What is Digg?Sponsored by NerdyShirts.com
Buy 80's Casio Watches - Nerd to Live view!
nerdyshirts.com - TV remotes, calculators, solar-powered...it's like McGyver on your wrist
78 Comments
- chrisbtig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Feel free to click the "Next Page" button at the bottom of your screen.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Stop linking to blogs that themselves link to the actual article.
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18It's okay to resubmit if the author did not make a good enough title/description and the article died out. I've noticed there are plenty of decent articles where the submitter made a spelling error which caused me not to digg it.
- fjoggen, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26I agree with jetpig. Dupes to my experience isn't such a big problem, all it does is to make sure a bigger audience see the article in question.
There are many circumstance and situations which might prevent a good article to receive the front page glory. The submitter might have chosen a bad time of the day or she wrote a title which makes it hard to notice in the cloud. None the less I am not suggesting that we should start to submit 50 copies of each article, but that not all dupes are a bad thing,
I have a bigger problem with comments such as:
Dupe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please digg the original story -> link
All that tells me is the main goal for the submitter is to receive the glory and attention of a front page story and not to make sure the biggest audience are able to read an article. I for one don't care who submits a story, all I am interested in is to read interesting news. - Silentshadow900, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I'm always checking digg for new stories. I have digg "sessions," where I view the newest frontpage stories since the last story I saw.
- exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"All that tells me is the main goal for the submitter is to receive the glory and attention of a front page story and not to make sure the biggest audience are able to read an article. I for one don't care who submits a story, all I am interested in is to read interesting news."
Ok, try this on for size... a few days ago I submitted a story about the girl suing myspace I was the first. Someone else was the second, the third, fourth, and fifth. I think about the 6th time the story was submitted that it finally caught on..
Now what was happening behind the scenes?
Well.. the votes were being split... between about 6-7 of the same article... 6-8 people here and there. If they were all concentrated on one story then it would have gotten to the homepage much faster, which is one of the main purposes of digg... getting the news first. Instead it took longer to get to the top which means the news broke slower.
Secondly, all the other dupers started reporting their competition, and this sets off chain reactions.. so that the story not only is getting vote split but also on a path of self destruction.
To avoid this, you should digg the original. It makes logical sense and also just makes for good DIGG ETHICS. - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I have a good feeling that the next few weeks will be almost 100% damage control for Digg veterans as all of these new people file in
- znxster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Out comes v3 and people start dreaming! .. if only it would change the dupers .. but it won't
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11DUPE
- Norway141, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Totally agree. There has been way too many dupes and poorly written submissions today.
- tafkase7en, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This article is pointless, nothing will change in the way posters submit stories.
- mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If somebody submits a good story with a misleading or inaccurate title, you may submit it again with a more correct title, as long as it has not hit the front page yet. This is my code of conduct, and makes most sense.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9How about no more stupid blog posts...
- idesign562, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it's amazing... dupes.
personally, i hate dupping, i get bummed out that someone was ahead of me by 10 minutes but nothing you can do.
I think it's a popularity thing that people have.
i like the "rules" anyway. - RyanLigon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Poor titles are the worst thing about digg in my opinion. I don't mind dupes as much, since you can just bury them. But if there's a bad title to a good story, I don't feel like digging it because it just encourages more bad titles because that's what people see on the frontpage.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another unwritten rule is to not link to blogs, especially when they don't have any news to tell.
- kudos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When submitting, please use proper categories.
What does this have to do with "security"? - TheCookieMaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am okay if it is a blog post so long as it isn't a blog about an article. if it is about an article digg the article not the blog
- Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There are two articles on the home page that are dupes. How sad is that? People seriously need to use the search feature.
- Silentshadow900, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree with you on that, but I'm not sure about spelling errors.
- MilitantQueer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Give me a frickin' break. damage control? Digg went to hell months ago...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Same here, silentshadow. I never miss a front page story. I've finally had to install a bunch of greasemonkey scripts to get rid of some of the ridiculous stuff on the front page. However, I am reluctant to block sections and users, because something interesting could come out of there.
Please, people, especially newly registered users, don't digg if the story is miscategorized, a duplicate, or just a lousy story. We need to save the front page for the BEST stories of the day. - skyfex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I do not agree with the dupe claim. Primarlily because some originals can have awful titles and description. If a dupe reaches the front page, it might be that the title and description is just better.
Also because i hate when people comment "DUPE!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is there an easy way to find out if something has been submitted? Sorry if I'm too new to know.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Though I guess this comment is a dupe, it is extremely relevant here, and after all, I am duping my own comment, so that is OK I guess. Andyway, this is what I wrote in the Star Trek/Star Wars video thread just now:
I was REALLY hoping that digg 3.0 would have PREVENTED dupes. That is, if you tried to submit a link that had already been submitted in the last 365, it would AUTOMATICALLY reject it. ESPECIALLY if it had been on the front page.
