What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
73 Comments
- mctk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33I hope not.
Hey, I love digg, don't get me wrong. But this is not journalism. It's not even a blog. It's sort of a meta-blog. It throws around a lot of traffic, but scan the front page headlines. This ain't mainstream media (and it shouldn't be.)
I think the real question is, will spam change the face of Digg? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20spam is already changing digg. Everyday I log on and find myself reporting more and more. Websites digg their own news for a boost in traffic, bloggers link to their blogs (god forbid attribution). I look at Kevin's front page queue and see blog posts with four diggs submitted for the front page.
Don't even get me started on the stuff that even claims RUMOR in the submission. Yeah, mindlessly encouraging rumors, which later get passed off as fact, is sure going change journalism. The sad thing is absolutely no one is reponsible for what gets published on digg. "Who cares if its false, 2000 other people dugg it too so you can't pin it on me."
Don't count on digg changing the face of journalism if the site itself can't stand up to a kid with TOR, a blog, adwords and nothing to do on a saturday.
Yeah digg has problems and they are getting worse. - Carv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Digg won't change journalism if its taken over by bloggers.
- cdgrocott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Digg will never change the face of journalism. Digg has far too many immature users who use the site to either used to direct lots of traffic to a user's own site or used to promote an agenda be it pro or anti Mac / Linux / Microsoft / Google / [insert-name-of-large-corporation-here] sentiments.
Add to this that very few stories on here promote discussion of the article in question, and should a story actually spark a debate (heaven forbid!) this is usually quickly squashed by the less mature users with pathetic little insults that most users are not willing to spend time filtering out. If you've got nothing valid to add then why bother?
In a similar fashion many stories that don't follow the above line of thinking don't make it to the front page, and, of course, the chances of any story that dares to point this out will never make it to the front page (Case in point: http://digg.com/links/Using_Digg_to_Promote_Your_Blog:_Digg_Whores).
Rant over. *Waits for comment to get buried in 5-4-3...* - po6ot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Digg kills discussion. The mob rules. Decent comments get buried along with the spam if they don't correspond with the agenda of the digg bullies.
If people are going to digg comments up or down depending on wether or not they agree with them. Then instead of burying a comment perhaps there could be a different method of visual feedback. Say a circle that changes colour (red - highly disagree or green - strongly agree).
Another thought is that some posts are more controverisal than others. One may get +100 diggs and -100 diggs and end up as only a +1 wheras a boring post may get overlooked and still have the initial +1 digg. Perhaps controversial posts could have a visual indication of a small flame or something. Heh, just a thought ^_^. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The problems I have with Digg are the same problems I have with most discussion boards; signal to noise. I'm no Apple/Linux fanboy (although I do get a bit passionate about the open source movement), so if a story appears that I don't want to read, I don't read it. And I definitely don't click on the link to post a comment to tell everyone that I don't want to read it.
If people were more interested in reading than spewing their opinions, the signal to noise ratio would be much more interesting. If people posted links to their news sources instead of their blogs where they give their opinions on the news source, then Digg would be a more credible site. (And the Digg effect would be much rarer, as the big stories would all point to established commercial sites rather than homemade blogs!)
The problem is that people don't comment on stories- they use stories as a springboard to trot out their favourite opinions. For example, just look at my comment here for an example- it doesn't actually talk about the news article that comments are supposed to discuss!
It's all fine details though- the idea of democratic news greatly appeals to me, and as soon as people stop trying to use it for their own ends (ie. to promote their blogs and spam their opinions) the sooner it will be able to make the transition from interesting niche for nerds to something more mainstream. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The problem is, Digg started out as a News site. A Tech News site. And right up until the Million Dollar Homepage (possibly a bit beforehand even), it was a great News site; it aggrigated a lot of actual News, things people want to read.
After the MDH struck, it went to hell in a handbasket almost overnight. If it wasn't the clones of MDH, it was people posting Blogs, thinking they could get the same level of attention. If it wasn't blogs, there were people posting endless rants about how Digg should be changed by linking to Google. If it wasn't one of the above, it was the rumor sites. And lastly, as if all of that wasn't enough, people started to think that Wikipedia and various Bugzillas were News Sources (as if they're not already bandwidth strapped as it is).
