What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
238 Comments
- khag7, on 10/15/2007, -41/+483this is a comment on digg about a digg submission which links to a digg blog with an article about comments left on digg...
you guys are way too into this whole digg thing - netscapeblows, on 10/12/2007, -30/+214Digg rules, and we hate to see people wreck it with their own agenda. That's all.
And it's not really a "digg blog", just some free web hosting to get the word out. - cwill341, on 10/12/2007, -8/+156You had respect for AOL????
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -35/+122This is such a non-issue it pains me. Any group of friends/co-workers could do the same damn thing that these guys are doing. That they happen to work for AOL is irrelevant. They could work for any company and do the same thing.
It's not "AOL" that's spamming Digg, it's a group of buddies who happen to work for AOL.
I guess it's cool to put something negative about AOL in your blog so you get more traffic/Diggs.
Move along. - rtoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43AOL is drowning and gasping for air. Just die already, nobody likes you.
- exsst, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44I'm not sure about my fellow digg'ers, but I totally digg this story, and I digg that digg has come out and sorted out those fake digg users digging their own fake digg articles.
Diggity. - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -23/+50Ok this has jus killed any respect I have for AOL and any thing related to it, I feel dirty for using AIM now.
- netscapeblows, on 10/12/2007, -16/+42Look at the hypocrisy here:
http://www.calacanis.com/2006/08/09/gaming-on-netscape/#comments - slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30@netscapeblows
You've put like 50 comments in this story. Go outside, get a breath of fresh air, and maybe talk to somebody in real life. Calm down. The world is not ending. AOL/Netscape/CNN/CBS/TimeWarner is not going to destroy Digg in the time that it takes to get outside and do something else for a few minutes to get perspective.
I know that you think that this is Really Important, but stop commenting on your own story. - vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -3/+26what goes around comes around I guess. i agree people should not do this to netscape, as much as a dislike the site, and in return I don't expect to see the same on digg.
what makes it worse is that it is aol staff doing the digging, the problem is the new digg friends system makes it easy for people to do this. - LegendarySock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Calacanis is a weed in society
- dubiousalibi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19C'mon guys, wake up and shake off that naiveity.
I hate to say this, but the more popular and influencial digg becomes, the more susceptible it will be to external manipulation and corruption. From Friendster to Google, as soon as anything gets traction, markets will look for a way to engineer it's power for personal benefit operating under the guise of community particpation. Seeded forums, search engine optimisation and click fraud are just a few classic examples. It's not hard for any company with the will, to be able to "force" a mildly interesting puff piece on to the front page should they have the desire. It'll happen more and more.
I'm sure the digg team are well aware of these issues and are looking at ways to disrupt this kind of 'inside trading'. Ultimately they'll need to in order to maintain their well earned creditabilty. - netscapeblows, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31Go through each user profile that's listed and look at the stories they've submitted. They're almost ALL weblogs inc sites. And they all just magically digg each other's stories within minutes of each other? Puh-lease!
There's really nothing circumstantial about it. - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+30So, what exactly is wrong with this. it's all very theatrical, but it means nothing at all. So what if people have been bumping their friends stories, what the ***** do you think happens every day on digg, where a good percentage of the stories submitted is submitted by a small percentage of the readership.
time for less digg lovin' and a a bit more digg criticism. If this is currently possible, it's because there is a fundamental flaw in the way digg operates. Don't diss netscape, fix digg. - oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17i "dugg" it. it also says "The validity of this story is under dispute." haha... apparently they claim its not true.
- dnthomps, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22That is cool that people are acting on this. I have been emailing Digg almost daily with bad accounts.
Check out this guy
http://digg.com/users/webtickle/dugg/page34
Webtickle has Dugg over 544 stories in 24 hours. This has been going on for over a week. There are more accounts like this. Has to be automated. The account will digg from dusk til dawn. Digg emailed me back saying they would look into this but they keep diggin.
This is a problem for digg. Even if a story is getting just 1 fake digg, it is still a fake digg and does not represent how many people actually though this was an interesting post.
I do not think that this is related to Netscape, but I do think Digg has A LOT of abuse to look into. - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@NetscapeBlows
I wonder if you looked, how many stories that make the frontpage have had the same thing done to them, just by other groups? I'll bet it happens all the time...especially with some of the lame crap that makes the front page some time. - Schug, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Is anyone gonna submit this to Netscape?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29I, a comitted Digg user with no interest in Netscape, am voting this as "lame" for the simple fact that I don't understand what the hell this guy is trying to say, but from what I did understand, he's just whining about stuff that's not news-worthy in the slightest, especially for Digg front page.
Boo-hoo, some guy who runs Netscape.com a hypocrite! Boo-hoo! WHO CARES! - webhead74, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Wars are raging... people are unemployed... children are starving...
