What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Jarice: Next star of Best Buy’s holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Employee Jarice Brodie shares his story, his excitement and his singing voice.
37 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11@canwediggit: I honestly don't even want this to make the front page. But making obnoxiously inappropriate claims that it has something to do with blind Digging is wrong. Perhaps if you read the articles in question, you'd have realized that the post was quality stuff. Perhaps if you analyzed the links as I did, you'd have realized that there is *definitely* something fishy and the perception of this lack of transparency is quite evident.
Yes, you are the self-proclaimed "bury brigade president," and you're welcome to have your own opinion on what you feel belongs on Digg just like we do. However, I think the majority voice speaks for itself. This is (mostly) a Digg democracy, after all.
As far as the "same entry ... floating around twice," that's really Digg's fault. They haven't implemented a decent system to merge duplicate submissions that are submitted very close to each other. - BuzzAzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There are definitely some valid points here .
- HMTKSteve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Funny reality is that I have had some of my sites put on the auto-bury list. what do I do? for $10 I launch a new site!
Do you know what happens then? The same content that was being dugg on my old (auto-bury) site now hits the front page on my new site!
What does it all mean? It means it is not the content that is being buried it is ME that is being buried. - irkenzim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Completly agree. How can a site like Digg work effectively without transparency?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5@FyreGoddess: I can't reply to you in your thread, because I keep getting an error (on FF and IE) saying "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." Therefore, I am taking the conversation here.
You assume I patronize you, but you cannot be farther from the truth. You also assume that I don't have the ability to look up what you have Dugg or submitted.
http://digg.com/users/FyreGoddess/news/submitted
http://digg.com/users/FyreGoddess/news/dugg
But you also make a statement about other sites that are political in nature, like WorldNetDaily, PrisonPlanet, InfoWars, HotAir, and LittleGreenFootballs. You obviously have a keen awareness of what goes on in the political arena. As I said, I don't have an interest in the political stories so I skim over them and don't take any action on them. Just because I say I don't have an interest in political stories doesn't mean I've patronized you. My point was that many of the Digg users are not heavily politically-oriented.
You're too quick to assume that my attempts to at having a mature conversation with you mean that I am here to attack you. The only thing I was trying to say is that most political stories are less popular on Digg than technology stories. That's why I like Digg over other social networks since their emphasis on those other niches are not my cup of tea.
I might not have been at Digg for as long as you, and even 7 months ago, I had an entirely different perception of Digg. However, like I said, I spent the last several months studying Digg very closely and see it differently now. Obviously, it also vastly differs from your perception. But before you assume I am attacking you, let me make it clear that I am simply disagreeing with you. We can agree to disagree on a mature level, correct? You don't need to defend yourself because I am not responding to antagonize you. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6@FyreGoddess: This is an "open letter to Kevin Rose." He can tell by the amount of time I'm logged onto Digg that I venture Digg's hallways pretty damn often.
Sure, posts expire when they do not accumulate enough Diggs within a designated period of time (typically 24 hours), and that's not the issue I bring up. The problem is about stories being buried when they have ZERO visibility. Do you go to http://digg.com/news/upcoming and check those stories? No, I didn't think so. You, like many others, often go to http://digg.com/news/upcoming/most. That's where the stories you are concerned about get buried.
The reasoning behind this letter was crafted after several months of studying the system. I encourage you to do the same before refuting these claims. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sometimes I sort by Most Commented, sometimes I don't sort at all. Sometimes I go through the stuff my "friends" have dugg or commented on, sometimes I read the widget of popular upcoming. Most often, I go through the topics I'm interested in by category.
I never actually sort by the greatest number of Diggs. I find that the vast majority of what I'm interested in tends to be rather obscure or niche-y. A quick poke into my profile of dugg stories will show you that many of the articles I digg have very few others also interested in them. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I asked about a specific story as well. No answer from Digg.
They've been responsive to all my questions in the past, except for this particular domain. It just smells fishy to me.
In any event, I appreciate your comments and the little history that goes with it. I'm not really here to argue; I just wrote that letter to present how it's perceived by me (and numerous others) and to have an intellectual conversation about it with those who had an interest (or not) in what I had to say. I still have some pretty firm suspicions, but I'll let them rest.
