digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

'Democratic'? 'User-driven'? These do not describe Digg

jesusphreak.infogami.com — Earlier today I submitted an article detailing how a group of Digg's top users regularly Digg each other's stories. Despite the fact that this story received over 170 diggs in 2 hours, you will never see it on the frontpage, and you can no longer search for it. Why is this? Read on to find out.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -123/+40http://hemphill81.blogspot.com/2006/09/response-digg-rigged-closer-look-at.html
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -13/+158That's all fine and good but why did the original story get buried and disappear from the digg queue with over 170 diggs in less than 2 hours?
    • hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -139/+33That is not a question for me that would be for your Digg staff. I only submit here I'm not paid or anything. I would imagine it was buried most users on digg do not care about the politics of digg or anything like that most only want news or cool links.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -16/+82Yeah, but the article is about how his story was buried, so your reply is off-topic. I definitely am interested in digg for the cool links, but it bothers me if some kind of censorship is taking place.
    • FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -17/+76Something to consider is that there are other ways to bury a story than just for inaccuracy. Spam and Lame are also used often and could be the culprits in this particular case. There are plenty of folks who mark most submitted blogs as spam and often the meta-Digg stories are marked Lame by users who, as mentioned above are looking for news, tech news and cool links.

      The idea that people simply aren't interested in Digg-centric stories is very much *on* topic for this discussion because of the numerous ways that stories can be buried, which is not touched upon in the linked article.
    • Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -19/+113That doesn't make the process acceptable. If thirty or so people auto-digg each others' stories, it effectively means that stories THEY find interesting automatically get a leg up on everyone else's, and worse yet clog the front page when stories OTHER people find interesting could be there instead.

      God forbid we have a dedicated group of libertarians, racists, or fundamentalists taking advantage of the system... signs point to that already being a problem.
    • FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -40/+49I guess my question, then, is how does a dedicated group of people digging each others' stories or burying specific stories make Digg less user-driven or democratic? It's a case of majority rule, so if you're in the minority, you take action and try to make yourself in less of a minority. It doesn't lessen it being user-driven unless a single person is running multiple accounts.

      It seems to me that many of the complaints that people make in these sorts of stories are that they are in the minority on an issue or that there is a majority working to change the face of Digg... but isn't that the point? I mean, here we all are, imposing upon each other our personal preferences in both the forms of submissions, diggs and buries. Each one of us carries the same weight, but at the same time, there's nothing stopping anyone from forming their own mob to increase or decrease popularity.

      It also seems that the primary issue surrounding this would be less which unique stories make the frontpage and more whose submissions trump others when duplicates are submitted. It honestly appears to me that people are seeing favoritism where little to none exists and labelling this sort of behavior "taking advantage of the system" really seems extreme, since it's something that anyone could do if they put enough effort into it.
    • Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -22/+40>> I guess my question, then, is how does a dedicated group
      >> of people digging each others' stories or burying specific
      >> stories make Digg less user-driven or democratic?
      >>

      It doesn't, at least not inherently. What we're talking about is something totally different that equates to a pre-emptive strike on the system itself. If a story is submitted and requires 40 or so DIGGs before it hits the front page that is one thing... but when stories are being submitted with a near-automatic 20 or so DIGG boost it skews the field in their favor, giving a severe level of influence over the types of stories that hit the front page. If 30 people are submitting and cross-promoting their own stories, it means that what we read is what THEY THINK IS COOL, not us.

      You're missing the forest for the trees.
    • lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21The answer to your question is that so many of those spamming users reported the story. I noticed the same thing and asked people to report the users doing it, naming them, then each one reported my account, and it was banned until I could write to abuse@digg.com about it.
      Luckily the abuse team at Digg is right on the freakin ball. I sent off the message as I was leaving fro work this morning and when i got to work, teh reply was already tehre waiting for me. I love those guys. (Obviously they understood and unbanned me.)

    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Unless it's changed recently .. I was under the impression that users with greater approval ratings had greater digg influence.

      Unless that is not the case, this means that cadres will have a snowballing effect. As they improve one another's approval ratings, each of their digg ratings go up .. and thus they receive more diggs, more approval, etc .. So that their combined influence becomes not an addition but a multiplication.

      If the response becomes simply forming another cadre to take on the first cadre .. Well, that still doesn't solve the issue, and works for crap in most systems you find it.

      With the exception of kung fu and western epics.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -30/+61The reason why I've packed my luggage and heading off to Slashdot :P
    • FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -34/+28There are an awful lot of stories that don't make the front page, but have a large number of Diggs. They tend to be controversial in some way or another and with these Digg-centric stories there is a lot of controversy around them. Most people simply do not come to Digg to read about Digg.

      Michelle Malkin, Lew Rockwell, Daily Kos, and several other blogs have their little group of people who submit and promote and often times they *struggle* to get to the front page, even when they get the "right" amount of diggs in the right amount of time.

      This main link is stating that there's something underhanded that circumvents the "democratic process" of Digg. That's the point that is being made, or trying to be made.

      Straight up, you come to Digg and what you see on the front page is what OTHER PEOPLE THINK IS COOL. That's kind of the entire point of Digg. If you don't like it, then don't read the front page. Instead, spend your time reading new submissions and actively working to change what you don't like about the way it works.

      As far as I can tell, it's working as intended. Just because people don't like how it's turned/turning out at any given moment does NOT mean that it's broken.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11"Unless it's changed recently .. I was under the impression that users with greater approval ratings had greater digg influence.
      Unless that is not the case, this means that cadres will have a snowballing effect."

      That's exactly the point I was trying to make with this post -> http://www.480x.com/2006/09/06/working-digg/
    • Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21>> Instead, spend your time reading new submissions and actively
      >> working to change what you don't like about the way it works.

      Holy ***** Batman, I think we're *GASP* doing that right now!
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+59"Straight up, you come to Digg and what you see on the front page is what OTHER PEOPLE THINK IS COOL."

      Yeah, it's what these 30+ people think is cool. And that's not cool.
    • jessejoedotcom, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6Also see http://digg.com/linux_unix/Why_buried_stories_should_be_unburyable
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36"It's a case of majority rule, so if you're in the minority, you take action and try to make yourself in less of a minority"

      No, actually, jesusphreak's *point* is that this is a *minority* 'ruling' in a system that's *supposedly* ruled by the majority.
    • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5@ Sirocco

      The point that FyreGoddess is trying to make, and that you are missing is that THEY = us
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5Why is it that suddenly theres like 6 more stories after this story on the front page. Are they trying to bury this?
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7"The point that FyreGoddess is trying to make, and that you are missing is that THEY = us"

      Right.. just like Bush & Co. == us. No, they don't. It's a small group of people who have all the power, and are making all the decisions.
    • hotsoda, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6@ diggywiggit: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    • goat4, on 10/12/2007, -27/+11this is why digg is a ***** ***** website
    • Evroccck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16we are marketingshift.com are supposed to have an interview with Kevin Rose today for this Very topic that we posted about a few weeks ago
      http://www.marketingshift.com/2006/8/downfall-digg-forthcoming-here-why.cfm

      does anyone have any questions they want me to ask them?
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19"It seems to me that many of the complaints that people make in these sorts of stories are that they are in the minority on an issue or that there is a majority working to change the face of Digg..."

