What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
266 Comments
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44I have a story with 32 diggs, never made the front page, yet I saw one on the front page shortly after with 25.
- keng, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42the other one got pulled.
- blackbelt88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39I think timing makes a difference too. If you get 25 diggs in like 5 minutes it might get promoted where something with 40 diggs over 2 days might not.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Whether digg is "corrupted" or not, the article opens a small window into how digg operates. I remember a controversial article I dugg/commented on a few months back that simply....disappeared. I could reach it from the original URL, so it wasn't banned or removed....it just vanished from the digg listing - and not just the front page; I couldn't find it at all, no matter how far I went back. No idea whether it was human-edited off the front page, or whether something in digg's algorithm bumped it because of the controversy.
Either way, if digg claimes that its website entries are "selected by users" - and then things happen that seem to contradict that - some transparency is in order. It will be interesting to see what happens to this listing in the next day or two. - SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35I do have to admit it's a little odd this story isn't on the front page with 81 DIGGs in 1 hour and 25 minutes. While "Dual iPod charger" BS story is there with 48 DIGGs in 10 hours...
Something is a little fishy... - snowhare, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31it is _possible_ for the same 16 people of the thousands on the site to digg two separate articles in precisely the same order - but it is so statistically improbable as to be completely ignorable. It is a statistical 'draw without replacement' from a set of a few thousand 'cards'.
Let's put some numbers to this. Assume there are 1000 people actively digging articles and you select _randomly_ 16 of them. What is the chance that you will select the same 16 people, in the same order twice?
The chance that the _first_ person will duplicate is 1/1000 (call it 0.001). The chance that the first _two_ people will duplicate is 1/(1000 * 999) or 0.00001. That the first _three_ people will duplicate is 1/(1000 * 999 *998) (0.000000001). That the first _four_ people will duplicate is 1/(1000 * 999 * 998 * 997) or 0.000000000001.
And so on. By the time you get to _16_ consecutive identical diggs your chance is pretty close to:
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002
That is a zero with _47_ zeros after it and then a 2. That makes the odds about equivalent to that of winning the lottery five times in a row. - datter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Someone should submit that article to Slashdot :)
- richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I saw them delete the story: http://digg.com/links/Story_about_Digg_s_corruption_deleted_within_seconds.
- TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28The story just got picked up by Slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/04/20/1538256.shtml
I'll post a link over there to this (if it hasn't already been done); Maybe it will bring more diggs.
Viva la revolucion! - umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Someone at digg better explain pretty quick. I'm pretty sure all of us that use digg are quite capable of finding out one way or another through different blogs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Yep, buried.....and here's an interesting thing: do a site search on the word "corrupted" - and note that this article appears NOWHERE in the listing. Exactly what happened to the article I referenced above.
- kennyboy019, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17That's pretty much what it seems like.
Look at how many diggs this got. Why is it not on the front page?
Oh, that's right. Were not allowed to question the digg overlords power :| - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I'm glad BoingBoing picked this up. Otherwise, with the story buried, it would sink without a trace.
At least this way the debate will continue.
If someone at digg is burying submissions just because those links are critical of the site, that is just wrong. Not because they don't have the right - it's their site; they do - but because the reputation of digg is built on "user-driven" content. Isn't this what supposedly makes this site fresh, new and exciting?
If digg administrators/moderators are diddling with submissions behind the scenes (especially just to stifle criticism of the site), then they've broken faith with digg's readers on a fundamental level. The appearance of a democratic process does not, by default, mean that a democratic process actually exists. - vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16If I can make a suggestion to the digg folks (if they care at all to take suggestions)
1. Open up the algorithm/method used to push articles to the front page. This will help you clear up a lot of the rumors going around. Open source always rules right? :)
2. If what these guys claims is true about artificially pushing articles to the main page, come clean and admit it...it's not a big deal..it's a private website, you guys can do anything you want to do on your own site, but come on....don't punish people because they point it out.
This will help everyone win...hopefully. - SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Timing and speed of the DIGGs. But, you can't expect a story to stay on the Front Page with 40, 50, 100 DIGGs, you need more than that.
- splasho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This submission has more diggs than the current top of the front page and was posted 50 minutes ago compared to the other ones 23 hours, so why isn't it there?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Soccerboy: 22 diggs may not seem like much, but it can get you to the front page, a lot of people view the stories that haven't made the front page sorted by most diggs, and then because more people see them, they digg those stories. Most front page stories start out with a small amount of diggs (around 30) and then explode once they hit the front page , not before, because a lot more people view the front page than the non front page stories
- raveneris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13So is that the suggestion of some automated system? Maybe if RSS readers are watching for friends' posts and they sort of auto-digg..? Is that feasible or desirable? What's the motive?
- CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://www.aviransplace.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/26/digg-is-a-bully/
There is another view of Digg from none other than the guy that coded the "Digg this" button for WordPress... ha - TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16It's moving so quick, it's hard to keep up.
http://digg.com/links/Slashdot_chimes_in_on_DIGG_censorship_controvery
http://digg.com/technology/Growing_Censorship_Concerns_at_Digg (front page/under review) - 404notfound, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This clinches it. I've had to put up with enough useless drivel on the front page that really shouldn't be there at all (and have been met with enormous vehemence for posting negative comments about them), and now there's this.
