What is Digg?68 Comments
- Goodanswer, on 10/13/2008, -2/+39Ive been here for a little while. I keep pretty much to myself. No shouts, no Friends, i do get lots of Fans and digg on the articles I find interesting just like the rest of you. I dont submit articles because anything of interest I find is usually a day late and already posted 30 times in different ways. However, I have noticed a serious problem on this site. The explanation of how things get to the front page has always left questions in my mind. I have seen really great articles and moving topics get sidelined time and time again while ***** "flies" to the top with bogus diggs. Exactly how can you hit the front page with over 200 diggs in less than 10 min since it was posted with just 2-4 comments? I find that questionable, while Super articles of substance and character have a lot more diggs and way more comments are shuffled to the mediocre pile off to the side.
I dont understand the script TOS ban. I thought it might make it a better site for the diggers to find out who is diggin the story but then the recommended section came along and took over. That sounds like control. I dont like that. I dont like people who think they have control because if your wise enough you will find out you never will have control. What ever, this is just my ramblings so someone explaine it me please.
Peace~ - kellfinder, on 10/12/2008, -5/+41Very enlightening and informative. This answered so many questions that I had about Digg.
- OfNumbers, on 10/12/2008, -4/+26You gonna get raped!
- glibpaxman, on 10/13/2008, -2/+21im still trying to figure out how digg "really" works. and of course how it doesnt. thanks.
- rebelcommander, on 10/13/2008, -1/+14I'm not sure how the author *knows* Google didn't buy digg because it's not 100% algorithm based yet he admits that this fact is not "on blogs or anywhere"...
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -2/+13Sounds like a lot of people were using Social Steroids while they were on Digg.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/13/2008, -1/+11This isn't that bad, but I have to take issue with dispensing advice about getting to the front page that includes: "Ok, here are the top websites." It should be said that people leeching off the submissions from whitelisted websites is a BAD thing. I don't care about making stories that come from the obvious websites popular. That's for lameos. The only thing it's good for is enhancing one's eEgo.
- stevan2002, on 10/13/2008, -3/+11Why did I find this so funny?
- noupsell, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." While formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1968 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter, the principle has real validity. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain. Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
- kawaiirobo, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7Am I the only one that thinks digg is getting way too complicated? I really think friends, shouts, and the complicated logarithm need to be ditched, then stories would hit the front page when people actually liked the story, not from blind digging and system gaming.
- oblique63, on 10/13/2008, -2/+9I gotta say, I am somewhat amazed this hit the front page...
- doom777, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8i buried you twice because you have the word "digg" twice
- 55mph, on 10/13/2008, -0/+6if i digg this story, will i end up on digg's terrorist watch list?
- Jeepy, on 10/13/2008, -1/+7The first 10 paragraphs totally ruin the whole article. May I suggest removing them and leaving the information that doesn't make you sound like a bitter ***** pseudo google exec. Everyone that got banned had diggs in the 5-9k range so it wasn't exactly a mystery to us normal diggers. The site isn't suffering and its just as nice as it was four months ago.
The information about how digg works is actually interesting too bad I had to go through a visual teabagging before I got to anything worth reading. - hollywoodphony, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6What this article and most of the commenters here are forgetting is that Digg wasn't created so that 100 people could devote 15 hours a day to pushing the content they find to the front page. It was created for the thousands of people who use the site to find new articles to read while they're at work.
- Redlobo, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7I saw this article on the front page at 4:31 am on Monday, Oct 13, 2008. Just wanted you to know that your domain is not blacklisted. You must be the new Valleywag reporter.
- Protoss, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5I love the recommended feature mainly because I never visited the Upcoming section of the site due to the shear amount of crap/spam that started getting submitted. Back when Digg was on I think it was v2, the first redesign, I was able to sit in class and just surf the Upcoming section and digg the articles before it hit the frontpage.
The site's become super popular, and the Recommended feature really helps in using those numbers. - fuzzymuzzy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Anything to do with digg is an instant front page, lets face it we love ourselves
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4The TOS and filters on digg are designed so, that only the quality content goes through to the front page like: "The River Looks Like Big S!!!" or "Epic Failure!! The Biker Gets Owned By Ramp!!!"
- Protoss, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5I doubt most of what he said is true. It's all guessing. He was here for 6 months, and somehow cracked the code of Digg? He used a bot, got banned, got angry and wrote up some quaso-intellectual article on 'the magic of digg'.
