What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
71 Comments
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40Digg needs a "Life is Unfair to Ron Paul" section.
- Ulisses, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Spam AND stupid.
"Paul" - Almost half a million messages listed.
"Ron Paul" - 15466 messages found
Conclusion: You are either very stupid OR the scum of the earth. - Jesse, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20haha, maybe they should embed some violin music.
Seriously, Digg's Ron Paul spambots are getting as annoying as the Truthers... - had3l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Ok, I'm not afraid of being Dugg down, when I say this:
You shouldn't look at the peaks, you should wait until the debate buzz ends before you say that "Mike Gravel and Ron Paul have almost as much mentioning as Obama"
I could just as well read those graphs the following way:
"After the debate Gravel's name got mentioned a lot more because sites were analyzing and listing every candidate that were there, not only Mike. Not only that, but Gravel was "mad as hell", and that is newsworthy by itself, whether you are a supporter or not. Now, Gravel's numbers are returning to what they were before the debate."
"Ron Paul was more known than Gravel was, so it's justifiable that he had more searches before the debates. Then, after the debate, he got a boost for the same reason as Gravel did, except, the rep. debate buzz is still not over, so you still have more Ron Paul searches than Mike Gravel."
"That added to the fact that as much as we would like to believe otherwise, digg.com is also giving the candidates a lot of buzz, and it doesn't mean they are getting a overall support from the majority of America (Although that can be reversed.)"
And don't forget, those are just blogs that "mentioned" the candidates, being mentioned more or less doesn't mean you are a better candidate, just that you are getting more exposure. Bush is being mentioned more that almost all the candidates put together, does that means he won the e-vote? How can you distinguish blogs who are criticizing a candidate from blogs who are supporting them?
This is actually a bunch of BS, and means nothing, the data could be interpreted in 1000 different ways. - thunt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14This article is the perfect example of the intersection of laziness and subterfuge...
Proper Graphs:
McCain vs. Giuliani vs. Paul - Note the huge bump for Ron Paul on May 2nd. This is a newsworthy development. How did this unknown suddenly move into competition with his better known and well funded rivals?
http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22John+Mccain%22&label1=&query2=%22Rudy+Giuliani%22&label2=&query3=%22Ron+Paul%22&label3=&days=60&x=0&y=0
Clinton vs. Obama vs. Gravel - Note the huge bump for Mike Gravel on April 25th. How did this happen? How did this unknown suddenly begin polling so well on the Internet?
http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22Hillary+Clinton%22&label1=&query2=%22Barack+Obama%22&label2=&query3=%22Mike+Gravel%22&label3=&days=60&x=0&y=0
Gravel vs. Paul - Who are these unknown candidates and why are they generating so much buzz? This is the question that the media needs to ask, but won't ask. We need to continue reminding them that we the people choose the candidates and that we have chosen Paul and Gravel.
http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22Mike+Gravel%22&label1=&query2=%22Ron+Paul%22&label2=&query3=&label3=&days=60&x=0&y=0
But the real lie comes when you examine their source. Instead of using the industry standard (Technorati) they used BlogPulse which is owned by the old fashioned Nielsen company. (you may remember them for their brilliant plan to measure TV ratings by making users fill out diaries and then "sampling" those users to tell them what we all watch. An idea that seems truly ancient when you think of the useful realistic statistics that a modern company like Tivo can deliver)
This choice allows them to have this entire faux conversation about the "front-runners" without mentioning Paul or Gravel. Even a simple visit to Technorati's front page shows the true problem with this article. Ron Paul is not unknown. He is only #1 on Top Searches. On the front page. Not a lot of digging or journalistic work involved.
http://technorati.com/
Thunt
http://thunt.net/
An open letter regarding the 2008 Presidential Election (Gravel vs. Paul)
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/An_open_letter_regarding_the_2008_Presidential_Election_Gravel_vs_Paul - bunk, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25Digg = Ron Paul orgy, it's disgusting.
- had3l, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@ me
OMG, I didn't even notice that he searched for "Paul" and not "Ron Paul"
That is pretty stupid and has gone too far, are we as biased as the mainstream media but to the opposite extreme? - wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Pity that positive comments on blogs mean squat when it comes to representing overall public opinion. Call me when Paul polls over 3% in a national poll.
- morrislevy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19DON'T CARE!
- avoidance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"This user searched for the terms "Gravel," "Paul" and "Obama" and received these results. However, that search is different than our method, which searched for a candidate's full name. Using our method, the same three name yields this result."
"Paul" is an extremely popular name. Using it as a search tool is ridiculous. It does not reflect accurate results. It includes everyone with "Paul" as a first or last name.
Seriously, some of you are so freaking stupid. - robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Mike Gravel and Ron Paul Still Being Ignored"
...as should any Digg post with their names, FFS. - faithfreedom, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Ron's popularity only surged after the GOP Presidental Debate
- punkbyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They updated to article.
