What is Digg?140 Comments
- darkdaedra, on 10/12/2007, -3/+160Damn. I was hoping to bury this and have digg block itself.
You win again digg - this time... - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41If it weren't for you meddlin' kids!
- Wenz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27There was a time when I enjoyed Digg very much. It used to be geared a lot more towards the Career Tech community. Users submitted mostly relevant content, that was often helpful in our day to day lives. Now that Digg is very popular, many of the users seem young, lacking in experience, and a tendency to flame. Now there are stories that pop up on a regular basis, telling us how people extort the system on Digg. Digg, to me, has lost a lot of it's attraction. It was hot when it was useful, now that it is becoming mainstream, some of its luster is gone.
- Rhine23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Internet drama: Priceless
- SaintDogbert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I'm on that list. I buried a couple things on that list. Most of the rest of it was inaccurate.
That being said, you can blame me as much as you want. When I see duplicate stories, I bury the newer ones. When I see lies or *****, I'll mark it as inaccurate. I mark oblivious spam as spam.
If I see something interesting or cool I'll digg it.
If I don't care about it, I don't digg or bury.
It takes a lot of users to digg or bury a story, more than just the people on that list. - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34Why are people upset about the burying of coordinated spam for sites like prisonplanet?
- blake10, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20or you could stop being a stubborn political nut and read this story:
http://digg.com/design/Visualization_A_Day_of_Diggs_and_a_Thin_Blue_Line - PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22They are upset about stories being buried by people who don't agree with the content. It has nothing to do with spam.
- MannaPC, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21If you don't like something, just don't digg it instead of abusing the bury function.
Also, I buried your comment... I think has improved my [D]igg experience because it makes me feel like I am making a difference however marginally small (Only one bury per user =( ) - DollaDollaBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15on the money. the content used to be so much better, now it seems like all the same ***** and the same 15 blogs spamming in between an interesting story. Gizmondo, destructoid, random wii blogs, apple rumors, oh and Sony related garbage.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Digg spy only shows a portion of the activity within Digg at any time."
That's the key quote from this blog post.
If that's true, then digg spy is not a reliable place to gather data. - Evervision, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I think this mostly has to do with Digg's popularity. The more popular something is, the more the wrong crowd gets drawn to it. Same thing happened to Google. It was a great search engine until people realized that to be ranked high on Google was very profitable. Now Google is constantly battling websites that try to "game" their search engine.
- mjsteinbaugh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Geez, digg is getting with flooded with articles about itself. Well, that and Apple rumors. Some fresh content would be nice.
- GaffleSnipe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"For what it's worth"
Well, not much. So we are supposed to just trust the fact that the system works?, while being left in the dark about any kind of detail on HOW or WHY it works. This isn't proof of a successful system. It's an attempt to shut everyone up for a while. - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Please note, Digg categories need to either be expanded, or this meta-talk about Digg itself needs to stop. This is NOT "Industry News".
- Evervision, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I think digg is trying to walk a fine line between guarding information that can be used to harm digg, and giving out information to help digg. The former can make them look like their hiding something, the latter can give others ways of exploiting them.
However, I think Kevin needs to be more open about what is really going on here. They need to openly defend themselves and openly give the information necessary to prove their defense. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Digg is a great entertainment site-perfect for making the work day go by faster. And all this whining from blog spam sites being blocked, competitors trying to discredit it, and others with agendas (beyond being entertained) just add to the entertainment value. :p
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10skitzzo - stop kissing msaleem's ass for a minute and think.
msaleem posted something titled "..Here's My Proof.." and named names when the data was false. Other people ran with his insinuations and bad info and we saw stories posted here afterwards with titles like "Digg's Bury Brigade Top 50" with these users names posted. That's a huge breach of journalistic integrity. No retraction or even any word yet from msaleem.
Also, this compromises msaleem's integrity if and when he does come up with good accurate info. He made himself look bad and anything he may post on this issue (with data) down the road that might be worth looking at will be dismissed by the community right off the bat.