Digg needs reform, but they're taking their dear sweet time about it. But until then, I'll just keep reporting stories as lame. - PacoDG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To go on with what "HackJandy" said above, see this person with two different user names, posting the same crap from the same site:
http://digg.com/users/EvanGH/submitted
http://digg.com/users/Tim_G/submitted
(I could find more examples, but this is one that just came to mind cause they actually had a story get to the front page, though the news was ripped from another source, which is the ***** part about 99% of Blogs.. even the "good" ones like joystiq or engadget) - nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I agree with you. The rampant fanboyism around here sucks at times. Anything said against the all mighty Apple gets instantly downmoded.
- fluffebunnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The fanboyism is seriously messed up on this site. That's probably the biggest problem with this type of discussion thread is that when someone says anything slightly different they get modded down.
It's not a real discussion if all the different opinions are buried. Then it just helps to fuel the fanboy culture. - cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9If a site is to change the face of 'journalism' then it's Newsvine and not Digg. I myself don't consider digg anymore a tech-news site, but a collection of funny or interesting links.
- JimV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It seems to me that most blog "journalists" find a link in a major news site, summarize it, then post a link to their blog on Digg. Hardly what I would call "journalism".
- po6ot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7...instead we have to make do with misleading headlines that are full of spelling and grammatical errors that send you to sensationalist stories that more often than not are just the ramblings of some crackpot on his blog that can't handle the load anyway in an attempt to get you to click his ads. Wonderful.
- GeneralChang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Spot the word journalist/journalism and win a prize!
"Digg is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do." -digg.com/faq
Therefore digg is a site where you discuss various links or other pages on the Internet.
Balls to the wall, Hardcore Journalism isn't about telling a story or informing people of something going on. Journalism at it's core is has 2 parts.
1. Detective Work - Gathering facts, information, making connections, understanding whats going on.
2. Reportage - Being able to clearly and concisely present the information and allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusion.
On Digg you seldom ever see both, in fact digg is driven by people wanting to share something they hold an opinion on. Just look at the headlines for some of these front page stories.
Now if digg provided a method of logging proof/evidence as to the credibility of their story then perhaps this would be a open journalism site. But until you can go to a digg story and look up factual info about the writer, the person or org in the story, info about what the people said, and what context etc. Digg will just be what it is.
Social Bookmarking With user based feedback/ranking. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Digg is far away from journalism. It is just a bunch of rants that people just love to talk about. Its like talking about the same thing over and over again. There is no real meat in it anymore. However, it is an interesting site to monitor.
-G - daFilms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7'citizen journalists...opinion-givers in an echo chamber of like-minded amateurs.'
Someone had to say it.
...and yes, please get your news from multiple sources... and ESPN ESPNclassic ESPN2 does not count - fluffebunnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I would have to agree with you. And I would also point out that only the popular opinions win out, which is not the point of a real discussion. The unpopular things are buried. If we were talking about DIGG as serious news and discussion, I would be pretty frightened.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Lately Digg is just another Mac Fanboy site where they can jack each other off while dreaming of being ***** by Steve Jobs. So I guess Digg has changed the face of journalism but only to a perverted extent.
Digg has gone down hill once the burying of comments allowed the Fanboys to take over. One step forward, two steps back. Digg needs to reexamine the changes it has made and fix it's faults. - dFLAWLESS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It cannot change journalism, but it does however categorize it. It allows journalist a new avenue to stream line their articles. Digg is just a place where a bunch of tech nerds can share tech articles they have found with the rest of the tech community.
- cpawl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Silly rabbit... Digg is for kids.
- fluffebunnie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I hope DIGG doesn't change journalism.
- All4not, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7That was before the spam was taking over and stories like 'Help Me Win My Bet for a Threesome' was hitting the front page in under an hour. I find myself less interested in digg now that it's much more popular. I loved coming to digg and wanting to read 75% of the front page stories. Now it seems like I'm searching the queue.
