What is Digg?263 Comments
- kevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -32/+124Ok, we didn't buy the black helicopters..
- kevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -15/+79Several of the fraud accounts I had added as friends (see my list). They had some great stories and I was tracking their activity. I'm sure I dugg their other stories in different slots (digg #20, #35 etc.) - I assure you my account was not compromised.
- freebirdpat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+58Help! Help! I am being repressed!
- Nesh, on 10/12/2007, -18/+64Ahhhh, just leasing them, eh?
- PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44I think some people just need to see the reports (inaccurate, lame, etc.) in order to believe they exist.
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -22/+61That doesn't really clarify a whole lot. Wasn't your account involved in this "mass digging"? I seem to recall that the article claimed "kevinrose" appeared in the same sequence of diggs for two separate articles...
"In fact, removing bribera's digg of one article showed that the first nineteen diggs of each article were identical. What made this really interesting was that the 17th digger was none other than Kevin Rose, aka celebrated creator and founder of Digg." (http://forevergeek.com/news/digg_corrupted_editors_playground_not_userdriven_website.php) - TimmyGUNZ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39That idea sucks. Why should a story that Kevin likes get to go right to the homepage. This is a COMMUNITY driven site, not a "let's all kiss Kevin's ass with stories he might like so I can get my name read on diggnation" site.
- Norante, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39But you editors surely have been tampering with some stories submitted to this site. Isn't that right?
- mkoko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31agreed, next to "who dugg this?" have something where you can see who reported it as lame or whatever. that would clear things up.
but i also think that still more explanation is needed; some things still aren't explained - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+37Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
- MacGyver, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33Interesting note, most of the accounts that were part of the same 16 users to digg the two stories mentioned here http://splasho.com/blog/2006/04/20/suspicious-digging/ have been banned. These conspiracy theories are getting old. Judging by these account bannings, it was nothing more than 1 or 2 people trying to promote their own stories. Maybe everyone falling for these "conspiracy theories" is a little extra paranoid given todays date.
http://digg.com/users/SpitF1re
http://digg.com/users/HyperSpeed
http://digg.com/users/Nemsis
http://digg.com/users/Ultraviolet
http://digg.com/users/Infin1ty
http://digg.com/users/Out_Of_Space
http://digg.com/users/Und3rWorld
http://digg.com/users/Cataclysm - jdawg, on 10/12/2007, -20/+46I'm giving Digg the benefit of the doubt. Kevin and his team are good guys and they bust their asses to keep the DIGG service clean. If a couple of false positives happen on the blacklisting side that is how it goes--that's how GMAIL and ever other spam service works.
Keep up the great work Team DIGG and don't let the bastards get you down! The freaks are just player hating... you guys rock, they suck--end of story. If they are so smart let them build their own furl/delicious/digg and do it better. It's not like they have to use digg. - rimco, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36Does anyone ever WATCH the Digg Spy? Look at all of the reports going in for bad/lame/inaccurate stories. I report stories all the damn time, and I see others do it all the time in the Digg Spy. How can they be hiding a conspiracy when you can see, plain as day, exactly what's going on with the activity at any time?
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
- TimmyGUNZ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Yeah if you're man/woman enough to report a story, you should have your name attached as a reportee.
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -13/+34Those explanations don't cut it at all.
* Why Kevin, were you right there along with the automated diggers in your Diggs? With 19 others, you were #17 both times - out of 500,000 people! What are the chances of that? It just so happened that you were the single legit Digger out all those 19 and you just so happened to do it at the same time?
* You explanation for buried stories doesn't cut it either. Buried stories aren't completely removed from Digg. Some of these were. That implies admin intervention.
Some people will buy your story, but anyone who wants to look at the facts probably won't. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42Sorry, but this basicly explains NOTHING. I'm glad we got a response, but now i'm even more skeptical than before.
So Kevin just happened to digg stories that were being robo-dugg? - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26I wonder why Kevin had these fraudsters on his friend's list in the first place?
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30...The banning of thinkgeek? What did they (he?) exactly do wrong?
...The unbanning of thinkgeek / covering up tracks?
...The banning of swarms of users just for linking to the page?
...The DELETION at one point of any story that had to do with digg corruption?
...Kevin digging the stories by these "automated diggs" immediately after they were posted?
I think those of us who fell into the pit of this accusation deserve some real CONVINCING explanations. I'd like to let this matter die because I love digg, but I need a reason to. - Blaze312, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23"Well I didn't vote for him"
- zecreven, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25This is an important thing.. I hope new digg version solves this problem.
- mxpxpx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+264 minutes to front, not bad
- SmokeN-DC, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23ahhhh oll well it seams the MOB HAS SPOKEN and there will be no decent on Digg you ether agree or you are silenced
I wonder how many thumbs down I will get - ProAm500, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31hmmmm wonder if we all lame it will it be off the front page?
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Is there something wrong with modding down an immature comment that makes fun of someone for no reason at all?