- Chompy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Agreed. I had no idea some people take this site so seriously. All of this research, running scripts, gaming the system.. I have a feeling that Digg is better off without people like this, and that these people are better off without Digg.
It'd be nice to see a return to Digg as it was in 2005, when an average Joe could submit an interesting link/story and have a chance at the front page. Nowadays you have to use all of these tricks and techniques and shouts and other nonsense to get something there. It excludes the casual user who just wants to share something cool, and it favors the folks with an agenda. - kawaiirobo, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5You know what would make digg great, if people chose what stories were popular based on if they liked it or not. You could even let people 'digg' stories that they read and like, and the ones that more people liked would be on the front page. That would make for one awesome site.
- Foenetik, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5I feel the same way for at least 80% of the garbage propagating here lately.
- mufasa, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6For some reason the word MrBabyMan comes to mind.
- oblique63, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3yeah, I'm a bit disappointed at the fact that I came too late to enjoy digg back when it was a real Tech site...
- Pixelante, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5Been wastin' most their lives trolling in the diggsta's paradise.
- lofi4life, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5Yawn
- zerosixtyseven, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4I dont understand smth about power users and I never bothered to read the faq. Do they get paid to reach those [scripted] numbers online or is it just a mere illusion of feeling popular [online]?
- SSPink, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4"Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant Scripts, Cracked Lists, and How Digg Got Bigg"
- OwlFlavored, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I may be ignorant, but I have an honest question: what is the advantage of getting YOUR submission of a story to the front page? You're not making any money doing so... is it really for an anonymous popularity contest? That seems pretty sad. I could see people who have MASSIVE influence pulling in revenue from less popular sites that might not otherwise be seen in the huge amount of advertising they're getting, but are the power diggers really doing it JUST for attention? Please help me understand this.
- geekchic, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4I'm not - I have often seen stories which are negative about Digg hit the front page.
If anything, it shows that the conspiracy theory he espouses is complete bunkum. - theodenking, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3It's very easy if you ask me: remove the friends system. That seems to be the source of most of digg's problems recently.
- mbonzo531, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3The need for using bots needs to be banned, not the people using them. Similar to how smart video game companies put out GOOD content that the consumer wants to buy and support, instead of threatening all their customers with DRM, Digg should take away the asskissing and spamming necessary through excessive friending and shouting to get to the front page. If you take away the global shout and the submitters name on articles in upcoming, then i think the majority of the problems will be solved.
- quomen, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3You did? I didn't.
- chadell, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2I'm a Digger for life.
- vinceislegend, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2...I take a look at my life, and decide to do a jig
- gospe1337, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2It's sad that Digg has such level of moderation. Even the social aspects are obsessively conducive to script usage due to the surreal amount of digging/shouting/popular website lurking that is needed to be successful.
I knew they whitelisted domains, but I didn't realize there was this much moderation. Getting content to the FP should be about a mix of randomness and good content. Not even worth it to try. - LDubs48, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2I agree, very, very enlightening article, but it's sort of sad that a site like this has that much political BS involved. I use this site, and other sites like it to get away from real world BS, but low and behold here it is;very very interesting!
- NoozeHound, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Banned diggers with lists of mutual diggers shouting the ones that didn't get banned to digg their bloggs. Hardly a mystery but a great way to show how ***** Digg is due to the shout system and the white domains. Ars Technica are celarly throwing alto of money around right now.
- dezweber, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3"love to digg but have become so afraid of the recent unexplained bannings that they are simply afraid to play on Digg’s Social Media Bookmarking site because the Fear the Ban Hammer falling on them too"
Isn't it better to have dugg and lost, than never to have dugg at all? - inactive, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1i bury u for not making any ***** sense
- pault107, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1I'm a DWA.
- jdibiase, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Is that what's happening at digg?
- razorsedge555, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Because docking is always good for a laugh. Space docking not so much.
- cragga, on 10/13/2008, -4/+5waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh
(for the uneducated, that's the sound of whining) - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1And so did Techcrunch, etc., back in the day.
- MikeKing1, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Good tips with a bit of background to understand more about how digg actually works. Especially useful for beginners in digg.
- NoozeHound, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Not even worth it to try.
I'm feeling this more and more. That's what the gaming is achieving. I wonder if that's what Digg want - a closed community of high-profile diggers circle-jerking? - NinjaPirateDude, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4simple. i wash your back you wash mine.
- inditech, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1To be honest? He should have just bought a go-kart
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is