What is Digg?154 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+55Let's not assume that it's the Obama supporters who are burying Ron Paul articles. Though it would be interesting to see who the culprits are composed of. My guess would be the neocons...
- nate5182, on 10/12/2007, -24/+65Who's Ron Paul?
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40"Yet, Ron Paul has fewer supporters on Digg! How can this be statistically possible?
The answer, of course, is that it is not statistically possible"
It is very statistically possible given the harder core fanbase that underdogs are prone to have. Ron Paul is more likely to have dedicated Diggers digging all of his fewer stories than Obama fans are to digg his many more stories. It's comparible to Apple fans digging every little feature about the iPhone while a MS releasing a whole new OS may actually get less diggs. - motbob, on 10/12/2007, -26/+64
Listen, the reason that Ron Paul supporters are accused of spamming Digg is because of this: http://www.yourfreepoll.com/xzwsmxqnsp.html
There are 5-6 times as many Obama supporters than Ron Paul supporters! Yet, there are only 6 less front page stories about Sen. Paul than about Sen. Obama.
Also, take a look at the submitted-to-front-page ratio: one in only 52 stories about Obama make it to the front page. Compare that with 1 in 11 for Ron Paul. Yet, Ron Paul has fewer supporters on Digg! How can this be statistically possible?
The answer, of course, is that it is not statistically possible. Ron Paul's supporters are systematically getting their stories to the front page through a friend system, and not by the normal Digg democratic process. The data backs my conclusion up. So, thank you, Mr. Submitter, who just happens to be a Ron Paul supporter (check his dugg record.) You just made my argument a lot easier to make. - tekrat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38I admit it; I've buried a few of Ron Paul stories myself. Of course I voted against them, mainly because the stories were completely redundant or pure propagandist tripe. You can see only so many border stories that are just blog copies of an original article, kind like the Blood Diamond stories from a couple of weeks ago.
I did vote for the original and factual Ron Paul stories, not the ones that claim he was the second coming or Ronald Reagan. Call me a neocon if you must, but I believe I'm not a neocon. I actually believe in shrinking the government, not growing it through unconditional spending. - Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35This is the first time I've ever heard of Ron Paul.
- 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30I refuse to get worked up over ANY of this until fall 07, at the earliest. I mean, sure, it's important stuff whenever you talk about it, but it is just too early to do anything other than bias yoursef early on.
- musicbaker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30A large number of Ron Paul articles exist for submission because Ron Paul writes frequently and gives speeches before congress full of memebers who often don't bother to show up. His writing is knowledgable and expresses genuine concern and insight into the problems facing this country and his speeches are thorough and compelling. When compared to the typical party line soundbites we get from other candidates ("I am a God-loving patriot who supports the troops and will protect you from the boogey man and cut taxes" versus "I'll steal from the rich and give to the poor because it's their right to have everything the rich have, and I'll let you have an abortion" or the meaningless sensationalized gossip surrounding personal attacks) Ron Paul's in-depth speeches and article are refreshing as is his lone opposition to the ever expanding role of government in our lives. This is why so many Ron Paul articles are submitted. It's not some conspiracy or spam, there are simply a wealth of thought-provoking Ron Paul articles and speeches out there to read.
I think the fact that so many of them are burried is a good sign. It means that a lot of Diggers fear that Ron Paul could pose a threat to their beloved establishment candidates. And they're right. Keep submitting those articles and be grateful for the ones that make it otherwise people will never know that Ron Paul exists because the MSM will surely not give him any good press. - LocalDocal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24^ He's not sticking up for him. He's telling you to support a candidate because you believe that candidate will be good for America, not because "he's not Bush."
- geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23That is quite interesting how Ron Paul stories have been buried at least 3 fold (usually more times) than any other candidate. I don't think this is simply a matter of the digg community not caring, because burying a story requires active participation. A good example of not caring would be with Mitt Romney, who's had a total of 107 stories submitted and not one has made the home page.
I'm not one to come to conclusions of conspiracies, but it's damn odd how Ron Paul is clearly being targeted. By who and why? I have no clue. But clearly there is some disdain for Dr. Paul dwelling here.
edit: motbob's comment above would be a good explanation. If someone's been spamming then that would be a good reason for all the buried stories. - malfourmed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23The spreadsheet's author highlights the high stories buried / stories submitted ratio for Paul and asks "Who is being treated fairly and who isn't?"