The only good thing about it is that msaleem's post was the catalyst that finally generated a blog post on the issue from Kevin Rose. Despite the fact that it isn't filled with the answers we all want, at least he posted something on the issue. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ kolanos
If you read the blog post...it links to the author of the data saying the data is bad in comments.
Also, one of the accused "Bury Brigade" thoroughly debunked the data - he proved it by digging the stories he supposedly buried http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_s_Bury_Data_Exposed#c5459347
What more do you want? - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10skitzzo - The data was discovered to be inaccurate after the fact? I doubt that. From what msaleem said in his original blogpost that broke this story, he collaborated with the dude that gathered the info thru email and is continuing to "look at additional info". I'm not going to quote the whole thing...go read it yourself:
http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/the-bury-brigade-exists-and-heres-my-proof.html
How could he not know about the 4:1 flaw before he made the claim of "Here's My Proof..." He just went ahead with it...and no disclaimer or disclosure.
Your submission above just took the link off of msaleem's pronetadvertising blogpost. Actually yours was better because it was raw and uneditorialized. msaleem put all the assumptions and conclusions together.
Hey, don't get me wrong...I thought the data was interesting at first....but, once I learned it was extremely inaccurate, and that users were falsely branded as THE Bury Brigade, I thought the whole thing was really lame.
Maybe msaleem's intent was just to generate passion and discussion on the issue...and publicity. Smart move actually in that regard. Look how many much of the blogosphere is buzzing about it. I read something once awhile ago on his themulife blog where he said something about "Hate Me ...or Love Me...just don't Like me". At least he is consistent. - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I agree that this blog entry wasn't reassuring at all. Especially because it doesn't address the fact that big digg stories are disappearing, that's a pretty troubling behavior.
Just to keep things in perspective though, we're not really customers.. we're just users. The advertisers are the customers. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10your data was inaccurate, plain and simple. you "exposed" a bunch of ***** falsehoods, 75% of your info was wrong. can you even prove the 1 in 4 you claim was correct was in fact, correct?
i don't want disclosures, i want you to post accurate information, and 25% (at best) is not accurate. it's not even close. you incorrectly smeared my name, and many others, and you seem to think that is ok because you made a "disclosure".
it's even more insulting that once you guys realized this data was way off, you continued to post/submit instead of cleaning it up or deleting the posts. it proves you're more concerned with exposure than the truth. - kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I'd like a block option for "Digg title/summary sucks, try again."
I wouldn't use it on this article, but I often find myself running into cases where I see an upcoming story that I wouldn't mind digging up to the frontpage, but a lame/inaccurate/unnecessarily inflammatory/biased title or summary makes me bury it until I see the same article resubmitted in a better form. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10maybe next time tell the post writers to use ACCURATE information when they make their allegations. your "5 submissions" about this were 5 blatantly false articles, and they should have been removed.
digg is not infallible, but neither are bloggers. at least digg does a little fact checking before they make their statements, which is more than i can say for the writers of these "bury brigade" articles. - FCDrifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Okay yeah you don't have to tell everyone how you setup digg to run (digg algorithms) but you can address the issue everyone is getting upset about by answering the question. I don't see how this post answers anything… All I get out of it is that Kevin doesn't have to explain what is going on with the buries and blockings on digg. Sounds like Kevin is saying hey don't worry about it, take my word for it, its just the algorithms (***** up). Our bad, now move on nothing to see here. Kevin just answer the diggers questions so we can move on. If you don't deal with issues like this digg will not last long.
- dogster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11What about prisonplanet is spam?
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8oh, one more thing- when i went around to those submissions and posted PROOF that the data on me was inaccurate, did any of you delete my data? apologize? add another disclaimer? nope, you just left me on your top 50 list.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10so you think it's cool to post data and make accusations multiple times that is only 25% accurate? what grade do you get for getting 25% right on a test in school? what would your boss do if you only got 25% of your assignments done on schedule? can a jury convict someone if only 25% of the evidence is accurate? you see what i'm getting at?
furthermore, how could they prove they even got 25% right?