      I would say that the 30 controlling digg are the minority, not the rest of us getting boned because nothing we submit makes it to the front page. We're always blasting companies like Google for censoring and Microsoft for controlling a market. Yet, here is our own, being complacent about a group of super-users, the top tier deciding what the lowly bottom are allowed to see.

      If you are for digg being controlled by these super-modders, then you are against exactly what digg and its users have always expressively been about, and you probably have your own hand in the pool. You are the minority.
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -26/+44Why does everyone keep insisting that there is a conspiracy afoot? The digg algorithm is based on numerous factors which explains how one story with 25 diggs can make the front page and another story with 40 won't be on the front page. One is the velocity at which people digg the story. Another is how many bury your story. So basing your theory on number of diggs alone doesn't work because there is more to it than that.

      On another note, why does everyone insist on telling me, or anyone else for that matter, on how I should be using digg. I can use it however the ***** I want to use it as long as I don't violate the TOS. If I want to simply digg a story for reading later, then I can.

      I'm sure I'll be modded down for speaking my opinion, but such is digg..
    • slythfox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I've noticed this too. There are a lot of stories posted by users who haven't gotten on the front page before, but they are very good, interesting, quality stories. In the mean time there are stories that aren't digg worthy, that somehow appear at the digg front page.
      I'll use jamendo (jamendo.com) as an example. It's been submitted 5 or 6 times in the last six months, by different users, trying to get the word of Jamendo known, as it's a rather amazing website: offers free, legal downloads to CC licenced music... The site's just amazing. But it's been submitted by users who aren't anywhere near top users. How does it not get to the front page?

      I don't think stories should disapear, too. If you submit it, it stays, unless it really is something inappropriate. Futher more, digg shouldn't ban certain sites from being submitted. That's elective, not democratic. I think a great example of this is QJ.net, which has at one point been banned from submitting to digg (they eventually go the attention of digg, and was actually able to talk to them about it.)
    • roguescout, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"If the response becomes simply forming another cadre to take on the first cadre .. Well, that still doesn't solve the issue, and works for crap in most systems you find it.

      With the exception of kung fu and western epics."

      Logged in just to Digg that. Kung Fu films and Western epics. What else do you need in life? Nice, zengonzo.
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Gregd, it would appear we are doing the same here .. Voicing our opinion on how we would like to see digg.

      And while some might throw about the term 'conspiracy', I think the real issue at hand is more a flaw or bug in the system.

      We're not talking about paranoia and jealousy and power-jockeying, we're talking about smoothing out a wrinkle in an otherwise lovely fabric.
    • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@goat4

      for real......but we just can't stay away can we?
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22To add:

      Being in the top 30 myself, I can unquivocally tell you that I'm NOT in cahoots with any other diggers to automatically digg their stories. I digg stories based on their interest to me. I may also digg a story for reading it later and to use digg as a type of bookmarking tool for me.

      I don't believe that because I'm in the top 30, that my burying or digging a story holds any more weight than anyone elses. If it does, then I'm sorry for that, but that's on digg and not me. I have many stories that get diggs near 40 that never make the front page. Just look through my submissions and you'll see them.

      All this being said, don't give up if you get frustrated. Digg is what you make it....
    • 10001110101, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3@Evroccck:

      Yes. "Do you think the popularity of digg has anything to do with you 'landing' a SuicideGirl?" And, segway from there to "If digg goes belly-up, do you have back-up plan to maintain Posh's interest?"

      @jesusphreak. Get over it. Like IQ, your karma is just a number. There are bigger & better things to aspire for. Like dating a SuicideGirl.
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -16/+18@zengonzo

      That's what I'm trying to tell you. Digg is what you make it. I don't think there is a 'flaw' in any of it. It's just the way it works. I've had people tell me that they bury my stuff without reading it, simply because I submitted it. They don't know me personally and don't care to but it's their right to do that. They're making digg what they want it to be. Hell, my comments get buried all the time.

      This story, http://www.digg.com/tech_news/IE_7_site_leads_to_Firefox_hole got marked as inaccurate and there wasn't anything inaccurate about it. Perhaps because people didn't understand that title, which I didn't write, or perhaps they just wanted to mark it as inaccurate. Regardless, it is permanently marked as inaccurate but it's not some big conspiracy...

      In fact my new motto for digg is: It's not a conspiracy...it's Digg!
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33PUBLISH THE DAMN ALGORITHM.

      You can't be user driven unless the algorithm is known. We can all make guesses and suppositions about how it works but there is no difference between a secret council (or conspiracy) and a secret algorithm.

      How am I to know that my diggs, submissions, and burys have any effect on digg whatsoever?
    • tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4People are pissed because digg is SO "democratic" and "user driven" that it seems like it's not. A perfect example is the multiplayer flash pong games. Let's say there are 1000 people controlling each paddle, respectively. 400 people on the left want the paddle to go up, and 600 want it to go down..so the paddle goes down. It'd be wrong to assume that some individual person was responsible for the paddles downward movement. They need to realize that the majority wanted it to be that way..so the same thing is happening with Digg. When you have such a large mass, that for the most part, is swaying back and forth on the same level, if you try to move in the opposite direction than where the mass is going, nothing is going to happen.

      Point is, what you're seeing IS what the majority chose. With Digg @ over 500,000 registered users, sure, 15 or 30 initial diggs may get a story to the front page, but once it's there, it's either going to get more diggs or disappear according to what the majority wants. It's that simple.

      What would help though, is if there was a little more transparency as far as the algorithm goes. I'm not asking for the source code. Just maybe a flow chart, or even something less detailed.
    • bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7When was 30 people in a group of half a million a majority?

      Oh Yea I remember it was called the Politburo!!!
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13"Why does everyone keep insisting that there is a conspiracy afoot? "

      Couple things: First, no one thinks there is a conspiracy. We think that there is a problem with a system that would allow 30 blind-clickers to keep each other at the top of the pile. You guys aren't the problem, but you certainly aren't the solution.

      And second, I'm thinking the reason they haven't ever published the algorithm is to keep people like gregd and those in his circle-jerk club from being able to work the system. If they *are* this concerned with keeping people from taking advantage of the system, why aren't they doing anything to stop it? Is it simply apathy on the part of the digg employment, or apathy on the part of the digg community.

