digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Dear Kevin Rose, Please Create a "Who Buried This" Tab

thelittlelog.blogspot.com — It's the only way to make things work for Political Diggers Mr. Rose. We must be able to "Trust but Verify." Bipartisan support of this request is hereby requested.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mrharvey518, on 10/12/2007, -8/+79@ Littlebylittle

    I know that we have and most likely seen eye to eye on political issues, but I truly respect your view that the bury button has far too much emphasis on the sites that hit the front page.

    It is shameful and cowardly to immediately bury stories that conflict with your own political view. I have only buried three stories in my entire digg history, but sadly there are diggers out there that immediately bury stories from sites that they do not like.

    If you do not agree with a story, don't digg it and post a comment stating why. Don't be a coward.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+42Could not agree more.
    • blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -61/+12We digg users aren't trying to quiet others but stop spam. Yes some good people are quieted but usually it's just spammers.
      The bury button keeps this website controlled by users - it's not perfect but it beats letting a minority hijack the site & spam us with propoganda.

    • Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -6/+64"but stop spam"

      When it's against your political beliefs, and you call it spam, that's called "rationalization".
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31"We digg users aren't trying to quiet others but stop spam."

      Why not just leave Spam at 1 Digg and call it spam in the comments?
    • StarBroker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Gee I just found that you can bury items by username. Blackolive I found all your posts are SPAM so guess what??
    • ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wow, this story is doing extremely well, digg it, #1 it, and spread the word!
    • MohammedAlDura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Interesting story from Sept. 2006:
      http://bokardo.com/archives/diggs-design-dilemma/
  • gord, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52Absolutely. Too much burying goes on, of comments as well as stories. It stifles what is otherwise a really good site.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27I'm with ya all the way on that. Post this link in an LGF thread. I'm pretty sure the Lizards would agree with me on this one.

      http://www.digg.com/politics/Dear_Kevin_Rose_Please_Create_a_Who_Buried_This_Tab
    • MohammedAlDura, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31 littlebylittle, while I disagree with you on almost everything -- you're absolutely right about this issue. Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians can see eye-to-eye on somethings.

      We really should have a 'Who Buried This' button? Folks would consider twice before burying knowing that they were no longer anonymous.

      Also, shouldn't a 'bury' count (-1) just as much as a 'digg' counts (+1)?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14mohammedaldura, As long as we're having a very rare "Lovefest" around the burying issue, take a look at the position I took today. It was a pretty big concession for me but I truly mean it. Pardon my French in the comment:

      Terrorists trying to take over the World?
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Terrorists_trying_to_take_over_the_World
      [Caption] Terrorists ultimate aim is to establish "a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia -and it wouldn't stop there," the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, warned yesterday. [End Caption]

      by littlebylittle 4 hours ago
      "OK. If Cheney thinks he's right on this, then here's what he should do: Phucking tell us what it is "You know that we don't," straight up. Then if we're convinced, put the entire effing country's resources behind the effort, the draft and all! Anything less is unacceptable."
    • ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28@ mohammedaldura

      I am almost never in the political sections, yet I completely agree with your point. It seems that 1 bury is worth 10 diggs now, things get buried for no good reason recently...
    • MohammedAlDura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14OK, littlebylittle, I've answered you over in the Terrorists_trying_to_take_over_the_World.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I saw that. Thanks. I agree with 90% of it, except for the draft part. Also, if Bush and Cheney wanted to tell us everything according to "what they know", they could. The MSM would not have a choice.

      I'm a Patriot. If it's really that big of a threat, explain it to us and don't assume we're stupid. If we buy into it, we'll Rock and Roll. Otherwise, they need to shut up. I don't like half-ass.
  • CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43I think burying/digging comments is all right, because a comment, no matter how buried, is still there to see without having to intentionally search for it.

    Stories, though, yeah. No buries.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22"Stories, though, yeah. No buries."

      Or at least Transparency.

      Making My #1 .......
    • sparks2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10I tend to agree.

      I personally do a lot of story burying when I find BS stories but there should definitely be a way to "keep an eye" on it.
    • 5N00PY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I think the "bury" button should be eliminated. Let "lack of votes" take care of the problems of spam, lame, etc.., and if Diggers want to point out "dup" or "wrong topic," they can do it in the comments (they usually do, anyway).