Kevin needs to change the algorithm for front page stories. He needs to make it much more strict as the number of registered users increase. They may need to be able to add -diggs for the stories to. Then we can counter the people that are digging SPAM. They need to work on fixing digg, before they span out into other news categories. They don't have to take my suggestions, but something has to be done. With so many users out there, if we throw enough sh!t (ideas) out there, something bound to smell like roses! - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I believe they already have changed the face of journalism. Just look at how this site and others propogated stories like the Sony Rootkit story or the PriceRite Photo story
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, all is not well in the world. But the major problems are the thousands of people dying each day because of the money-driven machine that we all play our parts in- not because some guy beat someone to death in a "this random act of violence could happen to you!" scare story.
Of course, that same machine is the reason it won't become news; the news is all part of the same thing. A headline of "some people in a far away country aren't paid enough to feed themselves and their families, all because you shop at Asda/Wal-mart to save a bit of cash" isn't going to make me buy a newspaper in the way that a picture of a bloody corpse that I am in no way responsible for will.
I mean, which headline would you go for first out of these three;
"Thousands die today, just like yesterday, the day before and probably tomorrow"
"Man gets bumraped and savagely beaten to death really near where you live!"
"Bill Gates says Vista will be an open source release." - haooken, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Absolutly not. There's only a certain kind of demographic that hangs out on digg, so its not representative of the majority opinion, so its not really effective journalsim, blah blah, insert more politico-journalsim babble here.
Point is, digg is a Linux/Mac fanboy lovefest. Very little, if anything, more.
So what do you do? You get your news from a wide variety of sources, and formulate your own opinions.
Oh, I'm sorry, iThinkforMyself hasn't been released for OS X yet. Too bad, LinuxTosh groupies.... - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg gets its news from users, who gets its news from reuters, cnn, and other major sites. Generally, it is not self reporting.. it is often a copy of news posted elsewhere.
So the quick answer, NO.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not likely.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it makes Digg worse when people link to their blogs. It's annoying, no one wants to link to their opinion page--they should make a comment and submit a credible news story. More blogs=lame.
- xiuxiu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg isn't journalism.
Journalists actually do the research and write the story.
Digger's submit them.
Therefore, it's just a convenient complilation of interesting stories.
No more. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uh, yeah, this website is going to change the face of the world as we know it, seeing as it's a rabid Apple fan site from the people that run it on down to the trolls that use it and all.
- entropy357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the title of this post is poorly worded Digg.com isn't mentioned in the article once.
- Cander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am so tired of bloggers calling themselves independent news sources that are free of the corporate bias of big media. Their news posts are just as much biased as any other source and only post the stuff they want to you read. They don't ever cover the other side of the story.
- bluephoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Digg is changing the way that news gets around, although the spam is killing the site for sure. I submitted the linuxworld fire story right from the conference, I think I even beat slashdot to the story, and I was sitting at their booth too while I did it.
- caldroun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5One word. No.
- marmite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course Digg can't change the face of journalism.
Everyone knows journalists have a ruddy, unhealthy complexion from all the scotch they drink from the bottle they keep in their drawer, while working on 'that story that'll get 'em a Pullitzer' late into the night.
Only AA and plastic surgery can save the face of journalism! :D - Rajio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With english as poor as this I sure hope sites like Digg do nothing to change the face of journalism. All that it changes it the nature of hearsay.
- rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg is for geeks, it's tech news. it's a different animal than 'Entertainment News' or even policital news. It's interweb. geeks are 37173, everyone else's news comes at them fast enough thank you very much.
it's so annoying that the big networks are pimping the 'whats on the blogs' angle. as if there aren't a hundred thousand blog posts to choose from. they could choose any article on any given subject at random and report on it, shoving it down their viewers throats. sites like digg have an ever-evolving democracy to them that can't be matched by one-way mediums.
while we're on the subject, i think there's some corruption at play there too. eg. this D-Link NTP lameness would never make it on to the evening news, EVER. but it's horrendous news about how stupifyingly unfair corporations are. how are we going to get this world more fair, more honest and more open without our own news source, powered by us? we're not, so keep on digging! - ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry, Digg can change the face of journalism more likely for the worse. There are no controls and no accountability.
