What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
244 Comments
- ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -9/+145Dupes are the triumph of ego over concise content
and as such will never go away.
The time when I think dupes are the biggest shame is when an interesting story, worthy of a wider audience (IMO), doesn't make the front page because its diggs get dispersed across competing dupes.
Mac Book Pro, and other "trendy" stories will always get good coverage regardless. - aeproberts, on 10/12/2007, -8/+122Try surfing through the upcoming stories this morning and having to fight your way through 18 identical submissions. These people are too stupid or lazy and it hurts the overall Digg experience.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+115dupe!
:p - roastedbagel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+66Yep, and can you guys even fathom what's gonig to happen when Vista is officially released? Digg is going to be one big pit of Vista this Vista that stories, mostly duped of course. I'm going to be taking a break for a couple months from Digg I think when it does come out.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+58So how about a system whereby alternative URL's can be submitted for a story and within the digg submission, those URL's can also be 'dugg' themselves, with all the diggs summed to be the total for that 'master submission'? Then perhaps the URL with the biggest percentage of the diggs is the one used for the story when it FP's.
I do accept your point about it diluting votes, but I also think a variety of sources is better for the quality of the FP as I said in my previous comment. Perhaps this idea is a compromise. - Dupenazi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+66I hate dupes!!!
Use the ***** search you *****!!! - Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51The reason we don't want dupes is because that makes it harder for a story to get onto the front page. If one story gets duped 10 times, each having on average 20 digs to it, then if there was just one, there would be 200 digs and it would be on the front page. I don't know how many it takes to get to the front page, but I don't think 20 will get you there and I believe 200 will. Please, to keep people informed, no more dupes... but I am tempted to dupe this, just for the f'heck of it.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37i agree, but part of that job is also not duping. we all need to respect the time others spend submitting and the time the digg staff has spent devising ways of detecting dupes. you show absolutely no respect to the community nor the digg team when you dupe.
and to those of you that intentionally submit when you know it's a dupe but you want that front page recognition soooooo badly, get a life. just digg the original and move on. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34@SimpleBinary
Yes, for this one story. But all the dupes add pages and pages and pages to the upcoming stories. I think a lot of good stories get missed because of this. The bulk of the responsibility rests with the submitter to check first. - dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Funny how I didn't know about the new MacBook Pro until I saw THIS story....
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30Yes, but with 18 dupes all around the same time, the system isn't working.
- thedove, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36or, you can be valued members of the community and report the stories as a duplicate! i'm mean, you do have a freaking job at digg. if you're not reporting the stories, then you're just complaining for no reason. do your job.
- roastedbagel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Because, some of us don't have the time to look through 25 pages (25 pages down in the upcoming stories tab and you're STILL only about 3 hours into stories) It was not like this a year ago, back when digg was still run by the users, yet wasn't quite filled with retarded users.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25caipenar: You actually bring up another problem with the dupe system. Digg does check the URL submitted for dupes, but doesn't apply a time frame to them. Once it's submitted, the same URL can't be submitted again. That sucks, because like you say, someone might link to the Vista home page when it comes out, then a year down the line SP1 might come out, and someone tries to link to that page again and can't. Sometimes the same URL really does contain new information. I think a time-based system would be better for that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Then we have ***** doing this.
Compare these two stories.
http://digg.com/apple/Why_Apple_Bounced_Back
(13 hours ago)
http://digg.com/apple/How_Apple_Got_Its_Groove_Back
(47 minutes ago)
They BOTH link to EXACTLY the same page, only the 2nd story's submitter has used the page's IP address rather than its URL.
It takes a deliberate effort to get the IP address. Its NOT accidental, its there simply to drive more traffic to the site it links to! - The_Wallbanger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I propose a feature on digg so that when you mark as DUPLICATE STORY it offers you the ability to link to the similar story that currently has the most diggs. If enough people mark the story and offer the same alternative digg URL, then the duplicate story is deleted and the diggs are combined. Make sense?
- chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I blame not only the people too lazy to use the search function, but the idiots who digg down anyone who points it out. Apparently it's not about who posts the story first, it's about who has the most friends to digg their version. I have pretty much stopped bothering to post stuff on digg because even when I find something unique (confirmed by using the search function) someone else will post it a day later and get it on the front page.
