What is Digg?103 Comments
- Machine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26If people keep dumping this story off the front page, we'll never be able to have a dialog and resolve these problems.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Here we go.......
I really think the whole issue needs to calm down, but it could be wise for Digg to explain a little bit more about how stories get to the front page - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14wow, funny how this story with all the pro-Digg comments replaced the exact same story that was removed with a hundred + comments about the controversy
- o0joshua0o, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Kevin Rose - Please publicly address this issue. I think everyone can agree we need resolution.
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Whether or not Digg moderators are burying this story manually or Digg fans are burying through reporting it isn't going to go away until we get an answer, so whomever is responsible, quit it.
- chewbaka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15People need to stop linking to their own crappy websites.
The actual link:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/04/20/1538256.shtml - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wait.. this is already off the front page but it hasn't even been marked as being under review...
- MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The reason why someone linked to their website was obviously because the link to the Slashdot article has already been posted and burried.
- CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This is the most interesting day ever!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yes you're right. It is a dupe... but only because mods/admins keep silently deleting/burying them and banning people that post them.
If you read the original article (at forevergeek) you'll get a better idea of what exactly is going on here.
All the admins need to do is release a statement of some sort, then the hype will surely slow. - stan205, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The story is gone off the front page!!! WTF
- firemillen2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7billing itself as a news aggragator where members' votes select what gets on the front page, Digg turns out to be another spam site for manufacturers to promote their products.
news at 11. - luma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The problem (as noted in the linked linked article) is that forevergeek.com (the domain of the linked linked article) is apparantly banned from digg.com as a direct link.
- *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The very fact that users love digg is the reason they're so up-in-arms about this. And rightly so. We care about digg and want it to stay the way it claims to be.
- mikesown, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The real flaw with digg is the lack of intelligent users posting with correct grammar and spelling. At least Slashdot has editors posting coherent content that does not consist of copying a blog posting.
- *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4another one bites the dust...
- JimRoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The article isn't about burying stories (which is done by the Digg black helipcopter squad), it's about odd patterns of diggs for an article. The article had identical diggs, same people, same order, for like the first 20 digs. And towards the end, was Kevin Rose. The article surmised that this was not coincidence, and that Digg/Kevin was excercising editorial control by being able to digg stories themselves using a series of accounts in some automated fashion.
A second and more insidious side is that articles linking to this bloggers site are being blocked by Digg ever since this article.
And third, there appears to be some article deletions going on. Not just buryied, but MIA. Whether error, or evil plot is left to the reader.
Many people say "Who cares? It's Digg's site?" And that is essentially true. But it goes against the a basic tenet of the framework under which _members_ created this site's popularity: that editorial control was given to the masses, good, bad or otherwise. - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I dunno.. Slashdot often has some pretty poorly composed summaries.. I guess they're better *on average* but not by a whole lot.
Welcome to the internet. :/ - Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed. The previous article had hundreds of diggs and *poof* gone.. It just raises the suspicion even more. I'm sure the fact it had a slashdot link was one of the main reasons for it going away. Frankly Digg does need some editorial control or it will turn into what it once was .. more zealous/rabid/fanboy with all cap headlines and lies. It's just the deception and the altruistic spin so that the "progressives" will fall in love that get me.
- Kerr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Has this story been removed from the front page?
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Did you even read the article? That isn't what this is about. Read the article.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What gets me isn't even the comments so much as the story blurbs on the front page. I mean, if you submit a story, can you please do a spell check, and possibly use decent grammar? It looks like some 12-year old wrote the description on at least one or two of the stories at any given time.
In the comments, that's to be expected, and although it would be nice to have thoughtful remarks top to bottom, it's just not going to happen.
Whatever Digg's shortcomings, it is MUCH better than Slashdot. Their editors remind me of the DMOZ guys, totally out of touch and uninterested in listening. That's just my impression, but it keeps me off of their site. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4that is what we'd like to think, yes.
reality says differently. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow 636 diggs on the original article (without reaching front page?!)
http://www.digg.com/technology/Digg_Corrupted - TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@chewbaka: That story was on the front page about 20 minutes ago, it has been buried. It has about 540 diggs in an hour. Seems like a very hot topic right now.
In case you are interested: http://digg.com/technology/Growing_Censorship_Concerns_at_Digg - Quality26, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>>Last time I checked, Kevin Rose was just a user like the rest of us, at least when it comes to digging or burying stories. He exercises no more say than we do.
I think this is the question at issue. It has always been a little muddy as to how stories get promoted to the front page. The quickest, and cleanest resolution would be to clearly state exactly how stories are promoted. Once that is know, then the odd problems of odd blocks of people voting for stories (http://splasho.com/blog/2006/04/20/suspicious-digging/) can be addresses. - hijinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i love digg for the reason i find so many interesting things.. but for the most part what he said is true.. there is a lot of spam i fall into and just posts of content that is 5 years old.. and even dated old and people still post it.. no one checks for dupes.
the sad part is mine and the parents comments will probably be given a negative rating - babbling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Kevin Rose has responded to the claims:
http://digg.com/technology/Digg_Censors_Stories_That_Offend_Sponsors#c634036 - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg can quickly solve this by making it more transparent why stories get burried. My guess is that stories get burried because users report them.
