What is Digg?103 Comments
- jjk5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52An easy solution is to take a page from Fark and make submissions anonymous. Then people have to make good, insightful comments to get notoriety rather than submitting story after story. And people will have to digg based on what they actual think of the story, instead of who the submitter was.
- beeler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40So Digg, like our own "democracy" in the US is actually more oligarchical than democratic.
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32What if someone like's the idea of Digg and wants it to work, but doesn't appreciate the vast majority of the homepage dominated by one group of users.
Hey, maybe you've submitted an article about the PSP 2, and you are the first one to do so. Surely you'd expect it to hit the frontpage, right? Not if digitalgopher or one of these users submits it also (even after you), because they get an automatic 15 or more diggs. You can't do anything about that, and it means that a very small population actually gets to contribute. - sporkman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28about half the time I ask myself "why the hell did this kind of ***** make it to the front page?"
- attila, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28All one has to do is glare at DiggSpy for 30min or so to see the pattern illustrated for them like it was The Matrix: http://digg.com/spy/queue
What you will see is, for instance, one user you mentioned, going on long sequences of "digging" their "friends" posts, then the others do likewise and so on and so on. What is it Jon Stewart titled his book? Democracy inaction? I mean, I don't see these users doing anything "wrong" per-se, they are using the system that was given to them.
I do think it's hampering this site from being socio-democratic and more pop idolization where tabloid headlines take precedence. I've even experimented with it, while I explore Digg's potential. I have many of the same people listed in the editorial on my Digg Friends list because I know they are 'garaunteed' diggs. Sad ain't it? And that's my diatribe for today. - attila, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I ask myself that, followed by, "I wonder what I've missed" or "What's the motivation behind people who want to control the news?" Knowing full well, the answer to both questions is 'nothing.' I quite enjoy asking rhetorical questions of myself with the vast amount of spare time I now have because I see the futility of thinking that I'll again, contribute a story to the frontpage.
- AlfieJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@thedove
"did i enjoy the submitted story?"
More and more I find myself saying no. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Well, looks like the mods don't like this one. You can't find it in the upcoming queues any longer and despite the fact that it is the most popular 'most recent' story, you can't find it. You can't search for it either.
So apparently the digg moderators have no problem with this. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22That is exactly what I'm going to start doing. For each frontpage submission by one of these guys, I'll post a comment. Hopefully we can get someone to take notice.
- lauridsd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24This is interesting. I don't necessarily smell a conspiracy, but hopefully this makes it to the front page.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Why isn't this story on the front page?
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17It isn't in the upcoming queue anymore and you can't search for it...so...
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The problem is, other people may have submitted similar stories, but their stories will never hit the front page because these guys control the whole thing.
And yes, while we all enjoy the stories, part of Digg is about the ego boost from getting stories on the front page. So these guys are screwing other people. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I've submitted a new story detailing the last article and its removal from the frontpage.
http://www.digg.com/software/Democratic_User_driven_These_do_not_describe_Digg - Smukke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I've found Digg to be more of a 'social networking' site than an actual 'news' site. As long as you think of it as such, you won't be disappointed. If Digg removed the 'friends' feature and/or made all "upcoming" stories Anonymous until after a user Digged/Buried them, the site might begin to approach a real democratization of "news." As it is, however, it's like life: It's all about *who* you know, not *what *you know.
- BitBar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19This is not the first time someone has brought to light the fact that a few dozen people control 50% of the stories listed on Digg. Check out what Wiki has to say about Digg's problems.
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Update: It is flagged under 'homepage' in my profile, so it definitely has been removed by a moderator.
