What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
54 Comments
- jo3design, on 11/05/2007, -3/+48I don't know about everyone else, but there are times that I like to Digg stories when the title and description grab my interest, and then wait to read them until I have more time, usually after I get home from work. I know I'm not the only one who does this...
Yeah, this definitely has the potential to come back and bite Digg in the ass... - KyleRayner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18I too "quickdigg" stories, for one of two reasons. One, the site linked to is most likely blocked at work, where I do most of my Digging. Or two, I have a good feeling its going to reach the front page, or is already on the front page, meaning the site is down/going down.
I hope i dont get ban'd. :(
IMHO, they need to focus on the diggbots, those like mentioned above. Ones who sign up multiple accounts and only digg sites from one URL, e.g. hotair or LGF or [H]. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13It's pathetic that special interests are gaming digg...
- opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14When I read the blurb for this article, I instantly dugg it before opening it to read.
It then struck me that doing so probably wasn't the best idea... - Sarki, on 11/05/2007, -1/+12I do something a little different. I read a lot of stories before I get to Digg in my surfing rotation. I see stories on Digg often that I have already read, and could digg them "too fast" I guess, according to this article.
- eastbrook, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11What bugs me is having to read this on seopedia. Why doesn't Digg announce it in a meaninful way e.g., put an announcement section somewhere, anwhere to give fair warning before the banning starts.
- AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12"Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest somehow that a digg that occurs after you have clicked the link to the article should have a higher score than one where the person is digging without reading the article first."
That's an excellent suggestion! - canewediggit, on 11/05/2007, -8/+18jo- check out the spy, particularly upcoming stories. that's where i spend my time on digg. i'm not going to name names, but you can watch people digging up 10-20 stories at a time. i have literally had my entire screen be one user blindly digging stories and you know it's not to bookmark. it's b/c they are digging all their friends' stuff or promoting sites/stories that further their personal agenda. imo, it's been one of the longest standing major problems with digg and i'm happy to see they are finally taking action.
good work, digg staff! - bigdsinferno, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Agreed. One thing i've been noticing lately is the "Digg user ‘*****’ just invited ‘****’ to join Digg!" occassionally will have a very similar name. I don't know about you, but my friends email address/user name bares little resembles to mine. It seems obvious what their purpose is.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12"or infowars, terrorstorm, lewrockwell, jones report..."
- You forgot to mention Crooks & Liars, Media Matter, Raw Story.. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I heard that they got one last week that had at least three accounts. That's a start at least.
- geekchic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I can see why people would be annoyed by this move, and their reasons do sound sensible - but I can also see the issue with people "mass digging".
Yes, people do digg just the headline (I am as guilty of that as anyone else) - and that should be taken into account. However, if a person goes down the list of recent submissions and diggs every link on that page in 20 seconds, you also have to wonder what they are up to.
Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest somehow that a digg that occurs after you have clicked the link to the article should have a higher score than one where the person is digging without reading the article first. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I'm ready to quit... Especially if nothing is done about the truther mult accounts.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Or infowars, terrorstorm, lewrockwell, jones report...
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8For what it's worth, rather than banning people, I'd rather just have Digg not allow you digg and/or bury more than X stories in Y minutes using some simple programming.
If you try, you'd get a message like you do when you try to add friends too quickly: wait a few minutes, read a story or two, and then digg again.
I do sometimes digg prematurely, but then I'll bury as lame if I didn't like it afterwards. - AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I guess digg's philosophy is that legitimate members of the community will "agree to Digg/bury more responsibly" so that their accounts may be reinstated. Spammers likely won't bother with this and will remain banned. I think it's more of a warning than an outright "you aren't welcome here anymore," but it is pretty harsh to try and login only to find that your account has been banned.
To their credit, when my account was banned (yesterday!), I pointed out that the algorithm had caught me by mistake and the digg support staff promptly unbanned me and apologized. They were very cool about it.
So, I see what they are trying to accomplish, but the new algorithms is sweeping too many legitimate users into the "spam" category. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Or maybe you got banned for comment abuse?
- tomboy501, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8You know what's ironic? I dugg this article last night and buried the other one that duped and scraped from this post. I think the duped/scraped post is on the front page now with over 2,000 diggs...and did I just see a comment from Kevin Rose in there somewhere too - lending legitimacy to bad submissions?? I tried to go back and double check the scraping before I made this comment, but ...who knows now....that thewrongadvices.com site is now dugg to death.