      I'm formally putting in my complaint with digg right now, and I suggest you all do the same. They'll listen, if they truly are as community-driven as they say they are.
    • tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3"And second, I'm thinking the reason they haven't ever published the algorithm is to keep people like gregd and those in his circle-jerk club from being able to work the system. If they *are* this concerned with keeping people from taking advantage of the system, why aren't they doing anything to stop it? Is it simply apathy on the part of the digg employment, or apathy on the part of the digg community."

      They're not doing anything to stop it, because that would moderation, therefore souring the democratic aspect.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Digg isn't a Democracy, it's an ant farm.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"God forbid we have a dedicated group of libertarians, racists, or fundamentalists taking advantage of the system... signs point to that already being a problem."

      And fanboys (possibly paid shills) who aren't interested in a truthful discussion.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I've tried. You can only get to the origional article "http://digg.com/software/Digg_the_rigged_A_closer_look_at_Digg_s_democratic_model" by a direct link.

      There should NEVER be a method where a digg article is removed. If it is reported it should be dugg down and marked. Not erased and hidden.
    • ryanlive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9the following story was submitted an 1 hour 18 minutes ago and made it to the front page but is now buried!
      http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data

      It's time for a revolution! I say we bury people who participate in these"circle jerks." They obviously don't like criticism. It reminds me of dictators that "silence" people that speak against the tyrannical regime they live under.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@tokyomonster

      Stop talking about democracy. There is a diffrence between "popularity" and "majority". Popularity is the cool kid has 40 friends and everybody else has 4. There are a million kids. Should he run the country?

      Majority means >50% not cream of the crop.
    • popularme, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6geez you nerds need to get a life and a job!

      who cares?! digg is just a stupid website just like every others on the intraweb, you go to waste time while you're at work!

      just chill out you ***** nerds!
    • PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I love digg, but definitely there is a big problem here. If you're not a top user, DO NOT BOTHER submitting a story. That's just sad, and it sucks. Damn good stories get absolutely nowhere, and it is pissing me off more and more.

      digg, I forgive you, but please sort it out.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"I don't believe that because I'm in the top 30, that my burying or digging a story holds any more weight than anyone elses."

      I am also in the Top 30 (last time I checked, Monday). 80% of my stories, of which I am personally interested in, don't get Dugg, they get stuck in limbo at 20-40 Diggs. Diggers continuously Digg the same lame types of stories.

      I've gotten pretty bored with it in the last few days. I post a great story and video about the Su-34 and it doesn't get Dugg, yet a story about making a pickle lightbulb gets on the front page. Or I can post a story about an ground-breaking upcoming PC game and it will be ignored because the gaming section is run by Nintendo Diildo-worshiippiing fanboiis. The fanboys have driven away alot of people from Digg in general, it's the same as the rest of the internet.
    • FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Seems like if this was really a problem, THIS article wouldn't have 900+ diggs.
    • PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Regardless of whether there is any human editing here, or whatever...there exists a huge hump that you must get over in order to have your story appear on the frontpage. This hump has to do with top users, largely. An item must be dugg by a top user, or submitted by a top user, in order to get anywhere.

      This is not to say that all of the top users' stories make the frontpage...because their stories, too, must be dugg by other top users.

      The algorithm needs work, because this is an issue that has been debated for quite some time now, and a lot of people seem to agree that there's an issue here.

      I, for one, feel there should be far more frontpage stories than there are. Being on digg so much, I find it rather slow now with the frontpage stories. I think this also is an affecing factor.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Web 2.0 my ass. More like 0.9 with a great color scheme.

      This article is possibly inaccurate. There was nothing inaccurate about the story. You might not like it. You might not agree with the opinion. However it is 100% based on fact (I verified the other story disappeared and this is the most damming part of the whole fiasco).
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The article is definitely unleashing the truth. I have noticed this increasingly for the past few weeks.

      I don't consider it a conspiracy or anything, this is just how the top diggers have been acting. A lot of crappy stories make it to the front page because they are submitted by a popular user. We would get many more higher quality and original submissions on the front page if the popular users didn't get to it so easily.
    • rnmrnmrnm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@detonate
      I just buried this story by reporting it as a duplicate in hope that the duplicate will emerge ;)
    • chad78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'm not a top 30. (I am a top 50, but no one is complaining about me ... yet.) So as an outsider to this little *ahem* "top 30 circle jerk" (I did not make that up) I must say ... Who cares? You know, if 30 or 20 or 50 or 90 people want to digg each other's stories - let them. I digg my friend's stories. I also report my friends as inaccurate when need be. I also ignore some of their stories. Am I more prone to digg stories from my friends? Of course. But I also scan the upcoming stories as well. I think if more of the bitchers would start doing *that* (scan the upcomings) they'd (a) see that the top 30 submit more stories than the vast majority (b) see that the top 30's stories are better - (better quality and better titles/descriptions) - than most other stories and (c) START HAVING MORE CONTROL OF WHAT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE. You don't control what's on the front page by only reading / digging front page stories. You don't control the front page by just doing that and submitting a few stories and then bitching when it doesn't get to the front page. You have to digg non-front-page stories.

      I'm submitting this comment to all the stories about this garbage.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"I'm submitting this comment to all the stories about this garbage."
      Well Kevin Rose doesn't seem to think that it is complete garbage.
      http://digg.com/tech_news/Gaming_Digg_New_Changes
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@marahmarie..

      I didn't say that. You attributed that quote to me and it wasn't me...
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The first thing the writer of this article has overlooked, is the fact that the top-30 digg users clearly digg a lot of stories that get submitted. More than 50% of those users have dugg over 10,000 stories, and 5 of them even over 15,000 stories. These people most likely are the first ones to digg a story, regardless if they are stories from top-30 users.

      The second thing is, that this is also about friends-networking. The more mutual friends you have on digg, the more likely it is that a percentage of those will digg your story when you submit it, when they go through the 'Submitted' list of stories in the 'Friends' Activity' section of the left-hand sidebar.

      The statistics might be fair, but the assertions based on it, and especially the conclusions are just one of the possible explanations, and far from being resolute proof that there's a controlling factor among the top-30 digg users.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Digg and sites like it are only democratic and user-driven up to a certain point.

      That point is when democracy or user participation negatively affects advertising or investment revenue.

      It's all about the money. If there is any content submitted to Digg that decreases the amount of money flowing into the owners' wallet, it will be suppressed. If there is any content submitted that makes digg less attractive to advertisers, it will be suppressed. If any users voice ideas that are seen as making digg less attractive to advertisers, those users will be banned.

      That's really all there is to it.

