- indyGuy, on 11/08/2007, -2/+20I'd drop a box in the right column with upcoming stories. I don't want newly submitted content mixed in with the true front page content.
Maybe then refresh that list every few minutes with a new batch of stories. That way several new (or upcoming) stories get exposure on the front (and other) pages. - olaph, on 11/09/2007, -4/+22good post looking forward to the changes
- JT114881, on 11/08/2007, -0/+15All of your comments suck
- stacky, on 11/10/2007, -5/+20Would you like to be a little more demanding? It's not like you pay anything to use digg, stop whining.
- shacknasty, on 11/08/2007, -4/+19There is also one other critical flaw in the way the comments work - human nature. Have you ever heard the theory that if something is suggested (eg a place to go) to a group of people, generally everyone will do what the first person to respond says.
I see this happen all the time with comments - if someone gets dugg down, then there is a flood of other people who will do the same, regardless of the content of the comment. The very same comment could get a flood of diggs in the other direction, if the first person simply made the other choice.
Im not too sure on a way around this, but possibly something where the positive or negative status of a comment is invisible until you personally digg it, or an algorithm to take human nature into account when ranking comments (yeah right...). - inactive, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15But in the last year things have only gotten worse.
- dunderballer, on 11/08/2007, -1/+13It would be a good idea if there was a way to give different users different random "1 digg" stories on the popular page and then have those move to the "Upcoming Top 10"queues if and when they get enough diggs from limited number of diggers it is made popular to.
- Elranzer, on 11/12/2007, -2/+12Just as long as it's not sold to NewsCorp. Any rumor of that, and to /dev/null goes my personal data here.
- OswaldKenobi, on 11/09/2007, -1/+11The article fails to mention the true failure of digg. Too much opinion. I have seen numerous stories and comments dugg down simply because a mob disagrees with the content, despite being well thought out and articulated. This happens in politics section (something I think digg would do well to remove) where a comment or story is dugg down or up solely through mob mentality, not the quality of the content.
I have to say that I am less enthusiastic about visiting digg now than when it first started. I guess I keep hoping it will die and be reborn with more intelligent, less opinionated groupies. - theone3, on 11/09/2007, -2/+12For the noobs; Digg forgot its roots when it implemented this damn comment rating system (+- x diggs), which led to all the good discussion and fact checking being replaced with funny quips and pandering. It got worse with the introduction of 3.0, which introduced politics and furry animals and hordes of 13 year olds with four second attention spans and Paulites. Now it's turned from an amicable community site with common technology interests to a blithering racket of attention seeking, always overblown and often incorrect stories about US politics and bunnies. http://www.drivl.com/posts/view/731
- matc, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12I don't comment a lot (2nd comment ever), but I totally agree with this. Digg has been on a steady decline, due to the increasingly polluted level of content quality. Lets hope they get over themselves and take this suggestion seriously.
- ricree, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9Yeah, but novelty takes all of a few minutes to wear off. I'm still around because the site continues to give me consistently interesting content. It certainly has issues, but all in all the site is fairly decent.
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -0/+9Spotlighting spam would just get it buried that much faster, and spammers would get put on a lot of block lists. Give it a month or so and most Digg users wouldn't have to deal with much spam.
- mlostracco, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9It would be even better if they would just deal with the colossal spam problem in the Upcoming Stories section, which has been rendered useless by pitches for cleaning services and porn sites.
I mean, filters exist and IPs can be banned. Jeesh. - quaxon, on 11/12/2007, -5/+12i think it would be nice if for the upcomming section, every article submitted in the ladst 48 or so hours gets bumped to the top with each new digg. kinda how on message boards the thread with the most recent post is at the top. it would be a nice way to filter through all the spam and get good stories noticed,
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Why? There is no reason to have people vote based solely on who submitted a story. I am sure you are probably trying to get at that the top users won't play the game if they can't win it. Who the ***** cares. The stories that are actually WORTH reading will still be submitted by people who do not have some pathetic need to "win" a website. Even the GOOD submissionsfrom top users are not exactly unique. Someone will submit the exact same story.
You can still have top Diggers. Just have it be kept secret until a weekly list of top users comes out.
It would not hurt the site one bit if everything was anonymous. And it would help it a lot. - DeathfireD, on 11/09/2007, -0/+7ya but wouldn't you still be seeing spam more often then you would if you just went into upcoming and hit sort by most popular? Somehow I don't like the idea of seeing thousands of Ron Paul, porn news, and blog spam showing up on the front page. Although the idea is great, it would only be usefully if everyone was "playing nice" with the digg system.
- scribby, on 11/12/2007, -2/+8Dugg for hilarity!
- obliviousfool, on 11/09/2007, -1/+7This idea would be cool if there was some way to filter obvious spam stories out of the "upcoming spotlight" slots. I mean, the upcoming stories are hard to slog through because of all the obvious spam. Spotlighting those on the front page wouldn't make much sense at all!
- marc2242, on 11/08/2007, -4/+10Agree, it needs some improvement.
- TnTBass, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6I'm not sure if I dugg you up because you had a good point, or if I were following the sheep...
- 4degrees, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6not only did you mistakenly digg someone down you also missed the reply button.
- meman2, on 11/10/2007, -0/+6Hey retard: it was a mockup, an example showing placement of the idea. As the other 50+ people agreed above, this is a real problem at Digg because there are too many stories in upcoming to ever have a chance of being organically dugg. The only way stories are being promoted is via friends, power users, shout outs, IM, etc, not people hanging out in upcoming, which was the original intent of the site.
- unruled, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6"In essense, Digg is a simple popularity contest."
yeah, it sucks :/ I hope they do fix it
its always the same submitters too nowadays - bruenig, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5It can just be randomized seeing as each page is dynamic anyways.
- nreynolds, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5not if you don't use the reply button.
- Bilabrin, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5I smell murdoch...
- Elranzer, on 11/08/2007, -2/+7You mean Hillarity
- uploadjoe, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6I agree 100% upcoming articles need to be some how displayed in a more accessible manner.
I am not sure there is any "perfect" way to organize so much data, but this suggestion is definitely a good start. - juicebag, on 11/09/2007, -2/+7That would be trouble. Digg users hate mainstream media.
- MalDON, on 11/09/2007, -7/+11You've been saying that for months now.
- sb76117, on 11/08/2007, -3/+7holy ***** kevin rose posted.
heres a thought, friends' diggs should be "worth" less. in affect, the more non-friends vote, the faster it shows on the front page.
and another change, how about allowing me to set my upcoming section to sort by most diggs by default? so i dont have to drop-down list and change it manually or maybe im blind and missed that option.
and please dont go all myspace and sell digg to rupert murdoch. -
Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is