(I.e. that Godaddy boondogle - The story was written by someone expressing a belief that registrars will screw customers over by registering names they searched for... was it burried by digg because godaddy is a sponsor? Or was it burried by thousands of diggers who find that idea proposterous and the "evidence" in the story unconvincing?)
Digg.com needs to add a tab next to "All Diggers" that is called "All Burriers" - that lists off everyone who reported a story, and a little letter (like "i" for inaccurate) next to their name indicating what reason they had. The could also report the # of Diggs, and in a smaller number - the # of reports... - durrty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@babbling, yeah I read the article, as this is the 3rd or 4th time in the last hour its been posted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article is about how thier site and articles are being 'banned' and, a direct quote, "Digg was no longer truly a social network system (as obvious editorial control had come into play)". I don't see how my comment is off base.
@Stewsburntrat, I don't know if you are trying to say that digg should not be user controlled then? I'm not saying wether it should be or not, just that it is.
@JimRoss, the repeated order of diggs is interesting and I would like to hear what they have to say about that. But as for the rest of the article all the information they provided is pointed at proving that digg is censored by Kevin and his team of editors. - mkoko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3made it a few minutes, now it's off.
odd? - yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I always thought it strange how many pro digg stories get on the front page. Amazingly, this story has already been removed from the front page - it was there when I started typing....
- dognose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4whoa. clearly the dig editors are pulling some strings?
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If anything, this shows that the algorithm for digging and for burying a story needs to be fixed. It's broken. Something I've been critcal of from day one and one of the most frustrating things about digg.
I'm giving the digg crew the benefit of the doubt in that they aren't moderating stories. I believe this has more to do with how easy it is to bury a story, even though the number of diggs far outweighs the number of reports. There are numerous things that aren't working here on Digg. Fundamental things, like the digg/bury ratio. The Digg crew has mentioned in the past, a way to digg a story again, that was buried. This seemed like it was first brought up over a year ago. - Sanchez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, if these stories get to the front page again it will kill digg's reputation even more and cause more arguing and stupidity. gj.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4front page in 50 minutes, it's pretty obvious that people want some answers. I'm not saying that Digg is some kind of totalitarian website with no user input, but we need to hear something about what exactly is going on
Also, the fact that this is coming from Slashdot makes it a bit tainted, but it's still an issue - stan205, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is good for all, when DIGG starts discussing these issues and not bury them it will only make the community larger and stronger as well as make the experience better for all.
- anguisinherba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed. See: http://www.digg.com/technology/Digg_Corrupted
- supermauerbros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow. This has already been knocked off the front page.
/EDIT/ Beat'd - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5FRONT PAGE
Digg/Kevin: This won't go away until you explain these highly suspicious activities. Without an explanation these articles will continue to raid Digg!
Google says: Don't be evil! - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But it's less pleasant when combined with accounts getting banned for posting content critical of digg, and watching other content getting removed for being critical of sponsors"
Big of Taco to post this ^^^^ when accounts (mine, for example) are banned for merely mentioning digg in their user profile. - liquidjill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am also going to keep digging these stories until I see a response. I do feel though that this is just another case of a site blowing up to epic proportions and its management team,Kevin or whomever, getting caught up in the glow of sudden fame.
If Digg is to stay as it was intended than stories like this one must be brought to the attention of the main page and people must be left alone to comment as they like. That means both both sides in a democratic manner.
Anything else is censorship and depressing as hell.
edit: There it goes. off the main page. This is utter *****. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2definitely better than slashdot, but it hurts to see this happen to digg. all we want is a damn explanation and we'll shut up!
- Blaze312, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I honestly believe these are being reported and automatically deleted from the front page.
I think if anything this is just a flaw in digg not administrators deciding what should be removed.
I think now that digg has grown, it should take more users to get a story to the front page, and also it should take as many users to bury as users that dugg a story. So if 50 people digg it... it takes 50 people before it goes away. Just seems to me like something needs to change. I have seen many articles get buried that were very useful and interesting. - durrty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On another article, Kevin Rose explained that there would soon be a feature where all the buried stories will be moved to, and the users will be able to there and pick out mis-reported articles
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kevin Rose responds: http://digg.com/links/Account_Fraud_on_Digg
- Stewsburntrat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Since when have communities been good at evaluating themselves? What you are talking about is a parallel to the nationalism movement of countries. Nationalism lead us into both World Wars and spurred the Holocaust. Is that really what you want Digg to be?
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Perhaps they take their definition of "democracy" and "user-driven" from today's politicians? Run it as an oligarchy, pretend it's a democracy, hope no one notices, if they do patch up the holes and continue as before.
- durrty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg, please don't follow Google (Completly secretative of all algorithms and move only to futher the company, not the consumer) please, show us what your working with :)
- Blaze312, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it because it was on the front page, and has already been burried
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is