I am really only asking for transparency, but then again, I'm not the first.... - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Because Digg is a "democracy" and therefore every "vote" carries equal weight by definition.
At least that's the assumption. - philbutler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Interesting. Appropriate. Good Work, About Time. Cane - perhaps your lack of caring is indicative of deeper seeded issues, but then it could have evolved from some much more Machiavellian sector - this is not the issue but important to note as "your" mentality might be part of what keeps Digg from actually approaching true excellence.
I write stories for a number of blogs and the "crap game" of putting up with being buried is one issue - perhaps one that should just be tolerated. The systematic burying or blocking of domains or users is a much more serious matter if we are talking (at all) about any civilized or acceptable sets of practices for entities with the impact of Digg.
I am led to think of the Nazi regime in Germany during WW2. I am sure that many fine German people were caught up in the "apparently" correct behavior of that government at the time. When people thrive relatively after so long a draught - it is natural to accept the status Quo. Digg's current evident position on transparency is certainly nothing akin to the catastrophes that were revealed in WW2 or since by even the US government.However, the thinking is the same. An elitist and reclusive environment where everyone refers to the rules while everyone knows these rules apply as needed by a select few. What is there to hide? If everything is on the up and up - what is being hidden?
The bottom line is - I can write a story for one blog and make the front page of digg, while on another every single solitary post that climbs high enough to be seen is buried. This has been the case for months. No one will take the time to explain or even return an email. All the while I reside in a world where I am privy to exactly (or close to it) what everyone is doing on or around Digg.
In the end everyone is doing exactly the same thing - but still some are pushed down. Why is that? Can someone explain that without flaming or taking a side - just explain how fair is no longer a desire able commodity. I expect if the tables were turned there would be considerable crying. Asking questions is not crying, nor is seeking fairness. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You make a lot of assumptions and implications, friend. Starting with my not being tech-savvy, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I Digg very discriminately and rarely do I find articles that I enjoy enough to Digg at all, but my interests also lie in science/technology as well as world news and politics.
I understand how Digg works and I've been a member on this site for, if not longer than you, longer than your current account has been active.
Don't assume that you know what I read, what I bury, how I choose to sort or what my criteria is for doing any of those things. You may be a "top user", but I am also an established user and a long-time member of this community. I do not appreciate your assumptions or patronization of me. - DigitalBuilder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would recommend everyone to read the article in full. Lots of interesting points. I think we all love Digg but we would like the burying process to be a bit more transparent.
- FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm not debating the potential for an auto-bury function to exist, but again, I find it incredibly unlikely that it would be an arbitrary situation.
Onetimer makes a good point below, which speaks to the weighting of diggs and buries. IF such an auto-bury function exists, I can only assume that its purpose would be to weight the submitting digg. I'm SURE that there are users here who auto-bury submitters, domains and topics. In fact, I know that there are users who do that, who knows their reasons? The consistency that individuals probably provide could easily be manipulated into implementing a function such as you propose, but it doesn't mean that it's inherently targetting individuals for personal reasons.
I guess the real issue that I take with your letter is that it feels very conspiratorial and I'm really getting tired of the "Digg is out to get [fill in the blank]" conspiracies. They've been going around for ages. The whole "Bury Brigade" thing is a prime example. Did you know that when it first became a buzzword it was used in relation to a vast left-wing conspiracy to supress right-wing political submissions? To my knowledge, THAT Bury Brigade never existed, at least not in the organized for that was supposed.
Even the currently embraced label of "Bury Brigade" is not an organized front, except that the same core group of people targetting Ron Paul spam added each other to their friends list when they found themselves consistently commenting on the same articles. There is no real conspiracy there, just a like-minded group of people who are ***** with the people they are battling.
There are countless submissions about how admins are deleting posts behind the scenes, how *someone* at Digg is conspiring to prevent/thwart/suppress [insert topic/url/user here]. The claims that Digg loves [topic/url/user] and therefore prevents [topic/url/user] from making the front page.
I just find it incredibly far-fetched to think that Digg (as an entity) is actively suppressing topics/urls/users out of some kind of personal vendetta, or any other reason I can think of.