The apolitical submissions are still great but, at this moment, Digg is being used as a battleground for Cultural Jihad.
It doesn't help that the majority of people just read the biased headline and put their digg on articles that are innacurate at best.
Recent example: Headline and description says abridgedly "Cancer vaccine blocked by conservatives who don't want anyone having sex", the article doesnt identify or quote a single conservative group and the truth is that there is no conservative group opposing the vaccine but merely opposing making the vaccine mandatory to children instead of depending on parents authorization.
The majority of leftists are posting slanted articles against conservatives and digging negatives on every comment that doesn't help them advance their goals of forging a consensus.
They should go back to Indymedia and post their far-leftist spun drivel there. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2also, how exactly does stuff get to the front page?
- Skettalee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not at all to me because its just a site linking to what real journalists are reporting.
- cdgrocott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry, the link is 'real'. I just messed up when I posted it.
Working link for those interested: http://digg.com/links/Using_Digg_to_Promote_Your_Blog:_Digg_Whores - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Too bad the link isn't real. I would have dugg it. Digg is on the fast slide down with all the fanboys burying unpopular but valid comments. Digg used to be a tech site that you could depend on. Now it's like a bad IRC channel.
- jaredseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg "propogated"(sic) stories that otherwise would get no coverage? That borders on the ridiculous. Most of the links on Digg (other than the self promoting blog postings) are direct links to news items on the 'mainstream media' of the web. What? A story on C|Net reaches no readers until it appears on Digg? It's just an aggregator like many others folks. Get over yourselves. (Watch the negative Diggs fly now)
Sadly the often immature level of discourse on this site will keep it from ever entering the mainstream media, much less changing it. I'd like to hold out hope for the likes of Newsvine, but I never fail to be amazed at how monetary interests can screw up a good thing on the Internet. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2At best Digg can call attention to important but obscure stories. But, that's going to be an occasional thing. It's not going to remake the business of journalism.
- dasil003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem with digg is the same as wikipedia, only 1000 times worse. The idea that the masses can make good editorial decisions is suspect. It works with a small community when not much is at stake. But as soon as there is significant value (high traffic), the spam problem becomes impossible to combat. Anyone can create 30 accounts and get anything they want on the front page. Sure you can take measures against that kind of blatant abuse, but it's an arms race. Digg can be good, but it can never be great, or at least, it can never come close to real journalism.
To answer the hyperbolic question posed by the submitter: NO. Digg can not change the face of journalism. I doubt it can have any impact at all. The whole submission is just masturbatory cowtowing anyway since the article doesn't even mention Digg. Digg might be able to help some talented writers get discovered a little quicker, that's it. Anyone who's any good and does a little self promotion will get discovered and read. Posting some sensationalistic headline to Digg and getting a few million cheap hits is not gonna help you if you can't write. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6And the pro Microsoft articles, the pro Yahoo and Google articles, etc aren't a hint that Digg doesn't cater to one company over another?
Face it, Digg is overran by a million kids with different affinities for different companies. And the best thing you, I, or anyone else can do about it is to mod them down if you can stand to read the tripe they spew, or to just block them out, because they're not going to stop. - ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another example of why Digg can change journalism for the worse is in the following link:
http://digg.com/apple/What_Apple_co-founder_Steve_Wozniak_actually_said_
Wozniak said one thing, the reported insisted and misquoted him to get a sensationalist headline that ended up in Digg. Please see my comments there. - kunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sure it can change the world why not? i changed peoples lives just by exsisting
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dasil003
Thanks for confirming my stance on fanatics. Your reply is a perfect example. BTW, politics has nothing to do with the fanaticism demonstrated by the recent changes to Digg. Extreme fringe views are hardly the definition of valid. Quite the opposite. - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the good link. It has my Digg.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is