      A truly democratic and user-driven site would completely non-profit (Craigslist is closest to this model), or a co-op where all profits were distributed to the users themselves, based on quality of stories submitted, how much their comments were valued by other users, etc.
  • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21You make a good case. At the very least, the model for front paging ought to be changed to make popularity a less significant impact - enough so that it wouldn't be worth the effort.
    • greyghost487, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8popularity??? isnt that democracy??? Democracy is more or less a gentle natural selection process. The good diggers will rise to the top... and like hemphill81 said, alot of these people spend alot of time on digg and are just the first to submit it.

      Lets say a story comes out covered by several sites. a guy that just signs up to digg submits a link to site A covering the story and hemphill81 submits a link that covers it on site B. I am going to digg hemphill's link because i trust him and he submits quality stories. Nothing against the new guy... i just trust hemphill better.

      As far as the first story offline.. i would just assume somthing is wrong... and hopefully the digg staff would be on top of it.

    • ryanlive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50An interesting experiment would be to withhold the story submitter identification for 24 hours. I suspect that this would prevent people from digging stores just because it was submitted by their friend and force stores to be judged on their own merits. All in favor say aye!
    • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@ryanlive: I think it'd be even better to do away with submitter identification altogether. Then people would be submitting stories because they believe in the idea of digg, not because they think it's some kind of popularity contest where the kid with the most stories on the front page is the coolest.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Witholding the ID has pros and cons.

      It could be easily defeated by real friends (ie by emailing your buddies). However, it would prevent the 500 people who befriend the top users.

      We need a system that gets diggs on the first post, not the duplicates!
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42karma scores got to go too
    • fprintf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Back in the day I really liked karma scoring on slashdot. It was fun to see my karma rise and fall with the whims of the moderators and meta-moderators. Now it just shows as "excellent", whatever that means.

      Does Digg have a Karma system?
  • bluephoenix, on 10/12/2007, -19/+13Let's see how fast this gets buried. It's a shame.
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22 It certainly is a shame. It is a flawed system. It shouldn't be overhauled, but it definitely requires adjustment.
    • mrlost117, on 10/12/2007, -25/+16this is not a flawed system, wtf is wrong with everyone today.

      look, the missing story that should have been frontpaged but wasn't is a bit weird, yes, but any number of things could have happened with it besides a mod taking it down. If that was the case, shame on the mod, but more than likely it wasn't.

      As for the "digg isn't fair" crybaby *****, there is nothing stopping you guys from making friends on digg and doing the exact same thing. The top diggers are just one step ahead of you in the thinking dept. obviously, because you haven't thought of doing what they do, or your too lazy. In both instances, you have no merit.

    • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2my problem is... what does it matter? There is *usually* a pretty good description of every story. Not interested? Don't read it and quit cryin' because you're not in the cool club.
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I've never submitted a story, moonshn. I probably never will.

      So I'm not too concerned about whether or not I could get a story to the front page.

      It's not about popularity or equality or punishment .. it's all about quality.

      As it stands, the range is being funelled into a rather narrow pipe which, as the system is currently designed, can only become narrower.
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9I'm surprised this made it to the front page. Stories like these have been getting buried for weeks. Digg is clearly being moderated. If that's not the case, then why isn't Kevin Rose responding to these criticisms? He is afraid to address the issue because it is true. In fact, Digg's continued silence on this matter is more than likely an attempt to avoid hurting the 'perceived' value of their product while they negotiate a buyout.

      It appears Kevin Rose has become "The man". And as we all know, "The man" never has a problem sticking it to the little guy.
    • GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The only flaw in the system is the human element.
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7NEW DEVELOPMENT IN DIGG MANIPULATION:

      http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data#c2955184

      This story was front-paged a short while ago, and has reached a more than respectable number of diggs, then shortly thereafter, was tagged "Innacurate" and now has VANISHED from the front page!

      The cabal at work?
    • jessecollins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"NEW DEVELOPMENT IN DIGG MANIPULATION:

      http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data#c2955184

      This story was front-paged a short while ago, and has reached a more than respectable number of diggs, then shortly thereafter, was tagged "Innacurate" and now has VANISHED from the front page!

      The cabal at work?"

      This new story just got ripped off of digg too. This is royal BS.
    • jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3That's because nobody wants to read lameass conspiracy theories about this kinda ***** anymore.
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@kbarrett
      You are sooo wrong. Kevin Rose just responded.

      - Okay, kids. I take it back. Digg down my lameass comment already.
  • allanpat, on 10/12/2007, -49/+5who knew the bush administration was controlling digg?
    • jawbreaker4fs, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8My bet is Mark Shuttleworth... take a look at all the Ubuntu stories on digg!
    • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10Yea, read all the anti-bush anti-republican diggs. Moron.
  • moracity, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12How long till this story disappears? I routinely see stories with only 20 or so diggs on the frontpage. I don't know how this system works, but something is clearly amiss. Of course, if digg had a more centrist or right-leaning user base, dissappearing stories regarding digg itself would be on the frontpage of the LA & NY Times.
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8NEW DEVELOPMENT IN DIGG MANIPULATION:

      http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data#c2955184

      This story was front-paged a short while ago, and has reached a more than respectable number of diggs, then shortly thereafter, was tagged "Innacurate" and now has VANISHED from the front page!

      The cabal at work?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How long till this story disappears? I routinely see stories with only 20 or so diggs on the frontpage."

      My stories routinely get that many Diggs or more, yet only 20% at best ever hit the front pages.
  • attila, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Dollars make sense right? When I joined digg it was new, the system worked, they didn't have venture, investor funding (that we know about) and again, the system worked. It seems as though, some sacrifices were made to policy and enforcement thereof; both societal (amongst Digg.com's community) and administratively for how things were going to be handled. The popularity of a cadre of top-users assists in Digg's bottom line. It ensures that there will be "good" news stories every day on the front page. It's what most people come to Digg for in the first place. What we all have sacrificed is this, what made Digg unique: The process of top stories becoming top stories...

    Digg is just another website that has succumb to the "Dollars makes sense" motto.
    • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40ok, but the problem is not that ""good" news stories every day on the front page" because they don't (and yes, everyone's opinion of a "good" story is different).

      the problem is that a "good" story submitted by a user that isn't popular rarely sees the light of day, and if gopher (just an example, i'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular) posts a pic of himself taking a dump it is somehow front page material because of the cabal at the top

      this will eventually hurt digg's bottom line because you can only operate like this for so long before casual users refuse to use the site because they don't care about another "AMAZING pic".
    • attila, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I put "good" news in quotes because I know it's subjective... and also to illustrate the point that the mere fact that a story has made it to the front page with 1000+ diggs gives the impression that it's "Good" when it sometimes is not. Sometimes this cadre of top-digg contributors post some really ridiculous articles, even incorrect ones and many more times, dupes of stories that already exist. I wish I had spent the time to pull my thoughts together on this better, but my main point is this: Digg.com isn't going to do anything about these people because they're doing (for free?) what other organizations would pay for them to do, despite selling-out the casual user in the process. And I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks again JesusPhreak for bringing these issues to light.