Kevin Rose, what are you doing? - phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Oh, how I used to love Digg...back when it did not have threaded comments or anything...when it was a simple and small site, and did not feel like everything was moderated.
I felt like what I submitted actually mattered, and if other people thought so as well, it would eventually get to the front page...but no longer. Oh...those were the days. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Interesting. So how do stories get "buried" - is it a moderator decision? So, if a digg moderator SIMPLY DOESN'T LIKE a story - no reason, just doesn't like it - he/she can bury it without any recourse, review, or rationale?
- splasho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Its been buried - http://digg.com/search?search=digg&submit=Search&area=all&type=both&age=60&search-buried=on
- jangelo, on 10/23/2007, -3/+11Here's my take on this issue:
http://racoma.net/archives/is-diggcom-not-the-user-drive-news-site-it-was-hyped-up-to-be/
I'm a DIGG fan, but if things really do turn out that DIGG is no longer the decentralized / democratic news site it was supposed to be, then I'd really be disappointed! - phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Interesting....
http://digg.com/users/saudukargeneral/homepage
He has two stories that are listed in his frontpage listing, but only one has ever seen the front page. - datter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12This needs to get to the front page for experimentation purposes if nothing else.
- greenbox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I'm sure threes more to the this story than meets the eye. but i wonder what would happen if this story got on the front page. you know for sure then that Kevin Rose would see this story but the question then would be what would he do?
- sosuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10~2.5 diggs a min since it was published but i haven't seen it on the front page...
- henrysmith1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Exactly. And this isn't even against Digg, it just seems that way. If anything, it shows how much people want to preserve Digg's integrity.
- n8han, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah this is pretty incriminating stuff. Somebody better be penning his apology and explanation, cause this story has a life outside digg (remember boingboing?).
- aitzim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It's either abuse or a glitch but given everything else that has happened, man that reeks.
screen cap if something mysterious happens:
http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/3328/diggabuse6vi.png - MattS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Sad. When I first found digg.com it really impacted me (before anyone starts - I already have a life). I saw a potential future of social networking, Web 2.0, etc. It was an inspiring moment. Where could this go? How many different uses could this model be used for? Could you apply it to elections (a true Roman Republic? Democracy automated?), business decision making, public policy, ...
Naively I thought, "Certainly a group mind would weed out corruption." What I just learned is that even a group mind, group think, mass consciousness is *still* controlled by a few people.
Very disappointing. I hate reality. - dan4prez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This story isn't on the front page because the moderators buried it practically as soon as it was posted. Here's a link from above showing it:(at the bottom of the page the page)
http://digg.com/search?search=digg&submit=Search&area=all&type=both&age=60&search-buried=on
With this link you can see all of the stories that have been buried recently, most of which are ones about digg's suspicious practices. - juantanamera, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9why is it any digg posts that are against digg got buried? 45+,40+ diggs compared to really useless digg posts? what the heck is wrong?
- phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The thing that bothers me about it is that Kevin Rose is on both lists where this crazy duplicate digg list is in effect.
- GreenLantern33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I love the smell of controversy early in the morning. That is a good article and brings up some good points.
- hagoss01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The story made it to slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/20/1538256&from=rss
- phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Spammers and digging fraud...that includes KEVIN ROSE?
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That is very interesting. What conclusions are we to draw from that other than thinking that a digg editor manually restricted that article from ever seeing the homepage?
- JeffClavier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Story buried on Digg but on top of Memeorandum. That should be interesting to watch.
- SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7After some research, I think my original statement was false. It might not be a lot, but enough to get you the push you need.
- joehobbes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I can't help but LOL at the links to this story in the comments of all the other front page stories.
Digg those comments so they stick out :) - phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah..cause if it had not been buried that's where it would have been.
- neoknight, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11We digg because we can
- phoenixd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10It was buried..it will never make the front page... :(
- raveneris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11You beat me to it... found this on tech.memeorandum.com, figured I wanted to throw fuel on this fire and see what digg's response was. So, thanks for submitting this one, man! ( =
If this is true and digg is hierarchically editorializing then what is the next step? How does its user base escalate this problem? - henrysmith1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You're looking in the wrong places, but I don't see it in http://digg.com/links/digg either.
- canadianguy33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7haha
this story is probably going to be the top Digg of the week and yet it'll never see the frontpage. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I like the idea (apparently coming in Digg 3.1) of the "buried stories" bin. I think it fixes a glaring weakness: the fact that, when a story is buried, there's no way to unbury it. This is a much needed feature, and provides a feedback/corrective mechanism that is much needed.
It's interesting, however, that Kevin never directly addressed whether or not there is a human hand at work. He talked about the algorithm, but not about whether a human hand actually inserts itself into the process as a moderator. I'd still like to know that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 267 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 