And we're having a pissing match over this?!?
Digg me down, but who ***** cares? - netscapeblows, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22a) they have been doing this before the new netscape even came out
b) just because people spam on netscape doesnt mean the netscape staff should do it to us.
The issue of how to deal with this is in the original post. Getting rid of the friends system probably won't stop this.
http://diggforlife.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-jason-calacaniss-weblogs-inc.html - linkinpark342, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16This is just plain rude on Netscape/whoever-it-was-in-that-company-that-came-up-with-this-scheme's part. We have done nothing, they copy the website model, and then commece to spam us; it's so underhanded... Someone _must_ slap whichever smacktard came up with this idea.
edit: @mporcheron, wait what'd we do to deserve this? - netscapeblows, on 10/12/2007, -13/+23just look at my "friends" list. i added all the staffers so i could track them
http://digg.com/users/netscapeblows/friends/list
look at the stuff they digg. it's all the same AOL/WIN garbage. - nstern2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14A little off topic but if you block netscapeblows the number of comments goes down about 30.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13http://tech.netscape.com/story/2006/08/15/aol-busted-for-spamming-digg/ Lets see it hit the front page on Netscrape.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Here's there anchor cmmentory(THANK GOD DIGG DOESN'T HAVE THIS) there are some key points in it that can give a sign of this really happing:
"Anchor C.K.: OpEd: I'm not going to comment much on this, but it warrants some comment here."
Sounds like there not going to do anything untill Jason says what to do. Company's usually say somthing like:
" does not comment on specultion of illegeal coporte activity's"
"First, consider the source of this story: a blog called Digg For Life that has clearly been launched solely as an anti-Netscape blog."
Ture I agree but he does give some eveidence so it has to be considerd to be vaild.
"Secondly, AOL was not "busted" for anything. This blogger decided to look at all the people who voted on some stories and jumps to several far-fetched conclusions."
Well there is strong eveindence that they seem to be connected. How would you explain all of there stories dugg are from weblogs.inc?
"Thirdly, group spamming behaviour is discouraged at Netscape. Natural community group voting that originates from people with shared interests who vote if they are interested in the story is okay."
Agreed but there somthing strange here...
"Finally, the example used in the blog post has 14 votes. That sounds like a group of similarly-minded people with similar ideas. Nothing about it makes me think that those 14 votes mean that the 200+ Weblogs, Inc bloggers are group voting on stories"
...So your saying that it was ok to be digging the same story because it said in NETSCAPE's POLICY! - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Netscape is still around? Is Marc Andreessen still there?
- orfilms, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12When I posted this months ago:
http://digg.com/tech_news/AOL_admits_that_they_spam_Digg.com
AOL got the story burried - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9http://tech.netscape.com/story/2006/08/15/aol-busted-for-spamming-digg/
- fohat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@ petrarch
methinks thou dost protest too much... You just said the same thing 3 times in 10 minutes... - Slipperymint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Title is misleading, nobody "busted AOL", they just found a group of co-workers employed by AOL digging each other's stuff. Title makes it sound like AOL issued a memo telling employees that they had to digg specific stories.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Uh... No. Andreeson left a long time ago and works at LoudCloud (I think that's the name).
Netscape doesn't exist as an entity anymore and hasn't for a long time. AOL simply took the AOL trademark and slapped it on a half-assed portal website and then slapped it on a branch of the Mozilla browser with a crappy skin/theme. That seems to be the extent that they've done anything with "Netscape".
Although they have taken some of the Netscape server products and moved those into the AOL brand (Netscape Directory Server, Messaging Server, etc -- which I believe all became AOL server products).
I know plenty of managers and employees at AOL and I don't have anything against the people there. I would probably never take a job there (which is why I don't care about talking about my bad experiences as a webmaster dealing with their users and policies), but . . . man. They really make life frustrating. Even if you aren't a customer you are forced to deal with them. - psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Wow, currently there are 4 stories about Digg on Digg's main page! Let's keep it up guys! I'm sure we can make Digg 100% free of non-Digg material by summer's end!
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Who cares? If it gets to the front page and it is spam, then mark it as spam. That's what it's there for.
- jeffness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11as an indepentant third party who isn't taking any sides, because frankly my priorities lie well above taking sides in an online "the blog/link aggregator i visit is better than the blog/link aggregator you visit".. I still find the dynamic interesting.
Here we have one group of users, probably real people, probably real acquaintances, non bots.. All they're doing is Digg-ing each others content..
I must say that, you know, I'm not really sure it's "Spam", per se. It could be a group of friends who digg each others stuff.. Is that really against the Digg ethos?
I'm sure there are other, more prominent, power bloc's in Digg that have yet to be discovered. These guys just happen to be working together to try and get their voice herd above the rest of the flotsam that floats around on Digg. I think the evil is being exaggerated by the anti-AOL/netscape sentiment, honestly.