But based on the front page stories / stories submitted ratios, I'd say that Ron Paul is being treated more than fairly:
Obama: 16/841 = 1.9%
Clinton: 5/530 = 0.9%
Edwards: 3/227 = 1.3%
McCain: 4/191 = 2.1%
Giuiliani: 3/158 = 1.9%
Paul: 10/113 = 8.8%
Biden: 2/99 = 2.0% - RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I agree with treo. Giuliani is anything but conservative.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25I'll just be happy to see the ***** circus of an admistration get the boot in 2008/2009.
- pschwar, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29The Republican party is divided into three ideologies: The current ruling "religious right" (Bush, Romney..), the conservatives (McCain, Guiliani...), and the libertarians (Ron Paul).
Ron Paul and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party are the only group who represents any real change in the party, this gets people very excited. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26dugg for using google docs
- deadlikeoscar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25Oh yeah, that "well, at least he's not Bush" attitude worked out for you real well last time huh?
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@jivatmanx
Can you give me examples of what you consider legitimate news stories about Obama so I understand your argument? Most of what I've seen about Ron Paul, including his anti-Fed videos, tell us his position on issues that affect us. How is that irrelevant? Which Obama articles that recently made front page below are more relevant, in your opinion:
Barack Obama Hops on the Web 2.0 Bandwagon
Obama launches social network
FOX reporters no longer welcome on Obama campaign after Madrassa slam
And here are some recent front-pagers of Ron Paul:
Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve
Ron Paul Introduces The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 to Congress
GOP(!) House Members Introduce Bill To Abolition Income and Other Taxes
Which of the above seems to focus on the man, and which on the issues? All I can glean about Obama from those headlines is that he's doing his best to take his campaign to the internet and that he definitely denies being a terrorist. From those Ron Paul articles, I know he loathes the Fed as do I, he supports hemp farming which is fine by me since people should be able to grow whatever they want on their land, and I know he'd rather reduce than raise my taxes.
You want to know what I would consider newsworthy digg articles about Obama? Here:
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story
Gunmakers may get suit-proof vest
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050729-gunmakers_may_get_suit-proof_vest/index.html
Barack Obama's Speech Urging Universal Health Insurance
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaHealthIns.htm
The above stories tell me that he isn't anti-war with Iran, just conditionally pro-war. He also blames gun manufacturers and retailers for people's reckless behavior, meaning eventually he'll want to sue Bed Bath & Beyond for selling deadly steak knives once he's taken guns away (from everyone but the bad guys). He also wants everyone to wait a long time to receive substandard health care from disgruntled wage-capped physicians, since that's how it works in Canada and I doubt we'll be any more efficient here in the land of pork.
Put some more of those articles on the front page so we know what Obama thinks about certain issues, instead of just telling us how much he loves the internets and hates Fox News. - truchas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Richardson is an idiot, believe me, I have lived in the state where he is governor for the past 8 years, and I would hate to see him as president of the US, because if he screwed up our state so bad, I can only imagine what he would do to the rest of the country, and yes, i am a democrat
- chefsam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20So many people have never heard of Ron Paul. Many Paul supporters, myself included, believe firmly in his platform. That said, my hope as a supporter would be to spread his name as far and wide as I possibly can, with the hope that you, the people who haven't heard of him, will at least take a minute to do a bit of research. Some may get onboard, others not, and that's okay.
- smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19 Please be aware, that the real issues are not partisan; that is just a tool to keep folks from focusing on real issues at hand. Ron Paul is trying to protect our constitution and Bill of Rights. There is a 6minute video on you tube, the link does not work, however if you type in RonpaulPec into you tube , it will come up.Here's another link..http://dailypaul.com/ In closing:
The U.S. Constitution is my Patriot Act - lightningrod220, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25"Ron Paul"....
For some reason, that sounds to me like it's a porn star's name. - pschwar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul, I've been following all the blogs and news referring to him. I've been around online communities supporting him. And I can honestly say that there's no such efforts to spam Digg.
He's just a candidate that's very different from the rest, represents real change within the Republican Party, and gets people very excited. He just announced his candidacy, so naturally there's a bit of hype at the moment, it will soon die down.