But maybe they should have shown these results...
http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22John+Mccain%22&label1=&query2=%22Rudy+Giuliani%22&label2=&query3=%22Mitt+Romney%22&label3=&query4=%22Ron+Paul%22&label4=&query5=%22Barack+Obama%22&label5=&days=3&x=39&y=12 - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14You know what else is being ignored? All these ***** Ron Paul stories, most of them are also being buried as the being the same ***** thing I saw 2 hours ago.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4what the ***** do you suggest we do about this country then? Tell me *****, because according to you and others here.... there is no such thing as equal opportunity in this country.
***** you and digg me down you losers. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's called the economic primary. Who ever got the most money will be given more media coverage again giving an election advantage to the wealthy. Surprise.
- fugularity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This dump I just took has a better chance of winning the presidency than Sean Paul... you should see it, actually, it's about a foot long and looks like a saxaphone!
- Eilarais, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Good update on the USNews page, I don't know how you could look at chart #1 and think it was accurate. Get your damn stories straight, and remember that the people you are appealing to are the people who are sick of being screwed with.
Buried as inaccurate. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"And yet he won't win cause the south still hates blacks. He's wasting his time/peoples money."
That is a great reason not to run...you might lose. You are a madman risk taker aren't you? - kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I watched the debates the other night and what is sad is that any of the people who are up on the podium represent the best of a party, same in fact for the democrats.
The saddest thing about the forum was C. Matthews was put in the position of a moderator.
Politico.com has been brought along as a blog of substance but it is still the same old media using a new format.
This is a sad state of affairs when our political system has sunk to this type of non event and people eat it up.
When are we going to see men and women of substance debate each other instead of talking head pundits asking stupid and obnoxious questions? - theda3g0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Regardless of whether or not you support Ron or Mike, it is still crooked and disreputable to cover the debate and not include all the candidates.
- gandhi2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've tried to tell people, what the conservative media is doing now is normal behavior. It's a protection strategy on the part of the GOP to keep from losing the election. Paul has potential to pull enough Republicans away that it could mean a Democratic win, and the party is scrambling to stop it. They lose however it's played, so they are just trying to do damage control now. Paul wins nominations(by the longest shot in history) and they are stuck with just about the most extreme opposite they could possibly obtain in terms of party loyalty. Paul loses, runs as an Indie, or under the Libertarian ticket and manages to bring some Republicans with him. Paul loses, younger, more internet savvy voters vote Democratic. Essentially, all that they can hope to do is a) shut him out of future debates, kill his public image, and distance themselves dramatically from him(you'll notice how all these conservative news sites claim Paul is really a Libertarian, rather than taking credit for any and all support he has), and....most importantly, b) they have to ensure that the uproar caused by blocking him out and essentially ignoring him as a prospect(while keeping just-as-unlikely 2nd-tier candidate on the polls) is so inaudible that the alienated Republicans don't kill their chance next November.
The only way to change it all is to kick up the dust, and make sure that Paul gets as much coverage as possible until the primaries. It means that whomever does win will have to re-examine Paul's stances to see how they can keep from alienating that voter bloc in the future. - Ulisses, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10And by the way, despite all your spam, Obama still leads Ron Paul on the blogpulse metric with tripe the number of results.
- w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22John+Mccain%22&label1=&query2=%22Rudy+Giuliani%22&label2=&query3=%22Ron+Paul%22&label3=&days=60&x=30&y=7
- Jesse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What's sad is that when Ron Paul and Mike Gravel lose (which he will, sure as you're born), a vast number of "Ron Paul Truthers" will be convinced there was a sort of Byzantine conspiracy in play. Because, of course, if someone is popular on the interwebs, he's popular everywhere!!
I'm not against fringe candidates, but I'm tired of Texas Republicans who believe in the rapture...
I also don't support candidates that appealed to my hyper-individualistic nature when I was in high school. The world's not filled with geeks, who are brought up in reclusive societies where libertarianism appeals to them. - otter111a, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Hmmm Online polls show otherwise unknown candidates to be leading the field. Digg is flooded by diggers claiming its a conspiracy.
I wonder {sarcasm] if there's any possible way that a group of determined individuals could manipulate the polls and manipulate digg at the same time.
I also wonder if it has occurred to these same individuals that by manipulating the results they could in fact harm their candidate. Let's say he/she does well in a debate and legitimately increases their standing by 5%. The media might think that this is worth mentioning. Now, however, any true bump at any point in the future is going to be perceived as more manipulation.
You can't just "will" a nobody into 1st place - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Don't know who these 2 guys are or what their platform is.
Dugg for more coverage needed of non-preordained candidates. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2good points gandi2!
Dr Paul is now in the kingmaker spot. The GOP has 0% chance of winning if he goes back to the Libertarians, or Trent Reznors' Resistance Party.
"Paul - Reznor '08
Resist and Party!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Democrat base is against the war, but they get more war despite voting in Democrats.
The Republican base is against taxes and welfare, but they get more of both despite 6 years of Republican Gov.
We're all fed up. This goes beyond Digg but Digg is the carrier wave, pilot fish thingy. The trend is set, so why don't you want the Fed Gov put back in it's Constitutional cage? What's your conflict of interest with Liberty and Freedom?
Ron Paul is my kind of Fundy : a Constitutional Fundamentalist.