- ingxia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Agreed. If submissions are anonymous no one can digg based on who the submitter is, though it might be harder to determine if this sort of thing is still happening.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It looks like this story could make the front page. I bet it won't be long before it is beaten into submission by those protecting the status quo.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Anonymous posting is a step in the right direction, but since YOU know what you posted, it won't stop digging networks from forming. Only good programming can defeat that, and apparantly digg doesn't employ them, or allow them to implement sane protections.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Be careful, you will likely get turned in for abuse. And when the controllers see it is critical of Digg you are likely to get banned. I realize Digg is a private entity whose owners have the right to make the rules and enforce them as they see fit. But I can guarantee you that there are more who feel like we do than there are in the tight circles at the top of the story submission heap. To those of you who feel this way, Digg this story.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Bummer, man. This is a very insightful look at what's wrong with Digg. Everything else up to this point has been a fluff piece:
"Yeah, digg is controlled by 6 people, but that's okay! Kevin! I love you!"
You've actually beat me to the punch on this one. I'm glad someone else was able to put in the time to address this issue, which is, in fact, an issue. When only a handful of people dissiminate what is and is not worth seeing to 500,000 people, there's a problem. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The problem is that these people aren't digging for real. They're just digging to get a story on the front page, which goes against the way Digg is meant to work. A story isn't supposed to see the light of the front page unless X amount of people agree that it's a good story. These people are either A) Blindly digging people on friend lists, or B) one person with multiple accounts trying to get his own stories on the front page.
Either way, it's pretty lame. - FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"digg is about the stories, not the submitters."
ok, so why bother listing who submitted what? - tombomb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It's scary how this happened and a lot of us didn't even realize it. This story puts a lot of things into perspective for me.
- jjk5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I was just checking out the Spy after you linked to it, and who was digging a story? Digitalgopher of course, and look who else dugg it, and whose story it is..
http://digg.com/programming/Developers_voting_for_Eclipse_RCP/who - moracity, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Digg is nothing like U.S democracy. It's like Bolshevik socialism. This just goes to show how ignorant so many Digg users are. Communism does not allow for representaion of the people, so whoever can grab control first holds the power...just as you see here.
The weakness of ANY governement, including U.S democracy, is apathy of the people. Americans are generally ignorant regarding the operation of the U.S government. This because the Department of Education (instituted by Democrats) prefers it this way. The less you understand about your government, the harder it is for you to affect it and the more control the government has over you.
This isn't a partisan issue, it's reality. It's government vs. the people and it has nothing to do with red or blue. While Joe and Bob are coming to blows over abortion and socialized healthcare, the politicians sick back and enjoy the show. Hillary doesn't care any more about voters than W does. The politicians that actually care and make it to Washington are quickly neutered and rendered useless. - dmron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This was a really good write up. I had noticed the same thing about 2 months ago but was too lazy to write a good summary of it. Also notice this story has already been buried. Gee, I wonder which uses voted "this is lame"? Hmm, probably not the same ones that this story is written about.... oh wait... :P
- cma3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What amazes me is that not one of the 'elite' diggers/posters have commented on this yet.
Oh wait thats right, they are only viewing eachother's posts.
Nevermind. - bluephoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I completely understand the problem here. In my opinion it is the reason for digg's decline in quality of front page stories. This is not something that can be controlled I bet though, mainly because digg is getting more and more popular. Marketing ruins everything these days, I can't even get a free on-demand show on cable anymore without commercials being in it or rent a DVD without commercials these days. It would be interesting to see another site come along that is strictly tech just like digg used to be, I'm sure a lot of people that are fed up with digg today would follow. Anyone interested in setting this up?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You said you would and you did, jessusphreak...well done!
- tombomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7so basically it's like this: you can read anything you want to, as long as it is what we like
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Would've been better if you quoted Henry Ford.
"You can have any color you like, so long as it's black." - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually, there's a huge point to cheating your way to the front page. It's a great guerilla marketing tactic.
Lame, dishonest, and total *****, but apparently it works. - tutivlahos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Exactly! This should fix the problem, i think.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The absence from the upcoming queue is peculiar, but not being able to find it in the search is typical. I don't think I have ever been able to find what I was looking for in Digg's search.
This was supposed to be a reply to jesusphreak two comments up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These people think that others care about how much they digg. Which is stupid. Nobody should care about how active you are on Digg.
