What is Digg?309 Comments
- MrBabyMan, on 07/06/2008, -108/+1551"10 submitters control a mind-boggling 31.4% of the front page?" Really, this bias against top submitters has got to stop. They simply provide excellent content. It's ridiculous to judge a submitter just because--
What?...My name's not on this list?!
DEATH TO THE TOP SUBMITTERS!!! - gbarberi, on 07/06/2008, -4/+508First thing I noticed myself. Mr. BabyMan didn't make the list???
- Inuranic, on 07/06/2008, -8/+431An article about Digg and its flaws? To the front!
- JNudda, on 07/06/2008, -13/+294I honestly don't give a ***** who submits a story or where they got it from.
- WhoRadley, on 07/06/2008, -43/+267I don't see MrBabyMan on that list.
- Inuranic, on 07/06/2008, -6/+227I was surprised at that as well. This should be buried as inaccurate.
- dbug, on 07/06/2008, -3/+193You wouldn't see it ieven if it was there, just like you didn't see the comment right above yours.
- rentmitchum, on 07/06/2008, -6/+154It was funny, I read the whole reply then looked at your screen name and it wasn't until then I laughed.
- MartinR, on 07/06/2008, -5/+99Hence the recommendations engine is a success. :D
- oboy, on 07/06/2008, -5/+94Checking the current statistics, it shows that 51.5% of the front page was submitted by 28 users. 253 out of 500 front page stories controlled by 1/1000th of 1% of the community.
The real problem has very little to do with the users. They are all quality submitters, the ones that I know. The major flaw in the recommendation engine as it stands (and I'm sure it will be fixed eventually) is that to get recommendations, you need to get dugg. The more you get dugg, the more you get recommended, which means that you'll get more diggs, which leads to more recommendations...
You get the picture.
In other words, by submitting a ton and making a ton of friends, you have a better chance of hitting the front page. This is, pretty much, how it has been for a long time. The difference now is that the recommendation engine makes it more pronounced. It widens that gap. - Niightwitch, on 07/06/2008, -7/+94Has anyone ever thought that Mr. Babyman may have just changed names because of the bad press he's been getting, and is submitting under a different name now?
- WhoRadley, on 07/06/2008, -2/+82That.
Is.
Embarrassing.
Oh well, there's always next year. - frooo, on 07/06/2008, -17/+94The thing is though MrBabyMan... if you're just not getting all those paid stories to the front page of Digg, how are you ever going to be able to afford college for your kids?
Wont someone please think of the children! - decepticrat, on 07/06/2008, -4/+81I think you've been busy with other things, MBM. Haven't seen a lot of subs by you since the Reco Engine started messing with things.
- LOLPROFIT, on 07/06/2008, -7/+77HAHAHA! I Knew that the Illuminati were in charge of Digg! Shows that the conspircies are true and that even social meedia is a hierarchy on which the bourgeoisie sit on top of the proles.
- inactive, on 07/06/2008, -12/+70Hey Andy I didn't make it either... So what. I love digg, I enjoy submitting great content. I just try to find the best stories that I can.
- Tomboys, on 07/06/2008, -1/+58This is the most profound statement I have read about dig: "The system, it appears, games itself."
- scabbers, on 07/06/2008, -2/+58You found 3,451 best stories?
- Mewchu11, on 07/06/2008, -12/+68One submit a day. Or some hard limit. Make people think about what they'll be submitting.
- benologist, on 07/06/2008, -5/+59My biggest problem with the recommendation engine is it's tedious removing users who influence stories I don't care about (single digit % link is tiny at 1680x1050), and I don't have a clue who these users making recommendations are. That we dugg a story in common is a pretty flimsy relationship and seems like a weak basis for recommending something to someone.
It's nice to have a less overwhelming way to browse upcoming stories but they might as well have just made a page that orders the upcoming stories randomly. - BedPost, on 07/06/2008, -3/+56Wow, guys, it was a funny comment, can't we all just laugh and put aside our differences for once?
- scotticus, on 07/06/2008, -5/+53In other news, 10 digg users have no life.