Oh, well, I guess that will be in digg 4.0. PLEASE! - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't forget the front-page window. kevinrose has said before (on TWiT) that a story has 24 hours (actually, IIRC, he said "about" 24 hours) to get enough diggs to hit the front page. If it doesn't, it won't - presumably this means even if it gets 400 diggs in the *next* 24 hours.
So I don't mind a story that gets resubmitted (esp. by someone else) more than 1 day after the original submission. Mind you, I'm a digg leech - I only use the front page, not the queue, so all the dupes that I digg have already hit the front page, so it's not like votes are being split (usually).
If you use the queue, then it is good to enforce no-dupes, by reporting dupes and calling them out, and digging the original. As illustrated above, splitting diggs between multiple stories == bad. - dburka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a search in the right of the top bar. Try searching for keywords from the article you're thinking about posting. If the article's already submitted, digg that story. If it's nowhere to be found, go ahead and submit. Good digging!
- fjoggen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree dupes might prevent a story from receiving the front page glory, since the votes are split, but there are also situations where a dupe hits the front page and the original story only had a couple of votes.
It isn't a ideal situation and there are room for improvements, but I believe that the current system is better than to ban all dupes. My reasoning for this is that I do not only read the front page stories. Therefore even if a dupe split the votes the probability for me noticing it is bigger when someone submit a dupe with a catchy title and a good description.
One way of preventing that dupes split the votes is to make sure that all votes for a dupe is sent to the original story. This way the dupe which caught my eye generate votes for the original and it would probably hit the front page faster. Of course there are downsides with my suggestion to, but it might be a worth a try. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All people have to do is SEARCH before they post. If it's been posted in the last day or so, leave it, dig the original. If it's way old, post it again. But I've seen a load of 'dupes' being put in a few hours apart - it's stupid, just shows people are too lazy to use the search function.
As for the people calling dupe - I can understand why they do it, it feels like something is being taken away from you - but it's still annoying. - haooken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I second that. Seriously, people, shut the hell up about 'dupes'. Do you honestly have nothing better to do worth your time then worry about a story be submited twice? Get a F*cking life/GBTW.
/props to the powers-that-be at digg for the new design. I like ^_^ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sometimes dupe check can fail. The search here is pretty rudemetery to be kind.
More often then not the reason the original doesnt make it to the front is do to lame title, description and or spelling errors. Title can do wonders. I hate the people that fill comments up complaining about dupes more than the dupers. - joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2as far as the spelling errors, apparently it is possible for you to correct your spelling errors, even after submission. this isn't obvious enough that this even available though, so nobody does it.
here's the question, do you move toward some sort of hierarchy where veteran users/submitters votes are worth more diggs, or put some other system in place to weed out dupes better, or just try and organize the chaos. I kind of like the chaos myself, it reflects the group. so what if you refresh digg every 5 minutes and notice an article that you read a week ago.... guess what buddy you're not the majority. i read digg a lot, but none of us can ever completley keep up with everything ... and you know what, if it is a dupe, a lot of times it's something cool enough that's worth repeating for others to see.... digg stories do cycle quite fast.
NOW, having said that, here's the other problem with the dupes.... maybe someone submits an article that never makes it to the front page, maybe it doesn't even get buried either .... someone else submits the same story a week later and it makes the front page .... some people start screaming dupe and pointing to another article that never even made it. that's retarded. let people get their information. it's like there are people out there whose sole purpose in life is to check for dupes, valid or not.
anyways, what digg really needs is a way for users to message each other .... you want to see this community grow, let the users interact with each other. i would suggest having this sort of feature made available to users, perhaps even disabled by default, and then those that want to participate can go nuts.. it would be a great way for people with similar interests to network.
please make checks payable to joel2600 :o) - exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that creates a problem because a url for a frontpage can stay the same even though the content may change.
- fatb0b, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you are worried about missing front page stories while you are away you can always use a RSS reader. Digg has a RSS feed for that exact reason. Then you are guaranteed not to miss a story.
@fjoggen
You say total diggs on a story is just for the submitter's glory and attention. You forget that there are top story of the day/week/month/year categories, so splitting up the diggs messes with the totals and makes a story seem smaller than it was. In theory that could lead to less exposure, and last time I checked they get the digg podcast topics from the top stories of the week. - shawbin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21. Why not bury a comment you disagree with? If I don't agree with a comment, why would I want other people to be misinformed? Isn't that what the burying is for?