Anyone who thinks there's some big conspiracy to spam Digg with Ron Paul articles should go hunt down some 9/11 conspiracy articles, cause I'm sure you'll enjoy them and believe them. - atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Its not all that surprising about Ron Paul. For whatever reason, you guys really seem to like him a lot.
- xoxuxox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I first heard/read about Ron Paul from this: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
"In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein - though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned." - ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14McCain is not a conservative either. In many cases, he is a RINO.
- kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Maybe it's because the articles themselves are being buried for being of poor quality. Perhaps more Ron Paul would be acceptable if it wasn't weighted down by the opinions and bias of the submitter.
Something simple and clear like Ron Paul's voting history laid out, WITHOUT a summary, leaving the interpretation to the reader.
That sort of clear information is far more digestible for the Digg crowd, and way less grating than hippie ohmygodhe'sthelibertarianmessiah talk. That kind of language only appeals to those that are already ingrained with that language.
You're trying to appeal to those who are NOT using that language. This is the major problem with the Ron Paul submissions. It has little to do with Ron Paul, and a lot to do with the submitters. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well... considering Digg is a WEBSITE... where are you expecting data from? Amazonian tribesmen?
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10http://digg.com/how
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy - VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19That is because of stories about him keep getting buried her by those that fear his candidacy.
- next, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9ilyag:
It's nice to know that by clicking a button to vote on a story, that I'm being insulting 'by my nature'.
I'll be careful next time to avoid voting for stories that people might disagree with. It's not like a digg user just looks at the front page and diggs the stories they liked. No, nothing of that is the norm here. Move along. - socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think this data was meant to confuse people into believing that supporters of Ron Paul did not spam Digg.
With a quick glance at the data, how it's presented, one might be lead to believe that to be true.
But there are actually 2 statistical facts, and one implied common sense, depicted in this data.
The first statistical fact was pointed out for you. Although Ron Paul supporters didn't post any more articles than others, his were buried substantially more often.
The other statistical fact I believe explains this. More of his articles made the front page than any other candidate to an extreme amount. This to me implies article rank boosting. The following are the percent of articles that made the front page compared to articles submitted. No other candidate had more than 2% of their articles hit the front page, but a whopping 8.8% of Ron Paul's articles hit front page:
Obama 1.9%
Clinton 0.9%
Edwards 1.3%
McCain 2.0%
Giuliani 1.8%
Ron Paul 8.8%
Biden 2.0%
Despite being mislead by this data, I believe this same data, clearly shows that their was some funny business going on with the articles posted by Ron Paul supporters. I think common sense tells you that if an article hits front page it gets more scrutiny, and would be more likely to be buried. I think the data shows why their articles were more often buried, because Diggers did there job correctly, and buried the boosted articles.
[I'm not a supporter of any of these candidates, and am politically stupid. I'm just not fooled by numbers that are presented in a misleading way] - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10any candidate (like Ron Paul) who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, which just so happens to be run by the most powerful people in the world, WILL be shot in the face mysteriously if he ever comes close to winning.
- bustaballs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16I'm always happy to see any article dealing with any candidate as long as it's not purely bashing them. I'm personally voting Ron Paul because he seems best fit for the job. I don't understand why people would bury a Ron Paul article just because it says "Ron Paul". If it's a dupe story then go for it but just because it has the guy's name? That's being immature.
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ron Paul is getting buried because people are saying, "Who is Ron Paul?"
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Of course. Its the same active libertarian diggers who were organizing their digg efforts before. However I don't know if I would call it gaming digg. Just because they are organized doesnt mean that they dont have the right to submit their stories and we dont have the right to bury their stories, which we appear to be fairly effective at as a whole.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If Jeb were to run this time it would start to look dangerously like a royal family dynasty. I don't think American's are really interested in that. The halls of power are inbred enough without 16-20 years of one family running the Executive branch.
- PhreakMac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Intelligence > Courageous
Ron Paul '08! - Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19Because the truth hurts.. Ron Paul will never be president simply because he is for the people.
- mcd9236, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@pschwar
Well put!
The fact that there are less total stories and more front page stories about Ron Paul only shows that there is more support, yet less total news. Lets see more news about him, and let's keep them dugg! - dave11980, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6motbob,
"Ron Paul's supporters are systematically getting their stories to the front page through a friend system, and not by the normal Digg democratic process."