Everyone uses digg differently. If we the users can see the blind digging from the Ron Paul et al brigade why can't digg staff see it just as easily? ..and differentiate between banning them and it's core users? That doesn't make sense. Get rid of the abusers. I can spot them all a mile away. Why is digg banning regulars along with obvious spammers?
I'm not a spammer ...or part of any organized digg or bury brigade...but, I digg without reading articles sometimes. It's natural to scan for info quickly. Some posts are self explanatory...and some you can get all the info you want or need from the title and description. I mean what else do you need to know from: 'Golfer Dies After Cart Plunges Off 75 Foot Cliff' (sorry, mindstyle1...you know what I mean). It's a great story...the details are repetitive though. The brain functions quickly and, sometimes, I would rather know a little about a wide range of things in a short period of time. So what?
Other articles you will read...and go into detail. Maybe search Google for more info. Sometimes you digg and read later...whatever...Everyone is different. I can't believe digg has been banning the regulars lately because of their digging habits.
Digg staff: Please get rid of the scum element here. Go easy on the regulars that groom and cultivate this site and enhance the community. At least a shot over the bow first. The 'Ban First Ask Questions Later' must suck. - balibones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Funny... I just watched Animal Farm last night and finished reading Atlas Shrugged again a few days ago. Great democratic ideas start out with good intentions and just end up a bureaucratic mess over time as rule and regulation after rule and regulation is piled onto the idea. Eventually you have something that resembles more what you were trying to get away from than what you had started out to create.
It's not that I don't see the need for this, but man... Digg has come a loooooong way from the ideals that it started out with. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Maybe not digging EVERY Ron Paul story in rapid succession would keep you from being banned?
- Artifez, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12I think it's a great idea, RTFA jerks.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11That sounds flawed to me, I often open stories in new tabs and read them altogether.
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8@noupsell
I've been banned 4 time on Digg, I've been a digg user since a month after Kevin started it and it went live. I've Dugg well over 50,000 stories.
I just got banned this weekend for Digging too many stories as well.
I'll be the 1st to admit I don't read all the stories I Digg. However right now on my Opera browser I have at least 30 tabs open and I sometime Digg by the title and content alone.
I'll also be the 1st to admit that I Digg up my friends stories, However I have well over 900+ people that have befriended me and If I Dugg just 1 stories for everyone in my friends group I would get banned just for that.
So I don't blind Digg my friends either. I like Macs, Politics and Tech News, so I Digg stuff that I find interesting. After Digging stories that my friends submit, I usually look for interesting stories on the homepage. After that I go to upcoming for other articles I think are cool as well.
So that my 2 cents. I try and submit solid content and Digg good stories, even some offbeat ones that I think are cool. - CristianMezei, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8It is indeed.
What concerns me is that Digg doesn't learn or apply anything from bloggers or any other writers that offer them free suggestions, that otherwise would take dozens of hours of consultancy. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8thinkprogress.org, ronpaul*.* *for911truth.org etc.
***** 'em all.
I'm getting really tired of digg. - hanksname, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I sometimes Digg things precisely because I want to see them in my profile for later reading. Digg stories move pretty fast so if I go to a story and then come back, it takes a lot of time to find out where I was.
I guess they can ban me for it. I am a nobody on Digg. But if they ban all of the nobodies who use Digg the way they want - instead of the way Digg Gods want - they won't have a lot of people left. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I wish people wouldn't auto-bury stories from specific URLs. I mean, I generally dislike LGF stories, but I'll read them first.
Maybe if there was a simpler way to just hide those stories from your view, the way you can block a user, or select categories, you could block a specific URL.
I have no problem if you don't want to ever read some kind of story or political slant. Whatever. But if people are burying those stories because they don't want OTHER people to read them who might like them, then that's got to stop. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Perhaps they could weight the importance of a Digg or bury based on whether the person has left a comment. We've all seen posts with more than a thousand Diggs but just a handful of comments. It seems to me that the people the opinions of people who care enough about the subject to actually take the time to comment should be more valid than the drive-by Diggers.
- eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I do the same, partly because I am at work and would like to read the articles later when I get home. Much better than looking at the NSFW articles for one second and then quickly closing the browser while looking over my shoulder!
- Prysorra, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I know I'm slighty....shifting the conversation, but no, they really don't use *digg* bots so much - each of those sites has at least enough regular visitors to front page a story. LGF, for example, complains constantly about digg. LGF also has a vast (and ironically.....diverse) readership that. (Okay, the idiots at LGF that submit EVERY ***** POST get on my nerves.)
Thinkprogress too, has some insightful posts that aren't just screeching and hyperventilation - I truly wish those pieces were taken more seriously.