"proof" is not 25% accurate - shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You're talking to yourself, mate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Fellow Diggers,
The link of the Top 50 has me at number one. I started burying all Sony and Wii related articles because I am absolutely sick of hearing the fanboyism. I resolve to stop burying stories without merit immediately. Thanks. - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9blake you're an idiot. They have no problem telling us who dugg a story, why would burying a story be any different?
Just like you don't know for sure how many diggs it will take for a story to go to the front page, you wouldn't know how many buries it would take to remove it.
When you're done blowing Rose, I suggest you put a little thought into your next reply. - jspegele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@katalieb, so go make your own Digg.
I don't get it, why do people spend days on end on Digg, complaining about how much Digg sucks. Go use Slashdot or go make your own site. The biggest problem I see with Digg right now is the number of people on bitching and moaning about how much they hate it and how they're really, honestly (no this time we mean it) going to maybe, possibly stop using the site if Digg doesn't change the way things are. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sorry, Kevin. Have to bury this as inaccurate.
- Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem is, if users have disproportionate vetoing powers (bury function) then Digg will inevitably end up in the hands of a certain ideology. This is because once a group of a certain ideology manages to bury stories of the opposing ideology, then the users of the buried stories will gain less karma. This is a self-strengthening cycle, because then the site attracts more users of the advocated ideology thus further strengthening their position (giving them more karma), while people of the opposing ideology begin to leave the site. This starts with stories most extremely opposed to the supported ideology and then continues with less extremely opposed stories until finally all reported stories support the ideology of the users (because there are only users left who support that ideology.
- osipov, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Ok, this is lame.
Kevin needs to take a class in public communications. Telling your customers: "don't worry, our superior algorithms render your petty concerns irrelevant, and oh, please don't blame the users" just doesn't cut it for the informed audience.
The bottom line is that as long as a small minority (active diggers/buriers) can silence another minority (microsoft-lovers, truthers and other odd species) there will not be a diversity of opinions on digg. You guys should strive for the outcome where a link with an unorthodox opinion may not be popular (may not get to the front page in the 1st place), but the link should always stay in the ratings, perhaps in the 2nd, 3rd, etc page. - EmmSee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The "bury brigade" data is inaccurate and meaningless, case closed.
- SaintDogbert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The data doesn't show all the info. It only shows 26 of the burys. There were many more users burying the stary that were not recorded in that data. When a bad story makes the front page, suddenly many users can see the story and can digg or bury in a hurry.
- iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Prisonplanet, infowars, jones report do the same thing that DRUDGE and other sites do (even digg), they collect news, and report on it. How is that spam? Is it not true that a video from the BBC shows them reporting on building 7 falling some 20+ minutes before it happened? How is that spam? How is that spewing garbage? The original story just linked to the video and said they put in calls to the BBC to find out more info.
- blake10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8well, when you have 3-4 digg hate "expose" stories on Wired.com's homepage (they also own reddit.com, digg's main competitior), you need to protect yourself.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[quote]now that it is becoming mainstream, some of its luster is gone.[/quote]
Happens every time. Digg was good originally not just because of what it is, but because there was a good community here. Now it's mostly gone.
The same exact thing happened to Usenet. When AOL came online and sent hordes of tech-illiterate "average Americans" onto Usenet, Usenet degenerated into the warez-porn-spam hellhole that it is today. Now the MySpacers of the internet are coming to Digg.
If Digg doesn't do something about this, it will loses it's relevancy. Oh, it may still be around, and remain popular, but only amongst teens and spammers. Digg is a victim of its own success. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would like to see the names of anyone who buries any one of my comments. Then I will hunt them down and kill them.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Actually, since you are all talking democracy here, show me ONE democracy where you can give negative votes to things. Show me one democracy where you can take opinions you don't like and stop them from being said. Show me one democracy where if you see one newspaper duplicating a story of another, you can bury the newspaper.