You have to be kidding me. You really think there is a group of hundreds of people (10-20 ain't gonna get something to the front page of dig) calling/emailing each other with links to go vote for Ron Paul stories? That has to be the most ridiculously paranoid leftist statement I have ever heard.
Just maybe its the fact that the things Ron Paul says actually make since and without even knowing who the person saying it is Digg users are promoting the message all the way to the front page.
And for everyone who doesn't know who Ron Paul is he is a congressman from Texas who votes with the constitutionality of things instead of for the pork bellies, special interests, and party line. - Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@BGFeltenink
Here's a big misconception nobody seems to get. Ron Paul is a Republican who happens to think Libertarian, so much so that at one time he was the Lib Presidential Candidate. Now under Ron Paul Corporations might not do as well as you'd believe. Ron, just like other Libertarians, doesn't believe in special interests (which is where all the other candidates get their campaign money) and Ron also stands for Free Market Capitalism not Corporate (Monopolistic) Capitalism that's invaded its way into the Republican camp. - jron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This article is more interesting when compared with the numbers found here:
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Digg_s_2008_Presidential_Poll_Revised
Ron Paul came very close to the numbers of Hilary Clinton and Rudi Giuliani; he actually beat John McCain. It is also very possible that many votes submitted for Ralph Nader will end up being switched to Ron Paul given that Badnarik has recently announced his support for Ron. Given all this, I feel Ron actually has a chance in the primaries. Ron in a debate? anything could happen.
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/23/libertarian-badnarik-endorses-ron-paul/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13DisposableRob:
You're right. And that sort of minority dedication is the reason the majority is likely to despise this small group of passionate individuals. You see, when someone is trying desperately to go against the grain (often for the purposes of evangelizing for their cause), everyone else tends to look at them disapprovingly.
It's also worth noting that these dedicated people are also extremely insulting by their very nature. For example, Apple fans in general behave in a stereotypically smug, holier-than-thou fashion that comes off as incredibly grating and annoying. Similarly, Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters (these two groups tend to overlap) act in a very similar way, often just telling people outright that everyone but them is a stupid idiot, and trying their damnedest to convince people of their supposed superiority. I wouldn't be shocked to discover that they are reading this right now and thinking to themselves, "But it's true! We ARE smarter, more knowledgeable, and more rational!"
Are you surprised that the majority of Digg users (or indeed the majority of any community, online or off) would become hostile towards such behavior? Are you honestly surprised by this? Because I'm not. And I would hope that most truly rational people are not, either. I don't think it should be expected of this community to embrace such behavior. - Darel99, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Dr. Ron Paul offers the people what our nation has been missing for years. Yes, I voted for the phony conservative view touted by BUSH.
In the case of Dr. Ron Paul do your homework and visit:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
Just look at the way the man has voted he has not voted for special interest groups or 'Big Government Ideals" at all.
Compare his record with others who have a voting history and decide for yourself.
The point I appreciate about Dr. Ron Paul is his dedication to the people. He even has a weekly update regarding important topics.... You can call 1-888-322-1414 to hear his weekly message.
I did notice Ron Paul has had more front page stories buried then Obama. Yet, he has had fewer stories submitted. I think this really speaks for itself.
Further, I did notice a comment by a few who suggested that Dr Paul must have a buddy system. What they have failed to realize is that many will recognize Dr. Ron Paul's "Just and Fair" leadership and as individual citizens we are simply happy to share the news!
I applaude Patrick Rodriguez for Digg's presidential data information. - thereisnospoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Google Trends perspective:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Barack+Obama%2C+Hillary+Clinton%2C+John+McCain%2C+Rudy+Giuliani%2C+Ron+Paul&ctab=1&geo=all&date=2006 - brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Um, the article is about DIGG presidential data.. or... "What people on digg think about the people running for president". Of course it's biased. It isn't targeting anything but the stats from digg users.
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The author completely misses the +/- aspect of an article. There could have been 500 articles bashing Clinton however the results of this wouldn't show it in the same way.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So whether or not we actually ought to be fighting a war has no relevance? I'm sorry, but I'd rather vote for somebody who stops to consider the goals of a war, whether those goals are desirable and obtainable, and if it's worth the price (both in human lives and economically). I don't see how continuing to fight a bad war (if you believe it is) is courageous.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is