In terms of asking why stories have been buried... The only thing I can say to that is that there's a difference between asking for information on a single submission and asking for information on every submission from a specific URL. That's an awful lot of work that would need to be done and would be an incredible drain on the resources (human and technological). It seems to me that it's a pretty bold request to make at all, and it doesn't surprise me that it wasn't honored. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No, I was actually being lazy. I hate sorting by date in order to get a Reply button. Maybe Digg should fix that too while they're at it.
I don't give a damn about free schwag, though I think that it would be nice for Digg to treat its users with respect rather than with disdain. Even small tokens of appreciation would be welcome. I'm glad, though, that you decided to take a minor point and blow it out of proportion. The letter talks about lack of transparency among other things, and the one thing you have to take from it is the small part about Digg gear? That's hardly the issue which is why it was barely mentioned.
I dugg both of the submissions because I wanted to keep track of them. Digg is a social news bookmarking site, after all. - madmac66, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5***** me when did Digg user become such a whiney bunch of pussies....you all take yourselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why don't people understand that getting dugg by your friends/same group of people over and over does not hold the same weight as a story that gets dugg by users with more credibility, that aren't constantly digging stories from the same URL (Yes, it does take that into account)
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3she'd prefer to not take the time and figure it out. she'd rather just tell you how you use digg. just like she told me what i did and didn't read because she didn't like my opinion.
- tomboy501, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I digg stuff I like...and actually read the articles.
I treasure my friends' list because they consistently rock at posting quality...but, I digg randomly off of diggspy and upcoming/most as well.
I don't have an agenda...or a website or any internet ambitions...
..therefore, I don't take it too seriously.
Stories get buried...so what? Easy come...easy go.
It's not worth popping a vein trying to figure it out.
The major problem I see with the site now is the blind digging crap and dupes and middleman spam to the front page. And the glut of "PICS' dumbing us all down. Cool photos used to be flavor on the FP....now, someone's pet cat doing something cute is content. And that's the community at work.... How about an 'Open Letter to the Digg Community' post??? - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The "Your session has expired" message is a weird glitch in the comments. It means that Digg cannot create another level of comments. Four levels is the limit.
See, there's the thing right there. You're coming from an assumption that you've learned better than other people how Digg works. You sound smug in your comments and there's an implication that you know better than anyone else. Yes, I've only submitted 9 stories... I'm not really interested in providing the content for Digg. I've only Dugg some 2,000~ stories because I often don't Digg the things that I read. I spend a lot of time tracking down spam and keeping it out of the queue, I have debates with people in threads that I bury or just don't Digg. I use Digg in a different way than you do and probably for different reasons, it does NOT mean that I have less of an understanding of the "mysterious workings" of Digg.
What one Diggs or submits gives you little insight into what they read or even how they use Digg. My interests are a whole lot greater than what you think you can learn from my profile.
You see, I look at this submission (and the other one) and I see 30-some diggs on both of them. You probably take this as further evidence that there is an auto-bury feature because people couldn't possibly be burying it in the numbers you assume it would require. I respectfully disagree. This is yet another instance of people complaining about how Digg works because it isn't working for them.
I also stated clearly that IF such a "feature" exists behind the scenes, I find it incredibly difficult to believe it would be arbitrary. And suggested ways in which such a feature could work.
You want to know why I mentioned the sites I did? Because those are the sites that I, personally, auto-bury. I find them to be hate filled and/or fluffy. I didn't mention tech sites by name because I don't bury ANY of those often enough, nor have I been offended by their content often enough to remember their names, but I'm sure that there are several that I consistently bury.
I want to know why it's so difficult for you to accept that people may be burying websites that you enjoy, simply because they find them devoid of content, uninteresting or consider them to be blogspam. There are a lot more users here than Diggs or comments on the threads would indicate. That should be pretty obvious when you take into account buries as well as the sheer number of hits that these sites get when they do get popular.