- Blaze312, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24One thing I don't understand is why would someone create false accounts to digg just stories they enjoyed. Kevin you said you dugg stories you were interested in. Why would someone just digg stories for no reason other then they like them? I would see it if it was spam, but why would any person with automated digging bots care if they werent involved with the story in some way or another?
I'm not saying your lying, I just dont understand... why?
WHY?!?! - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20"Why has this story http://digg.com/links/Digg_Corrupted:_Editor_s_Playground,_not_User-Driven_Website_at_Forever_Gee
been removed from the front page rather quickly?"
Ok, everyone. Repeat after me: "When enough people report a story as "lame" or "spam" or whatever, the story is removed from the front page and the search results. This isn't Digg admins nuking stories, it is because diggers voted it off the front page. There is no conspiracy. Nothing to see here. Move along." - lucaskiker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Who's that then?
I dunno, must be a king.
Why?
He hasn't got sh*t all over him. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23The stories weren't just buried. They were completely REMOVED from Digg. There is a big difference.
- tocircuswn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Just so everyone knows what they're talking about:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/04/20/1538256.shtml - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25@camalot: Yes, I can read, but the article points out that it was the same sequence of Diggs. There's a rather low probability that the same sequence of diggs would be repeated for two different articles...
Edit: I want to clarify that I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm just saying that there's obviously reason for concern. I'm glad Kevin is taking the time to respond. - iceblade, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"Yeah if you're man/woman enough to report a story, you should have your name attached as a reportee."
Yes I agree. I also think that would eliminate the worthless comments like "Lame" or "dupe" or "reported" - because they would be already listed...
In many cases, I would rather be known for reporting some of the trash I see submitted than digging the stories I like... I also think it would be interesting to see the "reported/dugg" ratio for most people. I know I have reported far more than I have dugg recently... but that's also because I've been surfing the Digg Cloud in my spare time - and there's plenty of trash to prune there. - joehobbes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14To my understanding, the ForeverGeek articles were blocked because they spoke negatively against Digg. I got temporarily banned for posting a ForeverGeek link.
According to the Digg rep I talked to, it was because I was "speaking negatively" against digg members. I reminded them that I personally didn't say anything, I just submitted the link.
I appologized for the issue and said I wouldn't do it again in order for me to get reinstated.
Just seemed kinda weird.
Please don't kill me... - multivariate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Why not remove usernames from the reports and allow others to see them? In a true democracy, all information is made public.
- Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Don't confuse the fact that Kevinrose is on so many people's friends lists and that get alot of people to auto digg the story regardless of what it is, and the notion that kevin can push his own stories to the frontpage.
- bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14So then...should I or should I not send my money to that nice man in Nigeria? I'm still confused.
- jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Yes. Stories actually get removed from digg where the URL is no longer there and no story can be created with the same name.
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20No, it is just that how does it have any relevance to account fraud on digg?
- SoldierPrime, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17You could try to lame it but you know how many people will see it was by kevinrose and digg it. I dugg it because I dugg the other antidigg ones, you gota hear both side.
- tyne, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22Why has this story http://digg.com/links/Digg_Corrupted:_Editor_s_Playground,_not_User-Driven_Website_at_Forever_Gee
been removed from the front page rather quickly? After its removal all of a sudden your blog entry appears to address some of the claims made in it. Could it not at least be allowed to be presented alongside your explanation to give better context to what you are talking about and what the other article is talking about ? - Blaze312, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@tyne
Hell no; Then his post would get reported as a dupe.
:-D - hodgesg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I appreciate that this is Digg and therefore, anything anti-Digg will get reported as lame. However, I feel that if something receives 400 diggs there is obviously some degree of agreement with what the original poster had said. So, perhaps I didn't phase my original statement well. I feel a system of plus and minus Diggs would work better than reporting a story as lame/false etc. and having it 'disappear' from view.
As for the reference to China, it was meant to be a dramatic analogy.
lostboy has the correct idea! - aguita, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21The tools are there, but people don't want to be bothered with actually doing anything. It is too easy to sit back and point and say conspiracy!
- Jarda, on 10/12/2007, -15/+23I'm sorry but this doesn't explain nothing at all.
- jaiwithani, on 10/12/2007, -19/+27I went with inaccurate.
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Yeah, I'm calling BS on this. Both articles were A List Apart articles and Rose Dugg both articles along with 16 other users that just so happenned to digg them in the same order??
It sounds like Rose is buddy buddy with someone over at A List Apart. I've seen some crappy A List Apart articles get to the frontpage of digg. - hexix, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15SoldierPrime:
Yeah but check this story out:
http://digg.com/technology/Digg_Corrupted
Last I looked at it it had 722 diggs in 5 hours, not too shabby. Yet it's not on the front page. So a lot of people are digg'ing it and for some reason it's not on the front page. If it's because it got reported, then apparently it doesn't matter if your diggs are high if you get X amount of reports. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17it's still on the front page after all of you have apparently reported it.....yet the other stories got removed
- EagleY, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Nothing new. I would love to hear your reply to some of the interesting questions asked here
http://digg.com/technology/Growing_Censorship_Concerns_at_Digg -
Show 51 - 100 of 263 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is