      BTW, is it my imagination, or are there literally gangs of diggers who are creating accounts just for the sake of burying and trolling? It seems like I see so many Digg ID's with no submissions, and few Diggs - but lots of (negative) comments.
    • doubledoh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I would at least like some stats:

      How many buried it as "spam"?
      How many buried it as "Ok, this is lame"
      etc.

      I want to see the numbers.
    • sestalker, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1IF I comment in a story I digg it up all the time! Even if I disagree, I want my voice to be heard in the stories I discuss.
  • CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11This would be an excellent addition.
    I'm sure it has been proposed before, but I'm unsure why it has not been implemented.
    Probably because once one identifies the sources, it might serve to facilitate grudge tactics and create more burying than digging.
    Like this: http://digg.com/politics/Neocons_game_Digg_publicly
    Or....maybe Kevin is the one burying everything himself to keep us digging away with a greater sense of purpose...? ;-)
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Well whatever the case, this post has been buried, 2 hours after being posted.

    I tried.
    • appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Little,
      I totally agree with you on this one. I also agree with Ruff and think it would make the problem worse.
      The solution would be to just eliminate the bury option. A story would make it based on the number of diggs it received. Many good stories go unnoticed because of the site it came from.
    • RadicalRon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Your suggestion, a very good one by the way, runs contrary to Moonbat Theology. It is only *their* "debate" that counts. Anything that runs counter to their hallucinations is the product of Nazis, fascists, or the Bushchimphitler-littlegreenfootballs-Joooish cabal.
  • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I'm all for it. However, I think there may be some unintended consequences that need to be thought about.

    Is the transparency going to actually reduce digging down or increase it? I think probably the latter. Why? Because you'll start to see people look up who Digged down their stories, and get back at them by Digging down all of theirs.

    Will this reduce or increase the animosity between groups on Digg (liveral vs. conservative, Apple vs. MS, PS vs. Wii)? Again I think this is just going to make it worse. Finally, you'll be able to see what's happening behind the scenes.

    The reason I'm for it, is because it will finally expose the players who make it their job to Digg down certain stories right before or after they make it to the front page. I'm convinced that it is a concerted effort going on. It will be nice to know who needs to be tracked down and reported.
    • deesine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The "Bury" button has got to be one of the worst features of this site. It just begs to be abused.

      Is management unaware of this abuse? If they are, then the only I see to help correct the problem is to make it worse. Start burying any post from thinkprogress.org/dailykos/etc.

      This isn't a moral issue. If Mr. Rose & staff are aware of the problem, but feel that in spite of it, they are still catering to their users, then let's all use the "feature". Hey, that's what the button's there for, right?!

      I just buried two stories from thinkprogress.org
  • heidikrist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20The only people who should fear transparency here are those who spend all their time trying to stifle debate--and one has to acknowledge that most of those folks are lefties burying stories submitted by anyone else. I do not bury stories that conflict with my point of view: instead, I IGNORE them and focus on Digging those with which I agree (the name of the site is Digg, after all, not Bury).
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I don't know who does it most and I don't care. Ruff said it very well: "The reason I'm for it, is because it will finally expose the players who make it their job to Digg down certain stories right before or after they make it to the front page. I'm convinced that it is a concerted effort going on. It will be nice to know who needs to be tracked down and reported." It happens the most with Political Stories for sure, left and right.

      I can't imagine who would have buried this post so quickly.
    • BottledSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Amen, I agree whole heartedly
    • RadicalRon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Good on ya!
  • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Since this post is buried, there's only one thing to do for those of us who REALLY feel strongly about this.

    Mark as my #1 -- And staying that way.

    No disrespect to you Digg. We all obviously like Digg a lot.
  • tredglx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Burying stories is a cowardly attempt to beat down opposition to your own beliefs. If you don't like the story - ignore it. Others may want to decide for themselves if they want to read it or not.

    We're all bigger than this, regardless of which side of the issue you're on. Play fair or don't play at all.
    • RadicalRon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Such mishegas, suggesting that people possess the ability to think for themselves.