If you find a dupe, point it out in the comments, and then everyone who sees that should bury the story as a dupe. That's what the button's for. - tarmithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18canewediggit nailed it in his comment. The people responsible for the dupes just want to get on the front page first, it is a popularity contest, not for the stories but for themselves, so they can pat themselves on the back on making it to the front page. That is not the intention of digg.
I have submitted a few myself, none have made it to the front page but I personally do not care. In the times that I tried to make a submission and noticed there was a dupe I stop. Why make a mess of digg and its database? - theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16You can't NOT check...Digg does a fairly good job of warning you that you are about to post a duplicate story, yet people ignore...
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Hardly the same, is it?
Did you RTFA? - urbieta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15digg authors should add a feature to automatically merge related postings
- caipenar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Is there anything within the digg code that checks for double URL submissions in a given time frame? For example, if vista comes out on 10.24.2006 at 10:00 AM, everyone submits a story that links to a story at http://www.microsoft.com/vista/default.aspx. Why not only allow one story to be submitted from that URL for a period of 4 hours or so.
I imagine this would cut down on the amount of dupes, but then you wouldn't have the headline competitions that would include words like 'AMAZING' and 'INCREDIBLE'
Although this already might be in place since I have never submitted a story :-(. - EvolvedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23Do you ACTUALLY believe that your blog asking Apple's PAID marketing employees and rabid fanboys to stop flooding Digg with constant reminders of their new product is going to work?
Explain the concept of searching first to them as much as you want, not going to change a thing when they are doing this purposefully. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13If you find a dupe, and you point it out in the comments... you're guaranteed to get buried 40 levels deep by the submitters friends & sockpuppets. Diggs self-policing doesn't work against the players, it only works against the poor lone schmuck who was the first to post the story.
When it's individuals vs digg-gamer-groups, the individuals always lose. You can see that even in this thread. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Unfortunately, the URL match validation during the submission doesn't work a lot of the time because everyone links to blogs which just repost the same syndicated content as 15 other sites but with different ads. If everyone linked to the source, I think we'd see a lot fewer dupes.
- tarmithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14it is not the system that is not working, the submitters just do not care that it was already submitted.
- hixsonj, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Anytime I've seen someone call a dupe they are modded into oblivion. I think generally most people don't care if a story is a duplicate. They digg the one they see at the time, dupe or not.
- stuffhappens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Hoo-bloody-ray. Been pushing this issue for ages - here's a sample of what happened with Firefox 2 was about to be released:
* Firefox_2_0_will_be_ready_on_october_24th
* Firefox_2_0_final_version_officially_releasing_on_24th_October_06
* Firefox_2_0_debuts_Tuesday
* Firefox_2_0_coming_your_way_on_Tuesday
* Updated_Firefox_browser_to_be_available_Tuesday
* Firefox_2_out_on_Tuesday
* Mozilla_Firfox_2_to_be_released_on_Tuesday
* Firefox_2_to_Launch_Afternoon_of_Tuesday_October_24th
* Final_Version_of_Mozilla_Firefox_2_Will_Be_Released_Oct_24
* Final_Firefox_2_0_browser_to_be_released_Tuesday
You might also want to read my piece from last July 'How to be a competent Digg submitter': http://stuffhappens.tblog.com/ - Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The problem isn't dupes. Nor is it the lack of proper behavior when it comes to digging or burying.
The problem is egotistical brats and generally ignorant morons who PURPOSELY post dupes in the hopes that THEIR digg will make it to the front page, somehow earning them "respect". They don't care that it's been posted before, because it wasn't submitted by themselves. This undermines and ruins the already shaky foundation Digg is built upon.
And all the hate-burying, spamming and cheating is just the proverbial jet crashing into the equally proverbial skyscraper. Digg is going down because of morons and retards, and there's not much we can do about it. I think that, in a couple of months, Digg will be where e-mail is today. A reaking heap of spam, trash, duplicates and bad grammar. - aeproberts, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@ thedove
That is fine, and I think many people do report them as a duplicate. I know I do. But we are not talking about an accidental duplicate here. We are talking about 18 stories in just over an hour. Are you telling me none of those people saw that someone else had already submitted the exact same story. Some of the job is not submitting a story that has already been submitted numerous other times. It is intentional, and it is kinda ridiculous. - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It's not that they're not using search (since it kicks back the dupes when you post); it's people's stupid egos. Nobody except you cares that YOUR story makes it to the front page.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If Xenu were free, he would have the perfect solution to the digg dupe dilemma. Any attempt by we humans to solve it will reduce the quality of the digg experience.