They need to grow up, get rid of all their false accounts, and either use Digg like it's supposed to be used or just leave. There's no point in Digging your story up to the front page by cheating. If it's good enough, it'll get dugg by itself. If it sucks, then it won't get dugg up. That's how Digg works. - taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Check out this article for more Digg Rigging details...
http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data - attila, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not necessarily true. If you take say, 10 submissions by those top diggers, you'll find about half (sometimes more) have been submitted before by Diggers with less 'clout' I've done this experiment myself in the past week and found it to be true. I've even observed this cadre of Top Diggers (or robots) submitting the same story twice, even three times with different titles, ensuring atleast one will make it to the front page. I'd paste you those exact links, but unfortunately, I have job that doesn't grant as much free time as I've taken already. I hope you check this out for yourself. :)
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Maybe the only to get this story out is to post links to it in other stories. If it gets modded down because the herd doesn't approve, all the better. The first comments I read in the comment section of stories are the ones that are buried anyway.
- okto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We don't have a democracy, we have a republic.
- alecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yea, digg's search is really really horrible.
- cyclescott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Doesn't every democracy work that way? Some people are popular and have a following?
I've seen a few other stories like this in the last few weeks and I have to say something: This type of navel-gazing leads to the ultimate ruin of sites like Digg. Once users start to invest themselves (and the site) with more power than it has, it tends to take the fun and usefulness out of it. If you're that peeved about it, why bother coming back? You end up wasting more of your own time than anything else. - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5you are likely to piss a lot of people off, but also have a lot of people agreeing with you. I support the idea, digg needs the constructive criticism!
- drksun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://digg.com/software/Digg_the_rigged_A_closer_look_at_Digg_s_democratic_model
Why has this been "super-buried"? Can't search for it and it never hit front page with 716+ diggs.
Thanks, Shane
Reply Reply to all Forward
digg support
to me
More options 6:33 pm (2 hours ago)
That story was reported as spam and subsequently removed by the digg
community. While it did receive over 700 diggs, it was buried way
before it received enough diggs for promotion. Our logs show most of
the diggs came from viewing the submitter's profile. This is a perfect
example of why we'll be including a new feature that will allow users to
view buried stories and vote to re-instate them. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'd usually be against cross-promoting stories in the comments, but in this case, I'm with you. It's for Digg's own good. If the site loses its democratic appeal, it will lose its popularity. I doubt there's an alternative out there as well-made as Digg. I'd rather see Digg work better than have to go looking for a new site.
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5the same thing happened to one of my submitted stories a couple days ago...it got categorized as a "front page" story, yet it never actually made it to the front page, and is found nowhere in any search results, even if I search for the exact name of the story. Yet under my profile it says that I have had a front page story indicated by the "(1)" next to my name. I wish digg would be a little bit more transparent about it's methods; I really like the concept of "democratic" news aggregation, but the idea gets a little tainted when you realize that nobody even KNOWS how the system actually goes about promoting/demoting stories! (except for maybe the digg devs)
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They already are. One digg per story, per person, period.
Which Digg are you using? - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh man, that is brilliant. It is the kind of data analysis I was wanting to do but wasn't sure what approach to take.
- cma3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@detonate
thanks for the link. that post was also dugg along side of this one. And while the insight as to how "they" think and ''act'' from the point of view of one of them might be interesting to some; to me i think that something has gone very wrong with our setup here on digg. Friends being able to digg other friends is a very kool feature and one that i would like to see remain...but the idea of a few having control of the front page is a problem.
alot of these stories suck and some a genuinely good (i might even be convinced that a majority of the stories are good), and while this is just my opinion, the issue here is that as diggers we are becoming cattle. only here to follow the herd. F that. I want to see quality entries coming in from all angles and submitters all the time. Granted, some posters are better than others, but when its only a few being promoted over and over again thats a problem.
Another example of this was the ''lewrockwell / mises'' incident/s. While I find alot of their articles interesting and something that I may align myself with...the idea that a few were controlling this on digg is/was a bad thing.
We get enough forced content from TV and the like, we do not need that here.
/rant -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is