That being said - I think you're looking at this from the wrong side. It isn't the digging. It's the burying.
LGF and hotair, (heck, even thinkprogress) collect, annotate, and rebroadcast news articles and information that would threaten a great many efforts here to control political information.
Search for digg articles from LGF (check the "include buried" box). A lot of them are a bit grating, but damn....that's a LOT of buried stories with over 500 diggs.... - CiscoNoShut, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5sounds like backlash from the hd dvd code when users were digging fast to piss off the empire
- cutiegadget, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Well, that's bad... I just usually want to "help" by digging the good info in the first page even I don't visit that page,,
- IvanB, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Interesting read, but man, try and use paragraphs in the future. :(
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+2I see both the pros and cons to this policy. In general, right now I think the pros of this policy outweigh the cons due to the political season. There is way too much politically motivated gaming of the system right now. Maybe the policy could be relaxed after the election. Also maybe Digg could add a button to flag articles for later reading, which resolve what seems to be the biggest issue users have with this policy.
- NoamSayin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ Prysorra.
I agree with you. Perhaps too many posts from LGF get a Digg. I hope everyone chalks that up to LGF being relatively new to the Digg access, and we've had a huge number of new, enthusiastic members who want to score points with us regulars. I think in time, this will wain and the Diggs you see from LGF will be important for all of us to see. Keep in mind also that some folks are Digging LGF thread with nefarious intentions - they're trying to give us a bad rep. There are some amazingly huge stories that develop from littlegreenfootballs through an incredible amount of research through all the available online media, and they deserve the attention - and debate - this forum allows. I myself gave up a good portion of my posting time here and on other blogs in order to do such research.
@ EntropyMan
"I have no problem if you don't want to ever read some kind of story or political slant. Whatever. But if people are burying those stories because they don't want OTHER people to read them who might like them, then that's got to stop."
A most excellent point, sir.
Some time back One should never shut out any obviously viable news items.
Quite some time ago while watching NBC News, I listened to Tom Brokaw attribute the stock market come-back to factors other than the Bush tax-cuts. I'm sorry I can't recall specifics - we're talking late-2002 or early-2003, and I drink. I work in the financial services industry, and I'd just spent the greater part of that morning listening to top mutual fund advisors discuss the real reasons behind the market recovery. These are people who absolutely must be right in their analysis or they no longer have a job. They went into detail about added capital available for research, development and production, as well as shipping; lowered interest rates, more credit in the marketplace, more available discretionary income due to tax relief and many other factors. I based my decision to buy a house on that information - it's worth over 50% more than what I paid for it.
Brokaw's report got most of it wrong, or incomplete. If I'd based my decision on that, I'd probably still be paying for rent without gaining any equity. And now I'd be priced out of the market.
Five and six hours after your posts, but I hope you pick up my message. - IvanB, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@ alphaeta:
They banned me today by mistake as well, I sent them an email asking what was up with that and they quickly restored it and were very cool about it. I like Digg's support. - issagh198, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I digg if I like the subject of story http://issagh.blogspot.com
- LeeSoong, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1http://www.ronpaul2008.com/get-involved/
- pinina73, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1I can't believe digg has been banning the regulars lately because of their digging habits.
- dansko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This sucks. I digg if I like the title of the story.
http://www.colehaanshoes.us - dynamicvb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is actaully interesting. I've gotten to where I don't really ever come to Digg anymore, becuase of all the gaming. Most of the stories that make it to the front page are lame and then you have people who bury anything that they may not relate too. One instance is anything having to do with SEO usally gets buried, expescially if it mentions anything about making money on the web.
I for one am interesting in this sort of thing. I'm not interested in Stars Wars, but I don't bury those stories,I just don't digg them. Digg has became a lot of children voting for their friends. Hopefully this will change.
By the way I would have never found this story if I had not read it on a blog post. - pjvpablo78, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Very good...
- carlosheitzer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1pura mierda tu wea
- batemanpatrick, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I just started using digg, and i too occasionally use it to digg stories that i want to read in depth at a later time...good thing i read this article before i started developing bad habits...digg is still a cool place to find interesting articles in my opinion, but its a shame that the structure of the system is a bit shaky
- bronek1987, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1xD
- Jk2365, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1That sounds flawed to me, I often open stories in new tabs and read them altogether.
- presleyek, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I think it's a great idea
- koo1234, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I Like this.
- cristianc86, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I have no idea of how this works, please someone helpme, I just wnat earn money. my email adress is cristianc86@gmail.com
Thanks!! - marcinxxx, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1xD
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is