What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
27 Comments
- jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+78The mistake we made was not being clearer that we were not associating the algorithm change with the top submitters. These guys are hard working, honest contributors to digg and are being unfairly scapegoated.
Please stop with the targeted burying... Digg what you like, bury what you don't. We'll take care of the abusers. - jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The digg staff has the methods and knows the difference between a coordinated effort to game versus a friend group liking each other's stories. This isn't what you think, and honestly, I think you really should lay off the top submitters. Particularly when you see the diverse range of users who digg their stories prior to promotion.
We'll change the algorithm to prevent the abusers. Again...Digg what you like, bury what you don't...stop targeting innocent folks. - jdkelley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Protest by removing avatars? What is that going to prove? Big deal. Top user resigns? Good. Numbers 2-10 want to go with him? I am not all computer illiteratem but it sounds like a bunch of whining babies who have it harder to get their stores to the front page (as it should have been the whole time).
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Algorithm hasn't changed yet! Digg just added mainly the Digg Tools section, when the site was down yesterday!
- tom6a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The article actually has it right. It says, "Kevin Rose responded by announcing a new algorithm." You're right, a better title would be Digg Announces Algorithm Change.
Anyone know when the change is supposed to take effect? - thedove, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15the thing i hate about these types of digg stories, especially with gaming the system, is that these lame bloggers just vomit what's already been said. maybe take a walk off the beaten path and provide your own solution? here's the last 2 sentences of the blogspam:
"The democratic nature of social media is their biggest strength yet can also be their biggest problem. How should sites respond when their user base turns against them?"
I DON'T KNOW!!! You tell me, genius! Don't waste our time to writing THE SAME thing everybody else does. Use that brain! Come up with an idea! - hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@lunk
The sad thing is you should actually look at what you have dugg before you comment. 26% of the articles you have dugg came from top 30 submitters. I did not count the users that were very close to the top 30 I am betting it would be closer to 40% if not 50% if I counted the top 50.
In case you do not believe me here are the numbers.
user submitted by amount of times post dugg
dirtyfratboy 2
bloodjunkie 6
schestowitz 3
wayjer 2
aaaz 3
msaleem 2
aidendag 3
p9 2
hemphill81 2
gregd 1
gwjc 1
the attacks 1
supernova17 1
So you have Dugg 109 stories 29 of which were from the top 30.
So at your comment "Lots of us feel that the system has been cirlce-jerked by the same users, and that it has less value for it. The fact that you are trying to "convince" us that this is not the case is irrelevant." Please do a little research before you speak. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Better is the link to this Wired post "Interview with a Top Digg User" -> http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/index.blog?entry_id=1552783
The top Digg user says, "It all started because a user by the name of digitalgopher stayed home sick from work a couple days ago and spent the day submitting even more awesome content to Digg then usual. Naturally, this resulted in a lot more of his stories being promoted to the front page than usual that day. This caused a couple of users to panic and before you know it we have people calling for the heads of the top 100 users."
Sorry buddy, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. Digitialgopher was one of many users that were looked at. No one said anything because they noticed digitalgopher posting more stories, they said something because they noticed a bunch of the top users insta-digging each other's stories.
This sounds like someone trying to down play the concerns that were raised, but he's pretty far off the mark. - motang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So that is why it was down yesterday, that explains it. Well either way new algorithm or no new algorithm this has been one hectic week for digg community. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.
- ArtistBot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Hmmm! I wonder what can be gleaned from reading between the lines. If you're not gaming the system then there is no reason to resign. If you are gaming the system you're costing Digg valuable credibility, but maybe making a lot money in the process otherwise why would gaming Digg be of value?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9What is your take on the controversy? Alex, I'll take "Who Gives a *****?" for $200.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jay - I know you have some damage control to deal with, and I appreciate your efforts. My comment wasn't designed to push the knife in further, I was simply rebutting the interviewee's statement. He's either chosen to ignore the real story, or he's purposely trying to discredit and oversimplify the situation.