No, in a democracy, if you see something you don't like, you say "huh, I don't like that" and then you move the hell on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think Steve summed it all up perfectly:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Dear_Great_Sir_Lord_Wizard_of_Digg - mweels, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Digg should really stop defending itself if there is nothing wrong.
- Ecowarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am completely mystified by all of this excitement. Do I understand correctly that:
The PS3 fanboys bury Xbox360 posts (and vise-versa)
The Political Conservatives bury the Progressives posts
The christians are burying the Atheist posts
Most everyone buries SEO and 9/11 conspiracy posts.
And to top it off there are a handful of obsessive posters that insist on flooding Digg with posts on unpopular points or inflammatory language.
Is this the issue? Am I supposed to act surprised… what do you people expect the bury button to used for? It sounds to me like people with unpopular ideas are upset they are unpopular.
Whining about free speech issues is a red herring *all* of these posts come from other websites catering to the poster’s particular warp. They can speak their mind in those forums.
Or is it that someone has found a method to circumvent the web interface an artificially bury posts?
I’ll be honest Digg has an OK story changeover rate. It doesn’t really need to be faster… certainly not if those stores are a flood of 9/11 conspiracies, PS3 vs Xbox fanboyism, SEO or blogspam by stealth, Meta-Digg, American Political Hyperbole, angry rants from disenfranchised monotheists, or more from the “Islam is evil” obsessives. And while I’m at it the “promote my blog with a link to current but fading news” *****. - MonkeyMCSE, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@solanos
Not true, I buried you due to the fact that you blame others for burying your ignorance. I could care less about Kevin Rose myself(no offense intended). Just because someone blogged about something they believe, get this, DOES NOT MAKE IT THE TRUTH. Remember, opinions are like *****, everyone has one and they all stink. - JahRage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How exactly? What is the "real" data?
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From what Kevin writes:
> For the same reason that we don’t expose all of our back-end methodologies for the Digg promotional algorithm, we also don’t expose the details of how the burying algorithm works.
There's a huge difference between asking to see the algorithm and asking to see in public who has buried a story. Seeing who Diggs provides some accountability in the Digg democracy. So, too, should Buries be visible in profiles -- along with the reasons for the buries (since people seem to often misuse the spam option)
> For what it’s worth, and to shift the blame off of the users listed here - quite a bit of this data was gathered inaccurately as the author states in the Digg comments.
And if Digg provided it itself, then there wouldn't be this problem.
> We have tweaked some systems so that Digg is now able to be much more granular in the way it blocks offending content, so that Digg doesn’t necessarily need to block entire domains or subdomains.
That's great. It really is. But it doesn't solve the problem that some stories are being buried by people who haven't bothered to read them, who might hate a topic so misuse the spam options and so on.
Our site has had 11 stories submitted in the past day:
http://digg.com/search?s=searchengineland.com&submit=Search§ion=news&search-buried=1&type=all&area=all&age=7&sort=new
All 11 have been buried. Why? No idea. I can't tell. I didn't submit them. I didn't pay some program to do it. They were mostly submitted by Digg button that we put on our own site because Digg tells us to do that. Might as well remove that button, I suppose.
Saying sites aren't banned makes no difference if individual stories get wiped out with no accountability. If Digg wants to really restore some faith, make buries public both on profiles and on story pages, along with the exact reasons why a story was buried. - swirlee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I was excited to see Kevin respond to the Bury Brigade meme, but very disappointed by his "response." Here is the only thing Kevin actually said: "For the same reason that we don’t expose all of our back-end methodologies for the Digg promotional algorithm, we also don’t expose the details of how the burying algorithm works."
Uh, Kevin? Nobody's asking to know the details of any Digg algorithm. All they want is a little transparency, not trade secrets. There's no harm that can come from exposing who buries what story, unless you consider accountability a bad thing. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4101%?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is