What is Digg?29 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Let's see how fast this one gets buried
- richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12oh, and for those of you wondering why some of us are using the same avatar:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Did_Supernova17_Get_Banned_for_Submitting_a_Controversial_Story - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Digg the formal request that started all this:
http://www.digg.com/politics/Dear_Kevin_Rose_Please_Create_a_Who_Buried_This_Tab - lemieuxster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Just for the record: My Digg experiment yesterday was just to prove that the bury data could be found. People were saying that the bury info was hidden, I just wanted to show that it could be published. Digg speedily fixed their hole (which I applaud them for) and ya esta. The whole thing was proof of concept, nothing more. Take the data with a grain of salt.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12stop this ***** already. seriously. first of all, "However, don’t take this list as the truth"- because it's INACCURATE. so now you're posting incorrect data with my name on it for articles i didn't bury. as noted- http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_s_Bury_Data_Exposed#c5459347 this data is wrong. i don't go around posting false info about your data, so until you guys get the CORRECT data, quit posting inaccuracies with my name on it.
- vrtsflipflop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Like I said on another thread on this topic...it's time to just get rid of the bury feature altogether. It too easily invites abuse.
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@blake10: You nailed it buddy, I'm a navigator at Netscape. We're told daily in the mailing list to flame Digg and put down all the users, because, you know, we have a secret plan to make Digg look bad. . . .
But, sarcasm aside, I like Digg. I have no bias either way. The flaws with the bury feature are apparent and it seems that more users than just I care about the way this feature is being used against the members in the community.
As for the data, no one ever stated it was correct (as I said before), but having some information is better than none and the information at hand does raise some questions as to what users are using the bury feature for and how they could possibly be abusing it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Raising awareness is very important. Eventually Digg will listen if the users state their point. If I recall correctly only a year and a half ago diggers started requesting a Microsoft section...and after 18 months of complicated programming on digg's behalf we finally got it :-D
- richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7lol It's amazing how we end up finding these stories anyway.
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The data is no where near 100% accurate, you're correct, but it still holds enough information to raise some interesting questions.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Note that the LGF stories are being buried via a completely different method, as has been disclosed in other recent stories on Digg.
I seldom use the Bury button. BTW, I must admit, on rare occasions, I've used the Bury button on a story and later would have liked to unbury it, but that capability has not been provided.
Here's what I suggest: To cover the situations where someone is using Digg to run a scam, such as for stock pump-and-dump, Nigeria bank fraud, fake Viagra or whatever, I think it would be reasonable to substitute a "report" button in place of the "bury" button. The "report" function would not affect the algorithm for determining whether the article makes it to the front page. It would simply put the URL on a list that the admins would be able to check to determine whether the website should be banned for involvement in what appears to be a scam.
For the other choices presently on the Bury button - OK, this is lame; duplicate story; inaccurate; wrong topic - why do we need a Bury button at all? Here's what I suggest doing instead:
If the story is lame:
Just ignore it. No Digg, no problem.
If the story is a duplicate:
Why automatically assume this is always a bad thing? Sometimes there are LEGITIMATE reasons for bringing back an old story; e.g., when updated material has been added to the same URL that is significant enough to warrant reposting it. When you are sure that the newer story is a duplicate that adds nothing new to what was posted in an earlier submission, why not simply put in a comment identifying the earlier submission, and leave it at that?
If the story was inaccurate:
Instead of burying it, why not realize that this is a chance to get a hearing for your own point of view? Post a comment debunking the story, preferably with references to reliable sources that back up your assertions. Then identify some articles that express what you believe to be true, and either submit them yourself, or digg them if somebody else has submitted them already. I know this requires some effort, but that's what vigorous, healthy debate is all about.
If the story was posted under the wrong topic:
Keep in mind that a submitter cannot move his or her own story to a different topic once it has been posted. Only the admins can do that. Anybody can make a mistake, so why bury the story? Why not put in a comment identifying the correct topic in which the story should have been submitted, just as an FYI for the submitter? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You are not on the list probably because DiggSpy is timer-based and does not capture all buries that are taking place during that time frame.
A story or a site is not "hatespeech" or "racist" just because you say so.
A story does not automatically become "hatespeech" or "racist" just because it discloses something unpleasant about an individual, organization, or ideology that you happen to favor.