Either way no one benefits from his response. - jivemasta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't get what the deal is. Why does it matter who submitted the front page stories. As long as I have a bunch of tech news in one easy to find place; I could care less about who found it. Here is a solution, don't have rankings for people. If you don't want it to be like a game, don't have a first place. I didn't even know there were rankings until a week or two ago. Life goes on, being the most popular person on a website seems trivial in the scheme of things.
- swindmill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think these "top diggers" need to quit taking Digg story submitting so seriously and simply use the site as it was intended. If someone is in such a great need of self-worth, get a better job or a hobby...other than submitting stories to Digg and trying to get them on the front page.
- dandiemer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5sounds like some whiney geeks need to get outside more to me.
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a fair amount of drama involved in all this, and emphasis on the responses from some of the top-30 digg users. I would recommend to focus on the issue at hand, and a viable solution for it, plus to think about how this solution is going to be discussed prior to its implementation and how it is going to be communicated to the digg community.
There's no way, no matter how well thought out the solution is going to be, that it will satisfy everybody's concerns. Let's hope it will solve the root-cause of the problem. - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree people should not be targeting people for mass burial based on anything but the article submitted. I still wonder at the reaction of some of those top users though. Digg has a potential flaw which has been exploited by groups, that's a fact. Even if the top users which were fairly or not mentioned were not part of the gaming they should want the flaw corrected for the good of Digg, not pitch fits and whine about it. Some of them straight out complained that they could no longer dominate the top submissions and quite a few of them are paid to submit on Netscape. Again, not all the "top users" mentioned are bad but not all of them are good either. I think Kevin was right to focus on the flaw rather than the people being attacked over it. I also think the entire problem could have been dealt with much earlier when users were emailing Digg tech support about it over and over again - it took a mass Digg by the community and some embarrassing press before Digg reacted. Here's to hoping everyone involved learned something from this experience.
- tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh, I dunno, what if I wanted an article on the front page really really bad because it advertised my new product. Now, what if I dumped a pile of cash in the lap of, oh, I dunno, maybe one of the members of the Top Submitter Team. The group that gets stories promoted more than anyone else. The price I paid would be well worth the onslaught of people seeing my new product. Just sayin...
Luckily though, the high quality articles that are making it to the front page recently are evidence that this is not happening. Think about how much power the top users actually have. Gotta be sorta tempting at the top.
Wow. I actually managed a straight face while typing the first half of that sentence. - h0zae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3There are many stories being buried based strictly on the submitter, this is getting a little frustrating. I have found myself heading over to duggmirror to read the buried stories.
Can you stop these users from "gaming" digg? They are not "gaming" by mass submitting, but they are "gaming" by mass burying... - GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2He's out there spreading the word. He's mad as hell and hes not going to take it any more.
Sour grapes won't earn much notoriety. - ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2sounds like the former to me
- kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Does that mean you won't be applying these changes to them? Or are you just stating that the upcoming changes aren't being implemented 'because' of them.
I'm not sure I understand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Why has this p9 appologist dupe crap been alowed to hit the front page a 2nd time!!!
Its lame, its spam and its innacurate!
http://digg.com/tech_news/p9s50W5k4GUD2c6_1_digger_explains_what_prompted_his_resignation
Just shows that there realy was a conspiracy /joke (maybe)
And they're all getting together to insinuate their way 'back inside' via one-sides blog spam like this and the SAME link in that other story!
Do we realy want people who would do this kind of spamming, submitting stories any more? - nubtard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Old news already and they're just whiners.
- danco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0I didn't miss it. This is about the 100th time this has been posted.
- havanese_boy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I hope all the top diggers who are acting like whiners hold their breathe until they pass out and get a real job.
- lunk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4by jayadelson
The digg staff has the methods and knows the difference between a coordinated effort to game versus a friend group liking each other's stories.
-----------------------
Sorry mate. I don't believe it. The "revolt" you see is because others don't believe it either.
Lots of us feel that the system has been cirlce-jerked by the same users, and that it has less value for it. The fact that you are trying to "convince" us that this is not the case is irrelevant.
If the system is changed so that the theory is not believable, and that we don't see the same top users digging each other to the top over and over, in a dizzying "you-scratch-my-back" sort of frenzy.. well then we will believe it.
I came here from reddit, by the way. A little variety would go a long way over here.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is