      /obvious sarc
    • SixJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well said. Play fair or don't play at all...
  • Highrise1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I agree with not burying stories..but I do agree with burying comments.

    And Oh, it is not even logical to not show who is burying what. What is the reason behind that?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"And Oh, it is not even logical to not show who is burying what. What is the reason behind that?"

      I think it would cause people to police themselves better regarding burying.
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10a set number of "burials" per person, in a 24 hour day, might work. lately I am more in the habit of thumbs up, or just let it be.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Talking about the "bury" "feature" for articles, not the red/green thumb buttons for comments.
  • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I don't think knowing who buries stories is all that interesting... perhaps it is for folks that use digg more 'competitively' or commercially. The problem is not that Digg is lacking for entries or that burying an entry is somehow underhanded or unfair or sneaky; The problem is that many entries are abusive in some way to the Digg community.

    Personally I find myself burying stories more frequently than I did before for the simple matter that the headline, the comment line, or the story (or too often all three) are so distorted they are no longer factual but merely serve as an excuse to hurl insults and denigrate certain people, races, or religions. I also think there are a couple of communities deliberately flooding digg with news 'stories' which are distorted to be celebratory in the misfortune and misery of others.

    Another issue is the people who do not contribute comments to Digg but simply mirror their blog posts to digg. In my mind these are simply spam and I mark all of them so.

    So as far as I'm concerned these sorts of stories are abusive to the Digg community and should be buried, and I will continue to bury them when I come across them; but like I said I'm not in this for the money or to make sure my employer gets elected.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Like I said I'm not in this for the money or to make sure my employer gets elected."

      For the record, neither am I. Politics and religion have been favorite topics of mine my entire life. What a combo huh?

      As far as the blog thing, sometimes I want to discuss an issue, like this one, but have no other way to do it except to post my thoughts from my simple little blog. I have no ads on my little Digg Blog and I never will.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Oh and I love to write and I love satire. Probably like most of you, left or right.

      And I like puppies and kitties and ...... jk.
    • RadicalRon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7So, you're claiming to be a superior being.

      Interesting.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Not sure who you're referring to, but if me, no. I'm no superior being. I generate plenty of wealth for myself. Digg is where I express passions unencumbered by economics or having to be PC. Digg is one therapy for me.
    • RadicalRon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@littlebylittle

      It wasn't directed at you. Actually, I was responding to something upstream and clicked on the wrong reply link. :-0
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That's cool.

      BTW. "Wealth" is much more than just $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

      ;>)
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4""Wealth" is much more than just $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"

      ...... Philosophically Speaking
    • mazdagirluk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am a big fan of burying blog spam. I am a big fan of burying items that are incorrect, even though these do not happen often. And no, this is not "my" definition of incorrect - but things that are blatantly incorrect where there are several posts showing the flaws.

      Also, I want the ability to hide stories from my view that I think are lame. Wastes of posts as far as I am concerned. If others want to digg it up, fine, no problem. "Then just don't digg it" you are thinking, well I think a right to say "OK, this is lame" is just as important as a digg. I see removing a bury option as a limit to free speech and a limit to the community of digg. Just because the option is there does not mean everyone uses it - but they have that option to use it. People may "not digg" a story because they don't like it OR they haven't viewed it. I want people to share their options - positive, neutral, or negative.

      If Digg makes a bury tab, awesome. I would like people to know blog spam is not cool in my book. I don't feel the need to post for the forum every time I digg a story or every time I bury one. I just worry for those of you who are so anti-bury that your hate for that system would lead to harassment of other community members that appear on the bury. Should digg have a "enemy" option to balance the "friend" option then? Lame.
    • jukin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope that you do not get control of the government or the First Amendment is out the door.
  • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Diggers like Digg "records." I think we should set a new Digg record for the most Diggs ever after a story has already been buried.

    Don't forget about this issue with the 24 Hour News Cycle Political Diggers. If it's important to you spread the word and keep Digging it up.
  • OggVorbis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I suggested this on a different thread, but here it is again: If you don't want to completely eliminate the story bury button, ration burys to x per day per account. That'll keep the self-appointed police from burying indiscriminately.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which seems to be a very good idea.

