What is Digg?306 Comments
- IDIGTHEDIGG, on 09/05/2008, -44/+358Wow Brian Cuban really was a digg whore lol. Now I know that people like MrBabyMan use things like this and they cheat the system unfairly and don't give other people a fair chance.
- dbldn, on 09/05/2008, -11/+252I would love to see this become Brian's most dugg story...
- funkymonkey01, on 09/05/2008, -3/+172Bloody hell, that really is revealing.
- MrBabyMan, on 09/06/2008, -34/+168Sorry, IDIGTHEDIGG, but the truth is far less scandalous. You were right the second time. I have no social life, guilty as charged. (as shown by the fact that I'm responding to this at quarter to midnight on a Friday night...sigh)
- television, on 09/06/2008, -3/+137Script users broke digg a long time ago.
Good to see this guy go, cheating bastard don't come back. - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -5/+129You know where he's really right? You waste so much time on Digg in front of your computer, if you want to be successful and "game" the system. Believe it or not, I'm sure that AT LEAST 80% of the top 1000 uses scripts, there are just too many for digg mods to keep up with.
- rareimagery, on 09/05/2008, -59/+165What a stupid ass site digg is. They allow the Top 100 to game the system with immunity and kick off Mark Cuban's Brother! No wonder google wants nothing to do with this trash site. You take a great idea and manage it right into the toilet. They do post a lot more ads though! Put a stake in Digg and grab a shovel, and help bury Digg!
- inactive, on 09/05/2008, -9/+114Why quit? A new IP Address, a new account, and the same email address and you'll be right back at the top. Just ask some of the top 100 that have been banned in the past and restarted.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -7/+107FTA:
"I built my “Digg credibility” which allowed me to add many of the top Diggers such as MrBabyMan and MakiMaki. The rub was that in order to keep these top diggers interested in your submissions you have to Digg all of theirs."
"While I heard rumors that there were diggers using scripts to speed up the digging process I had never given it much thought."
---
My comments:
- Anyone that automatically diggs every submission that MrBabyMan or MakiMaki submits is a whore. The pattern should be easily recognized by Digg and they should be banned. I'm tired of the Digg front page being dominated by a few users.
- I'm convinced that people are using scripts (bots) to bury Ron Paul articles for example. I don't see any good reason why buries are kept private on Digg. - OfNumbers, on 09/06/2008, -4/+95The system in its self is what is broken now. Popularity based users are what the admins wanted, and now they control the system. I took the liberty of putting together a list to prove my point. I gathered these names by checking the first 30 diggers on MrBabyMan's four most recent posts.
http://digg.com/users/diggleague
http://digg.com/users/SirPopper
http://digg.com/users/zaibatsu
http://digg.com/users/upick
http://digg.com/users/louiebaur
http://digg.com/users/reflex768
http://digg.com/users/orlando69
These users are all very diligent beneficiaries of a system that allows them to trade thoughtless upmods for the same in return. The effects are starting to show as the little guy gets more and more disenfranchised here, primarily because if you do not spam, regardless of the quality, presentation and content of your post - you won't see 20 diggs. - anderzole, on 09/05/2008, -7/+97Had to give this one a symbolic digg!
- PiGuy, on 09/06/2008, -1/+83Seek help
- ileftfark, on 09/06/2008, -4/+84Brian: You're a douche and "gaming" the system is the antithesis of what social media should ideally represent. Having said that, I give you props for admitting to your wrongdoings and admitting your douchebaggery. If only there were more douches like you. And I can honestly say I've never said that before, and do not intend to again.
- edge777, on 09/06/2008, -4/+69For Digg to be truly reputable (it's not at the moment). It needs to get rid of the top 100, and not allow an elite group of people to control content. I'm not saying what was done here is right, it's not, but Digg is slowly being uncovered for what it is. Another interesting article is about how Digg staff are censoring content - http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_is_Censoring_Conten ...
- webresources, on 09/05/2008, -6/+70Was very nice to read such a sincere post.
- deadapostle, on 09/06/2008, -0/+55I guess this explains why there is so much ***** on digg mixed in with the useful content.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -0/+46What is the point of blindly digging every MakiMaki submission. Doesn't that just make you his whore?
- JDavis68, on 09/06/2008, -1/+45This isn't really about his one case. It's proof that cheaters are the ones who succeed. He cheated, admitted it, got caught, yet its what he did that directly made his blog a success, brought him writing jobs, etc. Sad really.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -0/+42Do a little bit of digging around and you'll see that the Top 100 basically votes cooperatively.
- Sfenton, on 09/06/2008, -18/+59So that's how Huffingtonpost gets their crap on the front page.
- aksn1p3r, on 09/05/2008, -4/+42If you don't cheat, you are ELITE!
- mikesbaker, on 09/06/2008, -1/+33this is exactly what is wrong with digg. this is the reason the front page is filled with stupid bull *****. thanks to brian and all the ass holes like him - thanks for making digg a ***** place.
- phiebs, on 09/06/2008, -1/+32Just curious - is Digg your full time employment Mr BM?
- neuromachine, on 09/06/2008, -1/+32Make submitters anonymous.
- bixby1, on 09/05/2008, -12/+43Hi Phil. I just read your profile and I figured out that you've dugg 140+ stories and commented on 400+ stories. Here is your place on this "ugly" website: You're what we call a 'comment whore'. You comment and glance back to see how many people liked your little quips. Mostly, I think your comments are actually pretty good. You have an easy way with words and you don't seem to care much. So you won't mind at all when I tell you to GFY. Take care Phil, you're an *****.