Really, who cares? - mickstephenson, on 07/06/2008, -7/+52No one knows but MrBabyMan whether he has ever been paid to submit a story, but if I was trying to push a product I'd pay him, also if I was him I'd do it. I mean the whole idea of digg is that if something really sucks people won't digg it, all MrBabyMan can do is give it a good kick start, with his legion of lackies who will digg anything he sends their way regardless of content. In the long run to get over 500 diggs it takes more than the legion. It takes some decent content.
- Radan, on 07/06/2008, -1/+38Though, I think limiting the number of posts per user would rise the quality of the front page news. If you are only allowed to submit a number of articles per day, I think it might make some think twice before posting a link to a five year old gif animation of a dancing baby.
You could even go as far as lowering the amount of times you can post per day if your stories get buried a lot. - estvir, on 07/06/2008, -5/+40If these people did simply submit good content there wouldn't be a problem, but you see, they don't, they game the site, submit duplicates on purpose, re-submit content, etc.
Oh, you're feeling a little guilty?
Digg needs to start focusing on content instead of all these "Me too!" Web 2.0 social rubbish. They also need to work on the incessant spam submitted to Digg. - shufan, on 07/06/2008, -4/+37I've never seen the point in having your story reach the front page. Do you get a cookie?
- jaybol, on 07/06/2008, -1/+34dugg for username LOLPROFIT
- Spudster, on 07/06/2008, -1/+34When you see ***** and repetitious material make the frontpage because MrBabyMan submitted it, then you've got to start to wonder how good of a job these "elite diggers" are doing at providing us with interesting material.
- ParticleMan420, on 07/06/2008, -1/+26yes, but for some people it hurts their e-peens to have someone else's articles submitted by someone else.
- davin510, on 07/06/2008, -3/+28No need to get defensive here. The article does make a valid point. For those who do not peruse digg 24/7, make dozens upon dozens of friends, or actively promote their submissions, it's nearly impossible to make the front page regardless of the quality of the submission. One of the biggest critiques against power users is that they will re-submit similar articles instead of digging ones already on digg and due to their much larger network of "fans", their submission will gain traction leaving the other submissions (which have the exact same content) in the dust.
I submitted a few articles in the past, but now I don't even bother since the truth of the matter is, it's not the quality of the article that determines whether or not it makes it to the front page, but who submits it and who diggs it (unless of course the article is from a handful of top tier website).
I'm not blaming you or other power users for this inevitable flaw. You put in your time on digg and now your articles reach the front page. Just like any group, organization, or business, the more you put in, the more you get out. This article is however, highlighting points that many more casual users have been voicing in the past, don't take it personally.
On an aside, I find it curious how you can digg so much. Since joining in March of 2007, you've managed to digg nearly 33,000 articles while submitting another 1766 of your own. Assuming that you've been on digg every day since you've joined, that's about 74 articles dug or submitted in a day. Personally, I spend about 10 minutes per article before digging/submitting it. So for you, that's 740 minutes, or over 12 hours, of digging/submitting per day. So unless digg is your full time job and then some (80+ hrs/week), the only other explanation I see fit is that you've been blinding digging articles, most probably ones recommended by your friends, which goes back to the original issue of power users employing their vast social networks so that their submissions consistently wind up on the front page, regardless of quality.
See our beef now? - chudgoo, on 07/06/2008, -8/+32Lately Digg has become just another Reddit clone.
Solution?
DIGG QUOTAS
also, handicap submissions coming from overly-active submitters. (start them with -200 diggs) - YodaJones, on 07/06/2008, -8/+32This "feature" is complete *****. Digg thinks they are making improvements and continue to ***** up a good thing.
Here's a tip: Users are idiots, don't listen to them when they suggest features. - ELLIS1128, on 07/06/2008, -5/+28I didn't notice because his icon has changed.
- phybere, on 07/06/2008, -1/+22The rich get richer and the poor get po... wait, what?