      Also, people.. stop burying comments that you disagree with. If someone is saying something in an intelligent manner, without being insulting and is relevant to the topic, it should be supported. I hate seeing Digg's potential being squandered by selfish users.
    • pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I hate seeing the worlds potential squandered by selfish users. But really this is how things works like it or not. Sadly most people will complain but do little to change what is wrong. These people may be the top users and they may hold sway, but they put in work to get there, and will work to perpetuate their existence.
  • fraggle35, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17This story will disappear as well, and it's better than any off digitalgophers
  • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8well im doing my part. Im reporting all gophers (and the others) new storys as spam
    • hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11Wow that is brilliant that way when a great story comes out and one of us post it it will not make the front page. Way to contribute.
    • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43yeah, not cool at all. gopher makes some quality submissions. sure, some garbage too, but when you submit as much as he does, they can't all be winners. the problem is not the submission, it's the blind digging of the submission by "friends"
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10While I understand your intentions, Nick, I don't think that completely suppressing these guys is the solution.

      It's not like they are doing anything explicitly wrong or dirty - it's just how the system is set up.

      The system needs an adjustment which doesn't involve outright smothering of already dedicated users. These guys are providing content after all.
    • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I agree. I don't *think* these guys are intentionally subverting the system or anything, they are just taking full advantage of it. Unfortunately that just means the system is easy to game and needs to be changed.

      But I could be wrong - there have definitely been people in the past who have abused the system (whatever happened to albertpacino?).
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@hemphill81 - I agree with your point that it's not a great idea to mark a good story as lame. However, I don't think doing so would reduce the overall quality on digg. Someone else would submit the same story or another cool story would appear in it's place. I see lots of interesting stories in the queue everyday.
    • hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8@detonate
      What good would that be who would want to submit to a site when their article will be buried so someone else can submit it.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Someone else would submit the same story or another cool story would appear in it's place. I see lots of interesting stories in the queue everyday."

      Exactly. That's part of the problem, whether these guys believe what they're doing is right or not. These guys are probably not the only ones submitting the same story, but they're the only people getting on the front page.

      Marking one of their stories as spam will not stop the story from hitting the front page, but it will give someone else a chance to be on the front page for once.
    • umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Headzoo is right. The cabal at the top are not submitting unique stories, they often get their story in late in the game but get to the front page first because of the automatic digging of their cadre. There's nothing wrong with users marking gophers or anyones story as a dupe and digging the original.

      And I don't see anything wrong with users marking the same stories as spam. Did gopher even read the articles when he was submitting them two minutes after each other? Do any of the other link spammers?

      If you want to read these submitters stories, mark them as your friend and read them that way, just don't expect the rest of us to bend over and read your link spam...
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@hemphill81 - Well you can't control what other people do. You can only do your best to continue submitting good articles.
  • bluephoenix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5also found by this guy http://www.480x.com/2006/09/06/working-digg/
  • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Check out the most popular stories in the 'upcoming' page. The whole way through it is virtually only this same set of guys:

    http://www.digg.com/view/all/upcoming/most/page1
    • nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I always knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was that bad.

      Though I am happy to see less of wayjer.
    • The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not only that, but if you look at each of the guy's profiles and examine what they've each submitted, you will never find a submitted story that received less than 20-30 diggs.

      What are the odds that someone wouldn't have ONE SINGLE story that flops when presented to the community?
    • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Didn't mean to post this here.
  • charbarred, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6This is quite cool. I was just about to leave digg forever and stick to Spotback, when I came by all these stories...hopefully this will bring some much needed changes.
    • jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -15/+23Digg is definitely one sided and can be manipulated by a small few.
      Here is what you will always see on Digg:
      1. Bush Bashing
      2. Christian Bashing
      3. Microsoft Bashing

      I still think Digg is the best thing going. I just skip the above articles. That's why I would love to set filters for my Digg viewing.
    • godsfilth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4this wont bring changes sadly because then they would have to own up to the flaws and they obviously dont want to.
    • jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Isn't that funny. I wrote that digg users bash three topices. Bush, Christians, and Microsoft and I was buried within 5 minutes. See. That proves my point. Digg users are very one sided.
    • Me1on, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4 jakatak: I completely agree. When is the last time anyone saw a pro-Christian, pro-Republican, pro-Conservative, pro-Microsoft, anti-piracy, etc. article on the front page of digg? It's completely one-sided, and anyone who disagrees with the opinions of an article mark it as spam.
  • allanpat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1639 diggs in 44 minutes, but no front page.
    lame.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2Kevin rose equals to ... ?
    • jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I don't think anyone knows the exact algorithm that Digg uses.
      How many buries until it is removed?
      What else deems an article to be removed?
      How come as low as 40 diggs makes it to the front page?
      How can we filter out certain topics like politices or anything with Windows Vista?

      Digg needs to become more managable. It's getting there. let's see how much more they can improve before CNET or FOX buys them.
  • supernova17, on 10/12/2007, -39/+21Damn, I wish I was paid to do this. But no, I love digg too much.

    Top diggers are on that list for a reason, we are pretty much the first people to report big stories because of our constant "news monitoring." As for digging friends' stories, if you look at Digg TOS you'll that it's not prohibited. I digg other people's stories in the queue, there is no harm for general population.
    • JimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32I have no doubt that the top diggers are the top diggers for a reason. They are the people setting around looking for news to submit and digging news that they see in the queue. That's fine with me. But to digg someones story because they're your "friend" and not on the quality of the story they submit is just wrong.

      I believe that this exact problem is what causes so much of the front page news on digg to be one sided both political and content related. You see so much Apple/Unix/Hate MS articles on the front page because those in the "click" feel this way.

      Just my opinion.

      - Jim
    • ZeroG52, on 10/12/2007, -49/+9You're a piece of ***** ball licker. Your friends are too. I hope they change this site to get rid of ***** like you who are ruining the whole point of this site. Idiot.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Digg's TOS also says no gaming the system. If you guys are digging each other's stories on the spot without reading the stories, just because of who submitted it, then you're wrong. After all this time, I'm sure you're all aware of each other, and you know exactly what you're doing.