If you "***** hate racists" - and you allow yourself to arbitrarily label LGF as a racist site, even though this is not so, and you bury nearly everything from it - how is your own comment anything other than hate speech?
You have admitted that you are participating in de facto censorship, and you have just admitted that the folks at LGF are entirely correct. If this is so, you are correct and you should indeed be banned. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think this whole issue is not so much the bury function itself...but, being able to see who buries what, since that can determine which stories rise and fall. I agree w/ you misterpony...bury feature is essential. And I don't think it will benefit this community to reveal who is burying what. I've mentioned before...it will stir up a lot of *****. It already is.
This sample diggspy hacked info with names seemed like pretty decent sleuthing at first, but once canewediggit came forward and proved it was inaccurate....and then it was determined that it's not only inaccurate but 75% inaccurate...there's no way this should have been posted as facts or proof on this site.
Great research would have been to first contact those diggers whose names were listed first to confirm the buries...or something. Only canewediggit came forward after the fact (as far as I know) to debunk the info. I would be as pissed as him if my name was up there as well. It was irresponsible to post such inaccurate info...and that information, while interesting....is really not enough to make a case for the bury brigade. - blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6We saw this one too, buried.
Viva bury brigade!! - cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Stories should not be buried. Only votes and buries for individual comments. If a story is not poplular it will fade out anyways. Just as long as their are no dupes. That is the only way it should work
- babcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The bury brigade that are burying controversial stories should be ashamed of themselves.They are participating in censorship.
- cameron074, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1#47, with a bullet.
- msimeth, on 09/16/2008, -0/+1Burying doesn't reduce the digg count of a submission.
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+225% is plenty to make valid statistical data.
- whiskeyboarder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Interesting and DUGG
My profile would be on the top of this list if I had the tech savvy to unilaterally BURY all the continuous bouts of Ron Paul silliness. - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6This issue is pointless. Most Diggers like and use the bury function.
I like and appreciate everyone like Muhammed who researches and writes on issues that make Digg better, but this is not one of those times. The focus on this made-up "bury brigade" controversy looks like you guys are yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for kicks.
Buries are a valid and reliable method to keep the stories on Digg the way the community wants them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If you say this is wrong, how so?
Which articles that you are listed as having buried did you NOT bury?
Which articles DID you bury that you are NOT listed as having buried?
I was listed as having buried two stories during the period of time, and AFAIK that was accurate, so I personally don't have any reason to think that the list is as incorrect as the article indicated.
BTW, I seldom bury stories - I spend most of my Digg time reading whatever looks interesting, especially stories with comments. I'm a fast reader and a "news buff" with a taste for offbeat stories, science, and pix - if I think a story is a bunch of rot, I generally ignore it, though once in a while I'll comment on it. - blake10, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4why have 23 people dugg this story when it says this, "Yeah, the real to false ratio was about 1:4 so one out of every 4 burries was actually committed by the user. They have apparently fixed the hole, and quite quickly too."
This is INCOMPLETE data, and more often than not completely WRONG. Are you guys just in the interest of defaming digg or something? - fuckthenwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you look at the story "BBC reported building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it fell". On prisonplanet.com http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm?2s and on digg.com http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell_5 Here on Digg it is listed as 307 diggs and on prisonplanet it is listed as 2166 diggs. It is also not listed in the top storys of the past 7 days, and it clearly has enough diggs to do so!!! Cencership! Cencership by the "bury brigade"...
- kenbo11, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2theattacks said: "no one ever stated it was correct (as I said before), but having some information is better than none " So having flawed info is better than having none? Isn't that what Bush said about the WMD in Iraq when he used them as an excuse to start a war? That's just the silliest thing I've ever heard.
- blake10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2HOW?! how does a 75% failure rate consitute "enough information to raise some interesting questions?" And especially coming from a netscape user, theattacks, (i think a navigator, too) you're TOTALLY biased.
- Namco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Buried. These diggspiracies are pissing me off. I don't usually bury stories, but this line of ***** deserves it.
- andrewpmk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Burying is necessary to keep junk from getting to the front page. The administrators don't have enough time to remove all the spam and junk that gets submitted here.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3WTF? Howcome I'm not on that list?
I bury every story I find which is lame, inaccurate, spam or in the wrong topic, meaning I bury a ******* of stories.
Also, I bury hatespeech articles, ie nearly everything from LittleGreenFootballs, because I ***** hate racists. So ban me.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is