- randomtexan, on 07/06/2008, -11/+32Why? If the story is actually interesting I go read it no matter who submitted it. I know digg is a popularity contest for some but I like coming here to get links to news and other interesting things I wouldn't find on my own.
- TheMachine1, on 07/06/2008, -6/+26It bothered me at first the way some can get stories on the front page easier. But I thought about it and its just not that important to submit a story and get it to the front page
anyway. Personally I do not plan on submitting any more stories and I'm not going to
Digg many stories either. I will read the ones I want and comment if I have anything to say. The entire voting on thousands(and submitting hundreds) of stories is nuts . No one is reading that much. I rather read a few stories and make relevant comments. - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -2/+21Mrbabyman can change his user name, but Andrew Sorcini will always be Andrew Sorcini.
- zyklon, on 07/06/2008, -1/+20Only if it's by MrBabyMan
- Nudar, on 07/06/2008, -5/+24I've always thought it would be a good idea if Digg's algorithm would somehow limit the number of stories from any one user that become popular.
- inactive, on 07/06/2008, -0/+18Holy *****, Skynet's gone live! What have we done!?
- davidwasman, on 07/06/2008, -12/+30Well played, sir. Kudos and a dig up.
To those who would downplay MrBabyMan and bash him for...whatever nonsensical reasoning you have to do so--
I have spoken to him, personally and one on one, about the accusations all of you make about him and I can say unequivocally that he has proven himself to be a stand up guy and on the level. He's given me documentation and proof that he has neither gamed digg, nor used his influence for negative.
He has also proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that he makes ZERO cash in submitting his stories.
I was one of the top people who buried him out of ignorance. I would be along side many of you in making crass comments and belittling someone I didn't know out of some sort of stupid mob mentality. That changed significantly when i just...TALKED to him.
I ask all of you to look closely at your misdirected anger and point it in another direction. MrBabyMan is not the demon spawn you portray him to be.
Namaste. - digitronix, on 07/06/2008, -3/+20*threw*
**** illiterates. - geoff1210, on 07/06/2008, -1/+17***** people who feel like having a sig. here
---
G-dogg - Acglaphotis, on 07/06/2008, -2/+17Yeah, oreos.
- quomen, on 07/06/2008, -3/+18Digg me down if this is a terrible idea, but what do you guys think of allowing only one or two stories to be submitted every day by one user? That would force everybody to submit only high quality content and the top diggers have limited power. It would encourage otherwise discouraged diggers to try to submit articles when otherwise they would be crowded out by spammers and top diggers. Spammers also won't be able to spam certain websites, and creating multiple accounts is just too much work. I honestly thing this is a decent idea. Looking at upcoming stories is just a huge mess and I never want to try to sift through all the crap thats out there. To the people who think that i'm just being a whiny baby, don't forget that Digg is a community driven website. Not an oligarchy.
We need stronger dupe protection. What about suspending or removing articles from blatant dupers? This should be run like a decent private bittorrent tracker. - SaintDogbert, on 07/06/2008, -17/+32In other news 68% of front page stories are not submitted by the top 10 Diggers.
- phoenixp3k, on 07/06/2008, -18/+32I don't understand all the fuss about this and top submitters. If a submitter become popular, people "follow" him and chances are they digg their story more often...
- sgtpppr, on 07/06/2008, -0/+14It matters if it brings down the quality of articles. This is supposed to be a user driven site, but it's become a oligarchy run by a few people who have a ton of friends who digg their stories to the front page. That's fine if they want to re-define the site and no longer call it user driven. Might as well just give the top 20 jobs and make them editors.
- SirPopper, on 07/06/2008, -6/+20It would be better to compare the new Digg Recommendation Engine [DRE] with the time before it has been launched.
Flaw?
I beg nothing is different, only that then MrBabyMan and Talsiach are on this list, too!
This list shows only a short period of time and says nothing about the new DRE
I've recognized, that I get more fans, so I like it ;D!
Thanks for the add! - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -42/+56@MrBabyman
Looks like your "ATTENTION WHORE" days are over.
Oh well time to start doing something meaningful with your life. -
Show 51 - 100 of 311 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is