      I for one don't want to know who buries what. I very much have a liberal bias but that's not why I bury something down. I bury things down when a google search shows data to be slanted or misrepresented or just wrong. Then it usually gets a "this is lame." Not to say I bury many stories but I have buried some.

      I've also dugg articles from traditionally conservative blogs such as lewrockwell and the von misses institute. It's not about silencing an alternative view for me because I come to digg.com to discuss ideas I don't need to agree with everybody but I do try to listen
      .
      My concern is with vigilantism. There are many polarizing issues posted here. Get the wrong person to become offended and It's not a leap that a dns attack, spam attack or physical assault could occur.

      Digg is about it's user base if enough people are interested in an article it will get to the front page regardless of those who bury it. IMO if you have to concern yourself with who's burring an article you might also have to consider the value of the content of the article and if the content can't stand the scrutiny of the process maybe it's not of interest to users. Now if specific users or groups of users are consistently burying other specific users than that can be addressed by a change in the engine that runs the site.


  • NoamSayin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The "bury" button must go. What Digg is, is an excellent online representation of the free marketplace of ideas - the core of freedom of speech. Having an ability to limit someone's freedom of speech with just the click of a button just doesn't make sense, and provides only for the "exclusive" their speech and not the "inclusive" our speech.

    Noam sayin?
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Personally I find myself burying stories more frequently than I did before for the simple matter that the headline, the comment line, or the story (or too often all three) are so distorted they are no longer factual but merely serve as an excuse to hurl insults and denigrate certain people, races, or religions."

    Bhima, that's a fairly large umbrella you're sporting. I sincerely doubt that your value judgments are as accommodating as most, and that being the case you are probably not being equitable. Using your criteria I could bury any story that didn't suit my ideological tastes and pose the exercise as a legitimately practical necessity. I see your 'open-mindedness' as being very close-minded.

    Perhaps an alternative to mindsets such as Bhima's is for someone to take the initiative to construct a competing site that approaches information filtering with an entirely different paradigm...
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Bhima recently posted that he would have littlegreenfootball users jailed.
      How's _that_ for open-minded?
  • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Hmm. Is it possible to Digg a buried story out of burial on Digg?
    • 5N00PY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes - I've seen it happen. I can't think of the specific example of a story this happened to, right now, unfortunately, but it was one of the LGF articles.
  • PRCalDude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Liberals,

    If you don't like a story or column, please rebut it with EVIDENCE instead of burying the story. Are you even capable of this?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Now Now PRC, this is a Bipartisan concern. We're being nice to each other on this thread.
    • horsedreamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2PRC, that is rude and unnecessary. I have not seen anyone degrade a group up to this point in the discussion. Liberals, Conservatives, Christians, atheists, nudists, flautists, secretaries, and lifeguards alike are concerned with this issue. Aiming the blame at one group is neither fair nor productive.
  • adiggida, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think I have the solution. Transparency on diggs and buries. Let the default site setting be for +diggs, but allow users to change to diggs minus buries. Ok, maybe it would be fun to have a spam bury, too, so as to separate "I thought this was misrepresentative" or "I don't like their politics" from outright spam. But then I guess there would have to be policing of spam-bury abusers. The best solution is not to bury, or to limit burying. I will simply add this: people that are burying over politics are cheesy effs.

    Please add two cents over the mechanics of this for solution, maybe one will become the new way of Digg.
  • NoamSayin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Littlebylittle, are you getting any traction with this story in the front-office? I'm curious to know if anyone in charge has responded.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think the more Diggs this post gets, the more traction it will have. I'd like to see it back out on the homepage, but I doubt Digg does that.

      I'm sure Digg is interested in User Opinion. We all really like Digg, or we wouldn't even bother.

      Of course it is Digg's site. Obviously it's their call.

      Noam Sane? ;)
    • NoamSayin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes. Reasonably sane.

      Good luck.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4HaHa Actually I was shortening up "saying" even further for humor's sake (because I think your user name is funny).

      Do you know what I'm saying? = Nome Sane?
    • NoamSayin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I figured as much. But I saw a target of opportunity in the humor.
    • 5N00PY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Have you e-mailed this to feedback@digg.com?

      I did.