- donjuan571, on 09/06/2008, -9/+39***** that this kid is a straight douchebag. Makes a website named after himself about a digg account. Thats the lamest thing I have ever seen. This kid needs a ***** life and a god damn job.
- cadmiumpaint, on 09/06/2008, -0/+30As long as the top 100 are allowed to dominate digg with their submissions, digg can never be considered a reliable news source or a credible user controlled news site. Who knows what agenda paid or unpaid these "power users" have? The way that digg is set up, unless you're prepared to spend your entire life submitting, shouting and digging stories you'll never get anyone to see your submissions, so its basically pointless. How is that good for digg's survival?
If you check this site daily or semi often its obvious that stories from the same sites posted by the same people get front page status 99% of the time. - neognostic, on 09/05/2008, -37/+63Take care Brian! Thanks for the shouts!
- groo68, on 09/06/2008, -0/+24seriously, they need to make added stories anonymous, and the person who submitted them should not be able to view them(to copy their link) for at least 5 hours. comments can still work exactly like they do now, and the friends list and so forth, but there should be no shouts and no access for the submitter to the story for at least five hours. no bias, only random people finding the story interesting. If you want your friends to see something you can email them the link to it, you don't need your brownie points to be on public display.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 09/06/2008, -3/+26A douchey article written by yet another douchebag from the bowels of Digg. I think this Fark thread sums it up quite nicely:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink ... - bayerman38, on 09/06/2008, -1/+24he got "Buried"
- IDIGTHEDIGG, on 09/06/2008, -4/+25Well its either what I said or he has absolutley no social life, so I think my statement actually makes him seem better.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -0/+20It's funny you say that, considering that I've reported some incredibly blatant spammers and their accounts are still active.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -4/+24Take care Brian! Thanks for spamming us your ***** blog again!
- louiebaur, on 09/05/2008, -11/+32Dugg for Brian.... RIP but not really bro you just freed up some time... Now onto more important things. Lets have a banning celebration you have my address when the mavs or maybe the cubs (i am not picky) are playing next we can kick back and have a cold one. Of course you will not be having a cold alcoholic beverage...
- tian2992, on 09/06/2008, -1/+20I used to digg 1500 stories a month (no scripts, read most of the stories), was used to get ~5 friend requests a day.
I used to spend so much time here; I'm glad I am not doing it anymore.
(BTW the only story i have submitted that has been on the front page was a xkcd…) - Oogler, on 09/06/2008, -1/+20A private company exercising their right to remove service has *nothing* to do with your over-weening sense of democracy/freedom of expression. Moron.
- BeShirtHappy, on 09/05/2008, -17/+37Brian, I haven't known you long but have enjoyed reading your submissions! Good luck in all your ventures!
- dhVyse, on 09/06/2008, -4/+23Good riddance. Now we just have to get MrBabyMan the ***** out of here. I'm sure it won't matter much, probably plenty of others who aren't in the limelight.
- Tomboys, on 09/06/2008, -3/+21I do agree that they are managing it into the toilet however. You can only dangel the carrot for so long but if you NEVER let active diggers who aren't in "The Sweet Spot" have any success .. well eventually they will join a 12 step program and leave.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 09/05/2008, -13/+30Great, I just read the definition of the absence of life. I feel the same way I feel after seeing a traffic accident. ***** I never wanted to see or hear and I feel sorry for everyone involved. Do people really live their lives for this ugly web 2.0 website?
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -8/+25What proof do you have that the "Top 100" game the system?
Haven't Top 100 contributors been banned before? - basye, on 09/06/2008, -0/+17Recently I saw the dark side of some diggers. I was hand-digging a ton of stories, and a few top-100's had added me to their mutual friends' list.For two weeks I was out due to the death of my mother, and when I returned sent a shout to everyone letting them know what happened. Wouldn't you know, all but one of those top 100 people had unfriended me and now won't give me the time of day. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE. That has turned me off to Digg big-time in regards to the high-volume posters.
- danthepiercer, on 09/06/2008, -0/+16youre awesome...i want so badly to be more like you.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -4/+20@Diggopolis,
It took me a second to digest that, but I get what you're saying.
If anything, this reminds me of MMORPGs, believe it or not, at least pre-World of Warcraft. Prior to WoW becoming the behemoth that it is, there was a very strict division of players in most MMOs, and there was a laundry list of complaints that would get levied against top tier players: they're cheating, they have no life, they know GMs, etc. While it may have been true in some instances, some of the time, it was never a conclusive thing and people just didn't want to reconcile the fact that there were people willing to put up with a lot of tedious ***** in order to attain some form of accomplishment in-game.
I see the same thing here on Digg, with non-100s getting angry at the 100s. Kind of silly, if you ask me. - AmyVernon, on 09/06/2008, -6/+21Thanks, Brian, for being flat-out honest, as you always have been. But look at it this way: You just bought yourself a whole lot more time in your life.
- XISUPERMANIX, on 09/06/2008, -0/+15Digg does suck pretty hard though. A new user can submit an article and get maybe 2-8 diggs, two hours later some guy with friends posts the same link, totally ignores that it is a duplicate story and submits it anyway. Top users don't care for ***** other than getting "their" story, that they didn't write and just clicked a couple buttons to the front page. Digg always talks about media bias and Digg is one of them, controlled by 50 or so nerds who seriously sit on Digg all day everyday.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -1/+15Digg did get rid of the Top 100...any Top 100 lists are done so by people who aren't affiliated with Digg and are on a site separate from Digg.
- gcnaddict, on 09/06/2008, -3/+17http://digg.com/tech_news/***** ...
Shameless plug: this story of mine never hit the front page. -
Show 51 - 100 of 311 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is