      You've turned Digg, a community of half a million people, into a community of 30. What YOU guys find interesting is what gets posted on the front page.
    • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20cutting people off on the highway is not prohibited either. but you don't do it because it's not right. digging 20 stories in 20 seconds because your friends submitted them isn't right either.

      nova, i applaud many of your submissions, but to sit here and say you have earned the top spot by only fair and equitable means is complete b.s. i could care less about being on the front page myself, but i do care about fair play and a true democratic system.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"I believe that this exact problem is what causes so much of the front page news on digg to be one sided both political and content related. You see so much Apple/Unix/Hate MS articles on the front page because those in the "click" feel this way."

      Exactly. Those stories are possibly not the stories the vast community would find interesting, but it's what we're all forced to look at each day because these 30 or so guys are controlling the whole thing.
    • quine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Let us not forget that as digg popularity rises, traffic increases, being 'paid' may come into effect. PPV advertising models, anyone? I'm in agreement with many others that the algorithm needs to be tweaked if the spirit of Digg is to survive.
    • gregharmon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I don't think anyone is saying that what you and your friends are doing is wrong or against any ToS. They're saying that digg's current system is slightly flawed and should be adjusted.
  • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Big props to the Digg moderators for allowing this to hit the frontpage. Hopefully some of these issues can be worked out.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Notice how many more diggs it took to get to the front page without the top diggers digging it? I think it got to the front page with about 150 diggs. The story above it submitted by p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 reached the front page with 39 diggs.
    • Mantarii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"What Digg Moderators? Digg is totally democratic, don't you know? Totally."

      Hey, it is just people gaming the system. You'll see a lot of that going on with, say, the Something Awful crowd. They're pretty good about gaming the system.

      EXAMPLE: When they tried to puff up a turd to make it go viral, they'd take any complaint about it (or anyone revealing the nature of the attempt) in the YouTube comments, and collectively mark their comments as "SPAM". Naturally, any opposing view dissappeared within a few minutes. (However, in this case, the Anti-SA crowd got the last laugh when they marked the video itself as a violation of TOS, and got it yanked from YouTube!)

      Yup. All these democratic web gadgets are great. Except for the realization that people work in groups, game the system, and exploit them for their own purposes. Automatic thresholds are ripe for abuse by groups and ballot stuffers. No question that Digg isn't immune to this abuse.
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12It's on the front page now.
    • JeffT1545, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4...waiting for it to disappear...
  • Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Oh the irony.
  • fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -9/+50kill the 'friends' feature.
    • SuperOmegaSlack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I agree with fiver22....

      The "friends" feature is what allows these people to digg each others stories, this isn't a social networking site, if you want that, got to myspace.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4people will just use other methods like sites like the one below.

      http://fiver22.diggnomatic.net/

    • flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I actually think they should flesh out the friends features some more. Add a discussion thread for each user's profile. So we can discuss things like, "What happened to Albertpacino?" I'd also like a more robust profile page, but nothing too much like the evil that is MySpace.
    • fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@PowerCow: Good point.
  • vagabond0101, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11jesusphreak:
    EXACTLY what I have been observing about digg! I have written about this in a lot of digg comments. Some top users like p9 some how make it to the front page even though their article is not that good. And some really informative articles dont show up on frontpage. Digg is FLAWED.
    • fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Yes, Digg is flawed!

      The flaw is that it will only ever be as good as its users.
      And, being human, Digg's users are prone to:

      Laziness -- "Ooo, shiney headline! But I don't like to read. I'll digg it anyway."
      Nepotism -- "My friend, Sam, dugg the story, so I'll digg it as well."
      Mob mentaility -- "A story with 84334 diggs... I'll digg it so I can be cool too."
      Tabloid fever -- "Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht's lovechild is Batboy?! Digg!!"
      Buzzword-itis -- "OS11: Web2.0 Ubuntu written with AJAX on Rails?! Digg!!"
      Egocentricity -- "73 diggs/minute and my story isn't on the FP?!?! Digg must broken!!!"
  • Mantarii, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Non-amazing fact: Kevin & Co have shown that if they really want an article front paged, they'll make it happen. Digg isnt democratic. It is semi-democratic, and it also suffers from ballot stuffing.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The question is how do your prevent the stuffing? It seems like if a certain user only diggs stories from a certain subset of the user base that would be a red flag, but it could be tricky to enforce. I do like the idea of anonymous submission.

      It would be nice if a digg was seperated into two groups: soft diggs for those who read the headline and never even read the story and hard diggs for those who actually follow the link vs just reading the blurb. I have seen a lot of stories lately that the blurb is completely incorrect, but the story is on the front page before people notice that the article is not as advertised.
    • umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Anonymous submission is a great idea... I mean, that could NEVER be abused in the same way...
  • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Voting does not stop when a story hits the FP. Just because a story hits the FP DOES NOT mean it can't subsequently get buried. Indeed, with so many more views once on the fp, a story can quickly get buried if users vote to do so.
  • Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I thought about submitting something like this as well but feared the usual and unsophisticated response is along the lines of "oh well the users run the content" B.S. If people are willing to accept that Digg is heavily bias and absolved of all fairness then there really isn't a problem (for me). It's a liberal site with a very focused (or rather, limitedly focused) user-base and that's all there is to it. I'll still come and use the damn site. It when the advocates vehemently defend the contrary to the e-death that it becomes annoying and silly and found wanting of ridicule.
  • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3hmm, well i guess this confirms my thoughts that something fishy was going on here... xD
  • Akram, on 10/12/2007, -25/+3I'm happy with the way digg runs, ok. Its better than other sites, and i think the fact we all keep coming back here says something. Stop writing useless stories like this, cos it does no benefit. Let us all be naive and get on with using it. So what if Kevin pushes some stories to the front, its his site, i'm sure Amazon pushes what they want to sell to the front. Woopedooo maybe it is suppose to be democratic, so is half the world, doesn't stop the government doing crap without asking.
    • d2nd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4its users like you that are ruining digg
    • umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Just because Digg is good (or the best) doesn't mean it couldn't be better!
    • superterran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@d2

      No, It's users like him who are accepting Digg the way the majority obviously want it to be. Here's an idea for everybody who will fix this problem really quick...

      The top 20 or so people who submit ***** to digg - Block them. That's right, block them. If we don't see their posts, then they can't game the system. At some point, they'll stop trying, and then we'll go back to being a grass roots news site. You don't have to bury them, you just have to block them. In theory (I haven't done this yet), if you block all the people who circle jerk themselves to the front page, then whats left will be the front page you want to see. If enough people do this and digg these other artlcles, then the Digg Clique will have no influence.

      I, of course, don't come to Digg to see the day's funniest blog entry, so I'd just sume keep things the way they are. But, instead of bitching about it like a bunch of marxists, do something about it and use the power of moderation you all have. Whatever, I believe in Democracy - the strong should be able to game the system, and a big ol' mob of the weak should be able to bust them in the head for it with their bud-nippers.