      Maybe if enough people do that, it'll get someone's attention...who knows?
  • pierrelegrand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8One man's propaganda is another man's news story...why not let the story fly and if it doesnt get positive votes it dies?
  • NomadOfNorad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm all for placing a daily per-user limit on the number of Buries, and would welcome having a Who Burried This tab as standard.
  • NomadOfNorad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hmmmmmmmm......

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Mob_Rule_at_Digg

    Hmmmmmmmm......

    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4OMG. Hilarious! Well, I've never accused the Lizards of being timid.

      I Love It.
  • genwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe the Buries should be able to be reversed - if a story is attracting a lot of concerted bury activity on account of offending someones politics rather than because it is genuinely unimportant, then that very activity should really count as diggs. If you had a transparent and accountable bury system, and maybe even a set of moderators who check stuff that attracts bury activity that meets a certain threshold (gets on the front page and is then buried in a blizzard) stuff that is buried by partisan activity can be reversed - people might be a bit more circumspect with buries if they knew moderators were prepared to transform buries into diggs when obviously partisan.
  • Banner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I agree that the bury feature should be removed. I've seen A LOT of people say that they are burying an article because of their personal beliefs. To be honest it makes me want to go out to the front page and bury every left leaning political article I see. And trust me, if the Bury command isn't removed soon, that will be happening by BOTH sides eventually.

    I'm pretty sure the owner of this site leans to the left, otherwise this problem would be getting dealt with already. But right now it's going his way, so it hasn't risen to the point of his awareness (not being critical really, we're all blind to our own biases). Once the people from LGF and other sites start to retaliate however, well then hopefully he'll realize the bury button is a bad idea and just dump it.

    To be honest, I think a site that ONLY had a digg button would be a far more interesting idea. After all, if something that really is spam gets enough diggs to make it to the front page, isn't that telling us something about ourselves?

    Ban the Bury!!
  • NoamSayin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Posted this at the "Mob Rule at Digg" thread over at LGF:

    So why are we doing this? I’m going to give you a dramatic example of this in just a moment, but the reason we’re doing this is to get at the truth. One can lay down lofty paradigms about the truth: the truth will set you free, the truth is the path to enlightenment, whatever your ideology may be, there’s not doubt something about truth in it.

    For my part, the truth will make a difference, and anything other than the truth is a distraction from the mere to the tragic; and anything in between.

    On September 11, 2001, 19 Muslim men high-jacked four airplanes.

    This has happened before. It will likely happen again. In the past, the high-jackers would make some demands; money, more fuel, safe passage to a country of their choice and perhaps the release of political prisoners who shared their ideology.

    To show they were serious, a passenger would be executed; the body dumped on the tarmac. This also helped to keep the other passengers compliant, lest they be next. Sometimes a rescue would be attempted. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not, or somewhere in between. Sometimes the high-jackers would be caught or killed and the situation would be over, and forgotten after time.

    So when 19 Muslim men high-jacked four airplanes on September 11th, no doubt the passengers believed they stood a good chance of getting through it alive if they just remained in their seats and didn’t cause any trouble. The first two planes were flown into the World Trade Center; the third into the Pentagon. Meanwhile, the fourth plan eventually turned back to the East Coast toward its intended target: Congress, the Senate, the White House; not sure.

    In this delay between the first three attacks and the potential last, the passengers began calling their loved ones to say, “Goodbye,” and learned that there had been other high-jackings, and those planes were used as missiles in New York and Washington.

    However tragically, they discovered the truth, and decided to do something about it.

    They made a difference.
  • Karridine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg yes or Digg no... the problem this thread examines is "overprogramming one's inputs"... filtering reality to remove anything (ANYTHING!) I deem unpleasant, obnoxious, disturbing, wrong, inaccurate... UNPLEASANT!

    And here at Digg! a minority of zealous people can filter and "overprogram" the inputs for the rest of us. We ALL suffer, we are all made smaller by this imposed lessening of input for our intellectual powers! Elitism at its worst, saying "We KNOW you are incapable of digesting THIS on your own, so WE WILL BURY IT!"