If you had some sort of concerted sinister effort of bots undermining the system, then you've got a good case for attacking them.. but as it is, i'm not sure.
The question on whether or not that is a bad/evil/naughty thing is left to the community that crucifies them, of course, whether legitimately or not.. but I have to say that any community where you have more than a few people naturally develops bloc's that balance and counter balance each other. It's part of the laissez faire philosophy of economics. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6can we stop talking about netscape? they get more pub, traffic, etc out of digg talking about them then they do on their own
and unfortunately, this is just a symptomatic problem on digg. look at any of the far right or left political posts. always dugg by the same exact people and all they digg is the same exact blogs (malkin monkeys, are you there?). it's no different then when you digg your friends article without even looking at it, and they do the same for their friends. ever use the spy? you can watch the same person digg 10-20 articles in a row in no time flat, now that is simply impossible if you're reading them. quit being a lemming and digg will take care of itself. - netscapeblows, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10You must be blind. Either that or you can't read. Why would these supposed "friends" ONLY submit Weblogs Inc stories and continually Digg each other's posts? Are you really that thick? Use your brain for a minute and stop trying to be the devil's advocate.
Haven't you seen the other comments by WIN bloggers here? No one is denying that they do this. They think what they are doing is a-ok. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+24If it's like the Libertarians, they formed a mailing list to blind digg six articles at a time. They really don't care if the articles are interesting or even relevant.
http://bigdavediode.googlepages.com/diggfixexposed
And if you criticize this, they take over the thread, argue that "this is what digg is for", and mod any and all posts you make into oblivion.
Expect much, much more of these little ideological spam groups in a future.
And yes, it wrecks digg. - xswag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@netscapeblows
So did you accomplish your mission? - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Come on, its just Digging stories, its not like they are releasing confidential information about their users search habits or anything.
- chaokwan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who is netscapeblows? His profile shows that he has been a member only since 10 August 2006. Seems like it's an identity created for the purpose of this submission. But he writes like he has been a long time Digg champion. If it is fake ID, why does he have to fake his user ID?
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Evidently ALOT of people do. SO are we only supposed to concentrate one dilemna at a time? Who says we can't stop terrorists and stop AO Hell at the same time?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Lame - netscapeblows, you need to get laid. You have too much time on your hands. Netscape is going to die regardless. Chill and get yourself a woman.
- 22pages, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The new netscape is total crap.
I went over to have a look again today to see what progress they've made and was met by a nasty lamisil banner at the top of the page (nothing like a giant rotted toenail to make me want to hang out on a site).
In a visual clutter than can only be described as data-vomit they then have ads, images and various clusters of content all over the place. It's like looking at one of those awful spam sites with the popups and crap everywhere.
I don't know who is in charge of their ui design, but I'd suggest turning the Liberace thing down about 5 notchs. Read some design books and clean yourself netscape. - xswag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8That is exactly what this is about. Trying to get visits to some useless blog with 2 entries.
- heptahedron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I wonder if digg needs a modulator function that multiplies each digg point by a user-specific karma-like (0 < C < 1) modulator coefficient. The value of C would decline in proportion to the number of userblocks a person has. The value of C might increase with the number of dugg comments/stories one has or with the number of friends (assuming those friends have a high C, too). Trolls and spammers (even if organized in a gang) would lose effectiveness as their diggs and buries would not count as full votes. I might also make C a function of the number of buries versus diggs to reduce both excessive demotion of stories. People who dole out hundreds of buries for every digg are probably trolls.
Digg needs some automated mechanism for modulating the impact of vociferous abusive users -- some mechanism for muting loud trolls.
Any thoughts? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Jesus...get a life. You people act as if it's the end of the world. WHO CARES?
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Big Brother already got his hands in it, they've retitled the "scape" to: Digg For Life Blog accuses Weblogs, Inc bloggers of gaming Digg
... as well as having a nice "Anchor Commentary" posted... so much for controlled by the users... LMAO Calacanis is a tool of his own making. - slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Or people who are in no way associated think that it's lame and have lives outside of Myspace/Digg/Slashdot and think that this whole "they started it" nonsense is a little absurd.
That said, you're on the homepage. Feel vindicated now? - jeffness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Also, one reason why a system based on down-mods of comments might actually be bad is the significant amount of anti-digging that goes on against people who don't share the same view point.
Disagreeing with someone often gets you down-modded (happens to me ALL the time), even if you have a valid point in comments. The digg system definately rewards the mob mentality by re-inforcing the majority and drowning out the minority.
Which is unfortunate, since well, the internet should enable the minority in some way, but whatever. -
Show 51 - 100 of 238 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is