      ...I love internets.
  • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -38/+16Digg stories bitching about digg instantly get a LAME burial from me. Why? Because it's just whining. The reason your article didn't get an "inaccurate" flag is because people buried it as something else. LAME.

    Don't like the way Digg works? Don't use it.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11You are an example of a living sheeple.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Exactly right. Just because a story doesn't have the inaccurate flag doesn't mean it wasn't voted to the bury heap. These "exposes" crop up once a month and are always based on a lack of understanding of how the system works.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Whether executed by secret digg moderators, or by digg users marking a story as lame, it smacks of censorship when a story just disappears, especially given that the top digg users seem to have so much more power compared with the rest of us.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Define "disappears" in terms of what you are trying to illustrate. And before you do that, realize that once a story gets buried, it won't show up in seaches unless you check the box "include buried stories".
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ArchieAndrews - The story was no longer visible in the digg queue or through searching. That's what I meant by 'disappears'.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Even after checking the "include buried stories" checkbox on the search screen? With the understanding that this might be a silly question, do you have an example of a story that has "disappeared"?
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My point is that when the top users are given so much power by the algorithm that they can bury a story through just a few marking it as lame, it appears to be censorship - i.e. they can make any articles critical of them disappear. I realise you can still access the article by checking the 'Include Buried Stories' box but not many people do that.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Bug in the digg comment system - please bury
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1...and my point is that, if you take the time to understand how digg works, it is clear they don't disappear, which was your first assertion. I am happy to see you understand that you were incorrect and jumping to a conclusion without taking the time to see if there was some legitimate explanation. By the way, if a story doesn't get fp'd, it leaves the queue all on its own after 24 or 48 hours, I forget the exact number.

      As for people "disappearing stories" by casting a few votes for them...well, that is exactly what YOU can do too to any story on the site if enough people agree with you. If it is interesting enough, even the "great cabal" of digg users cannot silence you. Case in point: the story we are now commenting on and the others to come after it. If they really wanted to silence you by making this story disappear, what happened? How come they couldn't flex the muscle you decry to make this hubub disappear?
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Archie - I don't think anything I said was incorrect. My point and the reason I've been so interested in this story is that the algorithm is tilted towards giving too much favour to the diggs (and buries) of the top users, thus giving them disproportionate power. I don't know why you are arguing with me on this - even Kevin Rose recognises that this is a problem and responded to our complaints saying they are going to modify the algorithm.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not arguing with you. I am correcting your misinterpretation in this single comment thread that you posted on. You were concerend about "disappearing" stories and I asked you to clarify. Your comment was:

      "@ArchieAndrews - The story was no longer visible in the digg queue or through searching. That's what I meant by 'disappears'."

      I was correcting you. It is available in the search.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll give you that, fair enough :) Just out of interest, which part of the world are you from, Archie? I'm from New Zealand.
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm on the west coast of Canada, British Columbia to be more specific. I used to skydive with a New Zealander. It was great fun to introduce him as an Aussie to new people just to watch him react. :)
  • Mantarii, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Also... another point I've seen. "A well known tech site" will find a really neat story which has its own webpage. It'll write up a blurb, what not, feature the story. Then, someone reads the story (on the tech site) and adds the URL of the story (directly from the original site, not the tech site) to Digg.

    "A well known tech site" will then use multiple accounts to Bury a story in order to make sure that it doesn't make the Digg home page (and thereby, make the story on "A well known tech site" to be much less valuable).

    I see some of this as deserved. I mean, the "well known tech site" did get the scoop on everyone and draw everyone's attention to the story. So they deserve something. But I don't think I'm too happy amount their using multiple accounts to make sure that the story itself is featured more exclusively on their own site.

    And when you go to ask digg, "This has 75 votes, why wasn't it front paged?" The answer: "The democratic process!!"
  • nagumi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Uh, you're number one on the front page, buddy.
  • 9tailfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7'Democratic?, More like - The Digg Socialist Republic - Democracy is a Myth.
  • n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Am I the only one who does not look at who submits a story? I just read the story and the comments.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I usually don't either. But after a few months of quick glances, I started to see a pattern, and started paying attention.
  • madcat87, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Digg is not democratic for a long time.If you post an article about Kevin Rose having a huge boil on his ass it will never reach the front page althought it is true.I even have pictures of Kevin without underpants and his Huge boil moderating digg.
  • onethumb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I saw the same behavior on one of my stories a week or two ago: http://digg.com/software/Amazon_S3_The_Holy_Grail (from blog post: http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/2006/08/12/amazon-s3-the-holy-grail/ ). It also shows as if it's been promoted to the homepage, but never actually showed up there and disappeared from the Upcoming queue.

    However, I'm not sure I buy the whole conspiracy theory about it. I prefer to think (hope?) that digg doesn't moderate and filter like this, and instead, that it's some sort of bug or fluke.

    Be interesting to see where this goes, though...
  • yodandy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Strange, I added a story last night, its got around 70 diggs now, still no front page...wtf?
    • ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8What part of "enough people voted to bury it, regardless of the number of diggs" don't you understand? It is a weighting algorithm, not a threshold of diggs that prompts a front page promotion.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Because it isnt about Wii, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Ubuntu, Bush, Digg, Google nor China.
  • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -18/+19Hi, folks! I'm reading this over lunch, which the missus just cooked for me while I was outside mowing. My, it was a beautiful day outside! The sun was shining, the air was sweet, butterflies were fluttering by, and half of my garden may yet make some decent produce before the season is out. No mistake, it's perfect baseball weather out there today.

    What's this about a Digg cabal? Oh, OK, so there's a Digg cabal. Gee, out of 938,846,109,983,466,129 websites on the Internet, I'm really not fixing to lose any sleep about it.
    • gregharmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9That first paragraph has made me want to go outside. Seriously. :/
    • fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@hosiah
      It is an utter travesty that your comment is being modded down. Most appropriate (and funny) comment in here yet.
    • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Way to put it in perspective. Some people need to step back from this website and take a breather.
  • taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Here are more details about the Rigging...
    http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2In all social settings there are people who become leaders and others who become followers. Digg is no different. If a person has collected a large friends list they are more influential among readers. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Digg does not exclude anyone. Anyone is free to sign up and build a friends list and enjoy the same sort of influence. I don't see the problem with it.
    • vagabond0101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Digg is supposed to promote the most informative article to the mainpage. EVERYONE should decide which article should go to the mainpahe not just a set of users.
  • fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So, to put all these comments in more simple words...
    The biggest problem with user-driven content websites are the users.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10And there in lies the problem. It seems that the core of this issue is not really digg, nor digg moderators; but in fact a group of users with nothing to do but digg their own stories and bury others so only theirs make it to the home page. Since the majority of the rest of us don't have the time to put that kind of effort into it, it seems likely that these guys will continue to control digg until they get bored with it and someone else takes their place.