Granted, there are significantly more people in Popular than in Upcoming, but if the percentages of commenters hold true to those who don't have anything to say, then there are surely a whole lot more people around here than anyone who's not already behind the scenes is going to be aware of. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"given that it is very rare for stories with less than 5-10 Diggs to be buried from my observations (and you know how often I wander the halls of Digg)"
I have to wonder why you assume that as a given and how often you actually "wander the halls of Digg" to assume that. There are a LOT of stories that accumulate 50+ Diggs and still get buried or simply do not make the main page. The vast majority of them are from sites that are widely and vocally reviled by many users such as WorldNetDaily, PrisonPlanet, InfoWars, HotAir, LittleGreenFootballs, etc. These sites have core followings and tend to be dugg by the same small group of people. Once they gain a certain number of diggs or comments (depending on how those who haunt Upcoming sort), people notice them and try to make them go away.
If there does happen to be an internal auto-bury feature, I can't imagine that it would be arbitrary. It seems like the type of thing that the Spam/bury function ought to provide. For example, if I consistently bury a specific website as spam and NEVER digg it, maybe the precursor to blacklisting would be to automatically note that this is a site that has XX number of users who consistently bury it. It's not inconceivable to me by any means, but again, I strongly doubt that there's no rationale behind it.
While I don't disagree with the request for more transparency, I think that the reasoning behind this letter is ridiculous and the validity of the request is lessened, simply because of the way it's made. - canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3i can attest for a fact fyre is on the upcoming often, we've had conversations on stories w/ 1-5 diggs regularly. but then again, you don't have a clue and you just talk ***** and make assumptions when anyone doesn't like what you're saying.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2One more thing re your statement: "obviously i read the piece otherwise i couldn't have made the comments i did"
I'm not talking about MY piece. I'm talking about the stories I refer to in my piece. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully. - madmac66, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I'll guess that Digg's traffic is dropping because over the past year or so I've seen Digg turn into one endless, pointless bickering flame war. Everyone is so self-riteous and self-important. I used to have Digg as my home page, but now I check in once a week, I cant stand wading through the endless whining and one-upmanship. I guess that is the nature of an open commenting system. But if thats the case than the 'social news community' experimant is failed. The community is nothing more than an oversized school playground with 100,000 kids running around all thinking THEY are the tough guy...
- tomboy501, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Blogs being buried and a lack of transparency on digg leads you to think of the Nazi regime? I can't believe you made that analogy and were dugg up for it.
Why is it always bloggers that have been buried on digg that are always the most dramatic about this issue? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fyre, you make good points. But let's have a go at this one: "I want to know why it's so difficult for you to accept that people may be burying websites that you enjoy, simply because they find them devoid of content, uninteresting or consider them to be blogspam."
I really am not only speaking for myself. With the example of the domain I illustrated, 25 stories were buried after a popular story hit the front page and got over 900 Diggs. That popular story also can be perceived as a post that explains how to "game" Digg (for lack of better term). It has been suspected that Digg buried this domain because of that mere fact.
Let's touch upon another point: do you think that the Digg users are actually surfing Digg, seeking content from the domain in question, and purposely burying it simply because they think the story is lame? Do you think they'd have a 100% success rate at burying EVERY SINGLE STORY from that one domain? That's atypical. Allow me to elaborate.
In my post, I use one domain as an illustration, but many bloggers have contacted me with the suspicions that posts from their domain are also being auto-buried. That's why I didn't just write this letter haphazardly. I carefully considered what was being said to me and reported with my findings using a specific domain as the key illustration.
I don't think that all the stories submitted from the particular domain in question deserved Digg popularity. If my letter assumes that I think that every single post there is great content, I apologize for giving you that impression. However, typically, stories that have 0 comments and 2 Diggs will just die. They won't be buried. They won't get Dugg and they will expire after the usual 24 hours. The difference, here, is that stories are being *buried* versus stories that are simply *expiring* after a specified time.
I hope that clarifies things a little bit. We're both learning from each other here, and it's nice to see that we both have different ways of using Digg. I admire your openness and the ability to discuss this with me. And yet I think that I have a valid argument about stories on this "auto-bury" list.
I've emailed Digg in the past asking why stories have been buried. Their support staff has given me valid reasons (buried as lame, spam, whatever). When I approached them about this particular domain, they ignored my emails. That only leaves me wondering, and that prompted this letter. - michaelstokes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If anyone from Digg Inc. is listening I would also like to add the following: It has become clear that your overall traffic is dropping precipitously (ComScore, Alexa, Compete) I would like to posit that the reason for the drop is because of your auto-bury procedure. First, by auto-burying thousands of sites you've insured that about 25 sites make up the bulk of the news on Digg, therefore lowering the value of your news aggregation service. Why go to Digg when I can go to these sites directly. Second, many of the people associated with the sites you've banned have stopped visiting Digg (we’re talking tens of thousands of people) and will quickly embrace an alternative once it comes along--and it will if you do not rethink your policies.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"I never actually sort by the greatest number of Diggs. I find that the vast majority of what I'm interested in tends to be rather obscure or niche-y."