2. Why does a comment have to have what you call "substance"? What's wrong with people saying "Cool!" but nothing else?
3. Read it in full? What if I only read 4/5's of it?
I just don't get why everyone is trying to make rules and insist people follow them. Anyways, at least I'm happy to know that you, shoolz, will not bury this comment simply because you disagree with me :o) - modestmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with a lot of these ideas. My personal pet peeve is the L337 speak. I can understand the occasional mispelling, abbreviation or typo, but this new spin on pig latin is just plain annoying to me. Obviously not everyone agrees, otherwise it wouldn't be so prevalent. So I figured I would put out a call to keep that ***** of digg. If you agree with the idea, give it the thumbs up. If not bury this. Let's see what diggers have to say about this...
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Dupes to my experience isn't such a big problem, all it does is to make sure a bigger audience see the article in question."
The problem with dupes is that they bypass the digg community system and people like to keep resubmitting topics until they take off.
If people like a story, they'll digg it to the front page. It's that simple.
Submitters should search digg before going through the story submission process. And digg users should know that those handy-dandy links at the top of the page can let them see the top stories of the day, the week, the month and the year and not just the current top stories on the front page. So, no matter what time the story was submitted, you can check by adjusting the time or, *GASP* click on the next page button at the bottom of the screen. - wmarcello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People aren't going to change their ways, regardless of what anyone says. When one person finally wises up, some new user will creep up and take their place. It's lose lose. I just hope the servers get better and better so that all the extra crap doesn't slow the site down.
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hum...
I thought there were going to be some rules on Digging, this were only rules about Posting. But, the rules were good and if people only use comon sense no one would never have to mention these "unwritten rules". - Udon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"World's most expensive cities" story is a dupe too. Still it made it to the front page today.
- MikeDawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why do comments bother you guys so much? I like to think of myself having a career in "nicely" torturing people in comments. That is in fact what they are "comments".
- cerisaac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dupes are a small problem, the search feature is a small problem, fighting for front page glory is a small problem, good stories getting lost in the shuffle is a small problem, bad headlines is a smalls problem and all these small problems add up to be a big issue. Digg needs a merger function that will allow its users to merge dupe stories into a bigger entity and give credit to all that deserve it.
- Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think digg needs an option to kill the story from your page if you're so offended by a "dup".
Personally I'm not all that bothered by duplicate stories... it's the little nazis running around crying momma that tick me off. - Lutja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been wondering if the search-before-submit feature is slightly broken in the new digg - there has been such an explosion of dupes today.
- scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Personally, I'd like to see immature digg users discontinue burying opinions they disagree with.
Hide the spam and "me too" comments... let everything else stand.
It's like saying "la la la la la la I can't hear you!!!" whenever someone says something that doesn't jive with your own opinions.
jetpigs comments are completely valid... he's describing how he uses the site. Taking things like this into account will hopefully make the site better. His opinions aren't wrong and are representative of a large number of digg users. (not myself, actually... I check digg constantly) - djdole, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jetpig
I totally disagree with your view.
If you missed it, you missed it.
If you want the content on Digg you missed, then scroll to the bottom of the front-page (or section that interests you) and use the [Next] & [Previous] buttons until you see familiar content.
If the submission died in Digg quick, then there was a reason for it.
Either it wasn't as interesting to everyone as it was to you (or as interesting to everyone else as you thought it would/should be) or there were other MORE interesting submissions that preempted it.
Just because everyone isn't watching Digg when a submission is on top of the front page doesn't mean it should be constantly resubmitted until everyone sees it. :-\
Submissions shouldn't act like Paris Hilton.
When their 15 minutes (or so) of fame is up, they SHOULD fade into the background. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nho.. Whats really bad is youtube video links, the impending semi-celebrity-gossip that's currently plaguing TV just now (Big Brother, for example) and the likes..
I'm somewhat scared to go into the "Entertainment / Celebrity" section, I'll just leave it disabled and forget about it.. What would be annoying, though if.. "crapspam" starts routinly making the front-page..
I don't know, I liked digg how it was before, for less tech/computer related stuff Shoutwire (that I only really looked at when on Torrentspy) was fine..
Atleast for the time-being, Digg will remain more tech-oriented due to the current users..
- Ben - bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's enough hardcore diggers around so that most dupes don't make it to the front page. And, if it gets out of hand, I'd bet that the algorithims will be tweaked to make it harder for things to pop up on the front page.
- seaner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There have been alot of dupes but I think the system that suggests similar stories was not working correctly today. I submitted a story and it showed no similar stories and it turned out that the same URL was posted. It didn't even show up in the serach.
- Silentshadow900, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's the little ***** running around making unintelligent blog comments that tick me off. Good thing it's mine, because I deleted your sorry comments. I can do that, because I'm such a nazi.
pwnt! -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is