    And the adolescent cries of 'Neener-neener!' echo faintly at Digg!
  • amerpun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I completely agree. If you don't agree with the posting, because of political beliefs, don't automatically bury it. People see Diggs from sites that contradict their political views, and immediately bury it. Try commenting.
    • LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's hard to do when comments get buried because others don't like them. You can't have it both ways by demanding fairness on the articles but then go hog-wild burying any comment that you don't like.
  • zgystardst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The current system essentially ranks posts by diggs - buries, Perhaps another way to combat this would be to be able to sort topics by diggs only or by buries only.
  • vanderleun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And there we have an example of the problem in real time. Actions that can be taken online without accountability will always, sooner or later, be used for less than honorable reasons. It is the nature of the online human being, right left or beyond the moon.
  • anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i suppose i should take the time to read all these comments....or not.

    here's my two cents: nobody knows the exact algorithms/weight that digg gives to user actions. it's probably not exactly 'one man one vote', but more likely weighted in some way. possibly on changing scales.

    i think the 'easy' solution in some ways might be this: once a story reaches the front page, the weight should become 60/40 - every actuall digg of an article should be worth 60%, and every bury should be worth 40%. does that make sense? so it would take a higher proportion of buries to actually bury an article once it reaches the front page.

    or not.
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wow. You really took a strong position there.
  • anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2or alternatively, now that i think of it - maybe an article should be *immune* from being dugg off the front page, once it reached the front page. if an article has scraped and clawed its way out of the mudpit of upcoming articles, maybe it should simply wear the crown of the frontpage for as long as new articles don't bump it off.
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Position getting a little more discernible .....
  • BattleOnHamish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hear, hear!
  • LGFAlbatross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Heh...hate to break it to you Blackolive, but who you calling a minority and exactly how is it you deem users qualified to identify and squelch propaganda? You all got a manifesto round here some where stating plainly exactly who's agenda it is the digger community is touting?

    Spam never killed anyone... but ignorance has.
  • ponzudigital, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would also like to see some weight given (or taken away from) groups of people who coordinate digging multiple stories. There has been a lot of that going on and it's creating a nasty problem. This site is increasingly being ruled by groups with agendas.
  • Reaganomicon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Keep whining, Lizardoids.
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well....

    Stories from the left and the right are still being buried, including mine.

    I view this as a massive flaw with Digg.
    • smokeybehr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Not only are stories being buried, but comments are being deleted. I've posted comments in 2 different articles this morning, then I go back and read the follow-ups, only to find that my comment has completely disappeared.
  • NickRuisi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's the only responsible thing to do in a social model like this.
  • Globby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm burying this thread just to show how lame the bury system is.
  • advfs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A couple of suggestions:

    1. Post who buried a story (another tab)
    2. Require that an account wait 30 seconds (or some other SHORT amount) after burying to bury something else.
    3. Require an explanation that is visible on the bury tab (users who abuse this could be reported).
    4. Decrement the weight of bury by users who abuse the bury privilege (or users who are continuously burying thing). This could mean that after a user has been identified for burying each bury is only worth .5 of a normal bury, etc.
  • blogagog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Another idea might be to allow each of us to to choose to ignore buries made by certain people. That way, over time we might find out who buries articles they don't agree with as 'spam' or 'inaccurate' would not affect our personal viewing pleasure.

    Of course giving each person their own personalized # of diggs/buries/main pages might be too cpu intensive to work.
  • Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This story also got buried that had nearly 2000 diggs!
    http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell
  • LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Perhaps if you ceased spouting such incredibly venomous rhetoric with respect to you political submissions your articles wouldn't get buried so much. Your recent posts have been balanced, I'll admit; but go back in your submission history particularly with any submission that was anti-Bush and it's pretty clear that you were either just spouting venom or trying to incite a flamefest. I have no doubt that's why you were the recipient of so many buries.

    A "social" site is about being social with EVERYONE, not just your own clique who happens to believe what you believe. And if someone disagrees you talk about it amicably. Some of your past submissions came with personal statements that were anything but amicable -- then you get outraged when you're buried?
  • andrewpmk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We need a "Digg" category on Digg.
  • jonathan70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Nikita Khrushchev declared, "we will bury you," and his sniveling little commie moonbat admirers are doing just that.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.