Well, there you have it. Digg is a democratic news site that mostly appeals to the tech-savvy folk. Indeed, there are political enthusiasts too, but you're quite right that those sites have core followings. They also have core detractors. Personally, I don't have an interest in political stories so I avoid them. My behavior and interests primarily lie in science/technology/offbeat news/business.
Everyone can mold the service to be his or her own, but Digg was established on a technological foundation and it remains so to this day. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Wrong and wrong again. Use Digg however you want. But remember that everything comes from a democratic vote and I am only one voice.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There's nothing democratic about digg -- we all know that. It's not about who submitted the best story, it's about how big a social network you've created. You could have the greatest story of all time to submit to Digg, but your chances of getting it made popular are zero if you don't have a large group of "friends" to digg it up. That's the most dissappointing thing about Digg -- it's not democratic. Other news posting sites rate stories on their merit, not their submitters. Take Slashdot for example, you can be anonymous and still get a story posted based soley on the content. BUT I'M PREACHING TO THE CHIOR HERE. ALL YOU "TOP SUBMITTERS" ALREADY KNOW HOW UNFAIR THIS SITE ALREADY IS.
- BillyWarhol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah I agree with Fred*
Hopefully more Important World Issues like DARFUR or Bush's Illegal War in Iraq start garnering the same amount of rabid Attention + SPEAKING UP!!
;)) Peace* - PNAC4PRES, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Kevin Rose is a complete muppet, Digg is the equivalent of Democracy in the US & UK, its a PSUEDO DEMOCRACY, they want to make the average joe think its totally democratic when its anything but that.
Kevin Rose you are a joke, and everyone knows it. - SohoPro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You got that right. And I know you know what you are talking about, since you have tested it.
- jkharris07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree with this article. They need to do something about stories submitted from certain domains getting auto buried.
- philbutler, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3@ the more important crowd - Billy gets to be the spokesman (and my great friend). That is the point - in a Digg like system you would never know about Bush's boo boos. You almost don't now! Darfur could be buried and even if you found it -no one would believe you- and if they did believe you canewediggit there would call you a cry baby and what's his face up there wold call you a pussy for worrying about fairness and "simple" votes. I hope you see my point. What we do in a small way is what we condone in a very big sense. That is , after all, how that "yes" boy to big money got in that office with the white walls after all. :)
- SohoPro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Fred has got it right. The whole thing is pretty disappointing. Anyone who thinks a network is not about the people, well..a network does not exist without people. To suggest that people need Digg is ridiculous. Something will replace Digg eventually. Give it a rest, or start a new network.
- canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3obviously i read the piece otherwise i couldn't have made the comments i did. obviously you haven't figured out where the 'reply' button is proving yet again you don't understand how digg works or just don't care.
you make the same complaints as everyone else- 'post was quality stuff'. why? because you think digg owes you free schwag? are you ***** kidding me?
perhaps when you have more to do w/ your time than try and get the front page of digg and pump all your 'friends' articles up you'll learn the difference between quality content and whining.
and if you don't want it to make the front page why did you make it an 'open letter' instead of emailing it to digg? why did you digg BOTH of the submissions? you're so full of ***** i can smell you through the internet tubes. - canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5buried. i don't give a ***** about your beef w/ rose. i don't give a ***** if your story gets buried and "somehow" manages another 60 digg b/c you and your friends blind digg each others stories each and every time, which is why this has 11 diggs in 8 minutes even though this same entry is floating around twice. and i certainly don't give a ***** that you want free digg gear and think you are bringing a significant amount of new traffic to digg by wearing it. sorry, digg doesn't need you to grow. you need digg more than digg needs you. you're not special because you're a 'top user'.
let me shorten this up and save others some time" wah wah wah. bury not fair. me want free stuff."
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is