- agjimenez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14The problem with the digg dupe system is it is too broad a label. If digg were a pure news site, dupes would be blatant and obvious. No one wants to see the same story on every page of their newspaper. But digg is largely a social bookmark site. The majority of content o the internet is timeless. If someone posts a link to something cool, not news, then later it gets posted again, new people should have the opportunity to digg it. The problem is how soon after the original digg should something be considered expired? 1 year? 6 months? After it's off the front page?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11this is really good point i saw yesterday under linux section completely fedora core 6 release messages,nearly 15 messages and the topic is same.Users need to check before posting thier articles
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9remove the submitters name from the submission. let it count for stats/ranking, but take the ego out of the equation.
- hotrod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Maybe people a little too obsessed with their ranking. Are people just ignoring the internal controls to prevent this and posting the same story anyway?
- Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Mark all 17 as dupes? And hope to christ that 30 other people mark them as dupes as well? That's a bad way to run things, and won't work for the long haul.
- Xyleene, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I agree.. mabey someone should repost this to make sure everyone sees it!!!
- zambal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10psssssst, i have been just told that *every* story on digg actually links to an existing web page covering that story....
but don't tell anyone, ok? - Sagard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10There's a difference between one extra time...
and twenty.
>>Sagard - m1k3yboi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20Yeah? Did u look for your story first?
http://digg.com/software/Scientific_Evidence_of_Digg_Dupe_Problem - noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Simply dugg for title.
- gavintlgold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Or you should be able to link to the original digg post directly from the "Reported as Duplicate" message.
For instance it sould say "diggers have reported this page as a duplicate. The original post can be found at [URL]"
EDIT: Amebic got there first. - rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The user rankings and other like info should be private, so that diggs owners know whats going on, but we don't.
I don't give a crap if you're the #1 digg user, because you're probably a spammer *cough* - Sp00nMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I just don't comprehend why people care if their submission gets to the front page. Is there some sort of bragging rights associated with it (Hey Bob, check out Digg today, that's the story I submitted on the front page, I am so l33t).
Seems like there are people that just sit around all day trying to 1-up the next guy on getting a popular story submitted. Am I missing something about Digg that motivates these people?? - digitalrift, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6stop double posting try triple and quad posting. idiot users are the reason this site is going to *****. three pages into upcoming stories and you still have the same headlines as you did on the first page-- WTF.
- nmoog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Just to clarify - aeproberts is not so much complaining about a duplicate story appearing on the front page, but in the "upcoming stories" section. This is where the front page stories get decided, and so is an editing process that some diggers do to help out those less inclined to digg through a million crappy submissions (thanks you guys! I appreciate it!)
The problem is that digging for upcoming stories is becoming more and more painful because of dupes submitted. If that stops a whole lot of people from doing the ground work, it will ultimately lead to a different set of stories getting to the front page (Maybe thats good, maybe thats bad)
Maybe we should all do a bit more digging to see how bad it is, or if this story was just a rant :) - groberts1980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Has anybody considered the fact that these people do use the search feature, know well and good their article is a dupe, but posts anyway? They know that a lot of the time, a dupe gets the most diggs and a dupe ends up on the front page, not the original article. They could also be posting a dupe knowing their friends will digg their story, helping them to the front page.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm guessing much of it is gaming. If an article guaranteed to hit the frontpage shows up on Google News (or Arstechnica, or Fark, and even Digg) then a bunch of people jump on it and dupe it (and bury the competition).
Guys like aaaz has made duping & burying the original(s) an artform.
Don't really know what to do about it. Perhaps removing the score-keeping could cut down on the "amateur" gaming, but it'd also make it harder to spot PR-people gaming digg for money. - ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7that's not the problem... this story was duped 18 times on the same day, spreading out the diggs so it didn't make the front page... we're not talking about a dupe of a story from last month or last year... we're talking all in the same few hours when a story breaks...
the dupes water down the impact of each submission -
Show 51 - 100 of 245 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is