Ron Paul is not a Rapture Conservative. In fact, the John Hagee Zionist Fundy Left Behind Moonbots HATE RON PAUL WITH A PASSION. They think Iseral is the Womb of New Baby Jeebus and " He cain't be bern a'gin iff'n them thar moozlims git tuh have all the baybees they want in Palistine. "
Jesse, why don't you move to Venezuala or Cuba if you have limited central Gov so much ? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh that blogpulse graphic is superb. Look at the crappy trends for everyone but Ron Paul and extrapolate 2 years out. ( Ron Paul W1N5 )
- punkbyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1According to these results I think we all know who the next president will be...
http://blogpulse.com/trend?query1=%22Ron+Paul%22&label1=&query2=%22Barack+Obama%22&label2=&query3=%22spiderman%22&label3=&days=30&x=23&y=9 - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you're blaming people that voted for Ralph Nader for getting us stuck with Bush, you obviously got that infamous brown paper bag for brains.
- bradspangler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@luvpuss84 -- under statist capitalism, regulation *promotes* industry cartelization rather than thwarting it -- refer to the work of independent Marxist / New Left scholars like Gabriel Kolko and his "The Triumph of Conservatism" -- and yes, Kolko is a man of the left and considers conservatism triumphing a BadThing[tm].
- robdowns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hilarious! thanks for the laugh. seriously.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wow. I think a lot of brain cells in my head died after reading that. I kind of miss them... :-(
- tkinnun0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you're bored at work, it wouldn't hurt to look at http://digg.com/view/world_business/upcoming/cloud and bury this Ron Paul-spam every couple of hours.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Politico isn't a case of old media using new media. It's a case of old politicians using new media. Politico was founded by Frederick Ryan. Who worked as a staffer for Reagan and is chairman at the Reagan Library. That's why all the questions were along the lines of "We think Reagan's great, don't you think he's great? How great do you think Reagan is? What was the greatest thing Reagan did?"
Hardly what I'd call a blog of substance. Comparatively the Democrats actually got some hardball questions. - nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Although Ron Paul says he is against trade barriers and protectionism, he voted "No" on NAFTA etc. apparently because the legal mechanisms of it would infringe on national sovereign rights. Ok, I guess that's understandable.
However, even though Ron Paul voted NO on the Patriot act, he apparently voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
How do you feel about that? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Good Doctor dominates the trendometer on blogpulse. And I thought I was the last freedom loving person left in America.
We are being economically geonocided and will vote for change. Look at the price of gold, housing, food, gas, education.
The Elites have squeezed a little too much blood from their cash cows once again. Madame Guillotine awaits her dinner.
Hillary, Guiliani, or regime change? The polls are speaking, shouting "Ron Paul" from the rooftops! - fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ nostoppingus
"you guys are a bunch of sheep when it comes to the politicians you support. first it was obama, then gravel, now paul" Sorry, i didn't know I was not allowed to change my mind. I guess I should have never supported obama. But wait, what if another candidate enters the race and he is even a more ideal candidate to represent my interests? I guess I'll have to ask you if it is ok for me to change my mind again. I would really hate to accidentally annoying the piss out of you once again.
Do me a favor and stop waisting your time trying to convince people they are waisting their time hyping their preferred candidate. - loof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People need to vote for who they support. Complaining about the state of things gets people no where and neither does calling people sheep and insulting them. The canidate who wins is the one who can get their name out to the general public and convince them they're worthy of a vote. Unfortunately there are only a few canidates who can raise the money needed to do that.
- mempko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But they make such good food! If you ignore the cooks, who will make all the new recipes?
- loof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have an astonishing;y low chance of even getting 2% of the vote nevermind actually winning an election. If Obama, Cliton, McCain and Giulani all have horrible accidents they *might* have a chance. They could be the perfect canidates and have solutions to the world's problems, it doesn't matter they will never get the coverage because they don't have the cash to compete.
- torifile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This Ron Paul spam is getting absolutely ridiculous. STOP PLEASE.
- w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@phibre
Amen and amen. We need someone like Ron Paul in there, if only to give us a few more years of freedom, in order to right our lives for the oncoming storm. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bossy
Move to a libertarian country!
Oh.... - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 What kind of sheep mentality is this? "It's only worth voting for the candidate that's more likely to win". Isn't it other way around?
Then again, the majority of people do put up with lousy election results and presidents they hate, cause that relieves them of personal responsibility. They get to blame someone else for their problems.
I do agree that Ron Paul is unlikely to get elected. He rejects government bailouts and gives freedom back to the people. But freedom is responsibility and most of you simply can't handle it. You're too used to pointing fingers and crying like babies. Bush is bad! Bush is this! Bush is that! You keep electing the same president over and over, cause fulfills your victim fetish. Cause you're weak, dumb and insecure.
Unfortunately, you are the majority... - System84, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Who the hell gives a crap about these two they have no chance of winning anyway, so why is their a persistent flood of articles regarding them? Lame...
- kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2sorry R.Paul just seemed like a doddering old man.
But then again maybe that's what the country needs. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is