      I wonder how long it will be before companies start hiring people to digg for them so they can take advantage of the digg effect? Or is it already happening.... There sure seem to be a lot of IGN pages in the gaming section.....
    • fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You forgot to mentions those users who only complain about their stories not being on the front page because Kevin Rose hates them and personally deleted it from the record (obviously).
  • Battleman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4wow - this has gone from 80 to 380 diggs in the last few minutes...

    Looks like you've hit a nerve! Awesome.

    (and in the time it took to write and submit this comment - gone up to 430)
  • hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4QWITCHERBITCHIN.
  • n0yd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Interesting, within the 10 or so minutes it took me to read the article, the other article and the comments, this article jumped from 178 to 430 diggs.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8HMM i would digg this but
    jesusphreak is in the top 300 out of tens of thousands
    he gets 20% of his stories dugg to the front page
    the story in question is about problems in diggs democracy model which:
    A:) First i wonder if he thinks the slashdot model is better
    B:) didnt he notice this has been posted many many times before and digg has improved code to help prevent "cheating"
    C:) offers no solutions
    D:) friends digging friends is life
    E:) when you complain about digg which has a huge and vocal fan base, you are bound to get your story buried as lame.
    F:) a lot of people hate blogs

    AS one of many that enjoys digg, i dont care how a story gets to the front page or even if it doesn represent collective will, how ever it happens i still enjoy digg. I have a much lower post to homepage ratio than jesusphreak and i dont care. I post what i find interesting and if just 4 people agree so be it.
    You could try to get some of the top 30 to be friends with you..
    Oh i do admit there are issues like the political people making it look like ideas are popular.. But that doesnt seem to be what he is complaining about. He just seems to be complaining about HIS stories reaching the front page. SO sorry I really mean no offence, but i find that lame.
    • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27> jesusfreak is in the top 300 out of tens of thousands

      You are correct. I believe out of my 15 frontpage stories, 13 are from over a year ago. I didn't take advantage of the system.

      > A:) First i wonder if he thinks the slashdot model is better

      It isn't better ideally, but currently it might just be working better.

      > C:) offers no solutions

      You are right - I want this brought to light so hopefully someone can fix it or offer a solution.
    • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I don't know the solution either. At least it's a little better than Slashdot. On Slashdot, someone can label your post and you're hard pressed to overcome it sometimes. You can be on topic and be labelled OT, Troll, whatever. At least with digg it's up or down, dugg or not.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Jesusphreak i just want to thank you for replying with such a good demeaner, even concidering i was basically dising your article.
      I often think the playground attitude of the comment system can be much worse of a problem.
      AS it is nice to have someone with a completely different view respond without just resorting to name calling.
      a buried catagory might be nice, so you can see the buried stories with the most diggs.
      And i would like to see an easy way to check the stats that you researched..I dont mean check your math, i mean digg should impliment something so when you click on someones profile you can see how often their friends digg their stories, so you can get a better idea when people vote in mindless groups.
  • dragongrrl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9
    maybe any one user should have a maximum number of diggs he may give in a single day. that way, a person might think twice before auto-digging a story simply because it was posted by a buddy or theirs.

    sure, people will still game the system but it's a start.

    i should think it's also incumbent on the more casual users of the site to start looking at the upcoming stories and digg/bury them should they wish to have any influence on what appears on the front page...
  • sandpaperback, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Maybe I see Digg as something different than some of you...

    I use it as a -- shocker! -- bookmarking website. I don't always read an article before I digg it. Sometimes I don't have the time, or sometimes I'm at work (where a lot of the stories are blocked), so I digg them so that I can come back later. I go through the front page, then I go through the upcoming stories. I don't give a poo if the story is on the front page or not. If I go back to a story later, read it, and don't like it, I un-digg it.

    I don't really understand why anyone would get their panties in a bunch over who the top users are or how they affect the front page. As long as it's not being filled with penis enlargement ads and pyramid schemes.

    Additionally, if you think Digg could be better, why not spend your time doing some coding and *build* the site that you think it should be?
    • flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think there should be a way to mark the story so you can come back to it later... you know, without having to digg it right then. There are tons of stories I can't access from work. I used to digg them and never get back to them. These days I email it home and read it later... maybe.

      Oh, and I think digg is working just fine... friends digging each others posts is just part of the community experience.
  • dralter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Soon the front page will be nothing but posts by digitalgopher.
  • NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3This is the same exact scenario as the Forever Geek situation from April.

    A guy posted a story about how Digg is rigged (no pun intended). It got to the front page then is was taken off the front page because there were pages of people marking it as "lame". Kevin even included a screenshot in the comments. Yes, I know it could have been 'shopped but it wouldn't have been worth the effort. Digg wasn't that big of a deal.

    The poster then got banned because he then created multiple user names and spammed Digg w/ the same message of Digg being shady. The ban was lifted once he agreed to stop the spamming.

    At the end of the day there is nothing to be alarmed about. History is just repeating itself.
  • Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The bottom line is that I still visit Digg, but I have a much narrower focus, and significantly lower expectations. It's unfortunate that I get to see what "most people" think is important, because that criterion, whatever it happens to be, seems to have deteriorated quite noticeably over the last few months.
  • Aflat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2A story can get 170 diggs and not be on the front page. The number of diggs is not the only factor to making the front page. If you get 170 diggs, and 100 lames in 2 minutes, then you probably won't make the front page. If you get 50 diggs, and no lames in 2minutes, then you might make the front page.

    The number of diggs/unit of time isn't the only factor taken into consideration when promoting a story.
  • scorwitz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Spend your time trying to find interesting stories that the users want to read, not taking digs at digg. By the way, you know if you scroll to the bottom of the from page and hit the next button, you can go to a page 2... and then 3 ... and then 4 etc...

    There is only so much room on the front page. I wouldn't be offended if my story didn't make it there, just pleasantly surprised if it did.
  • JeffD, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Just to let you know, I've voted ths story lame, because it is.

    If people want to digg in groups whats wrong with that? Its not un democratic. Heres an analogy I think works pretty well. Comparing digg to a democratic government it is as if those voting together are all part of one political party chosing to vote as a group. At the moment evreyone else seems to be an independant candidate, many of them may vote the same way but they arnt organized enough to be seen as a threat. There is nothing to stoping those independant candidates from forming their own party and taking on the current party. The independants just arnt motivated enough and generally dont care.
    • Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I take it you like the two-party system we have in the states? Because that's essentially what you're advocating when you allow groups to rise to power just to counter other groups.
  • chrisek, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Full story on controversion here: http://diggaddict.com/blog/2006/09/06/digg-controversy/
  • chrisek, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2have a good reading
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
  •  

    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.