What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
41 Comments
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@canewediggit
> there's no conspiracy, no organized burying effort. just people bitching about their articles not getting promoted and insinuating others are part of some effort to keep them down.
Look, 11 different articles from the same site in two days ALL buried, despite being on different topics, and only after the first one covered the bury issue? You don't think that's organized?
I don't think there's necessarily one bury brigade, but you can't tell me that out of the blue, it's normal that every story from our site suddenly gets buried -- stories about search user behavior, or Google's newly released click fraud rate, or a comprehensive review on getting real-time traffic information.
I did not say in my article that these should be all popular. Nor am I depending on them to be. Listen, I've been running sites for over 11 years, especially driven from search. I don't depend on Digg as a single source any more than I ever depended on far more powerful Google or Yahoo before that.
But it's not on that stories are just consitently being buried for no good reason, other than an apparent vendetta againt a site. If you really want to defend Digg, you should fight against that. I totally support and respect your right to bury stories -- but not marking them as spam, if they aren't -- nor as inaccurate, if you have read and fully analyze the story. - vexingmodstwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wouldn't "spam" be submitting the same article over and over?
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8canewediggit: Everyone knows you're a legit user. That doesn't mean that there isn't a bury brigade though.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Well, you prove entirely the point of the article you probably failed to read. The article I wrote demonstrates there is a brigade of some type burying every single article we've had submitted over the past two days. This one was buried less than 15 minutes after it went it. And if you've been burying every article about a bury brigade problem -- hey -- you yourself prove that one exists.
Moreover -- if you read the article -- you'd understand a problem with buries is people misuse spam. This is spam? An article I wrote but didn't submit? How did that spam Digg? What terms of service did it violate. Mark it lame, which is really what you mean -- that you find it lame. That's fine. Mark it inaccurate if you've actually read the article, considered what's in it and find it still inaccurate. But mark it spam, and you simply demonstrate exactly the point of the article -- buries need to be public so that we can easily see the actions of people like yourself who aren't following the rules of Digg. - GaffleSnipe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Great canewediggit. Bury a legit story as spam about burying abuse when you know it isn't spam, because the author didn't submit the story. I think you are just contributing to the problem here. YOU just illustrated the story for all of us.
Stop burying based on opinions. Nobody cares what you think. The bury button is there get rid of malicious, inaccurate, spam story's. You don't need to bury it just because you don't like it. If nobody likes it, then it won't get diggs. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, I had sent a note to abuse@digg.com asking whether his deliberate misuse of bury as spam -- when he knew the story wasn't spam -- was a violation of Digg's terms. I got back an email saying:
"We have addressed the issue. If you're seeing any other problems, please email us."
Then at the same time, the entire thread was gone. So I can't tell if he was warned not to do that and the thread where he admitted it was removed (perhaps to remove the admission) or frankly what. And I agree -- there was a lot of good actual debate and discussion in that thread now gone. - anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i bury every single WTC7 article i see. just to add to the apoplexy the tinfoil hat brigade already experiences because everyone is out to get them. next, i'll be labeled a 'paid neocon operative'. because as we all know, the only way you can deny the 'truth' they clutch to their chest like the latest issue of Black Helicopter SciOps Weekly is if you're paid to deny it.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sorry for the dupe -- hit the wrong reply link, and it makes no sense up there.
@canewediggit
I've had content go popular here before, so I think I produce plenty of good content. I've been producing good content for 11 years now and am widely recognized for it.
I find it hilarious that after we post a story about the bury brigade allegations, 11 (now 12) stories in a row from our site (most nothing to do with Digg) all get buried in the past 48 hours.
If the stories aren't good, they simply don't get diggs. I've said that -- several times here and if the story I wrote. I've made no suggestion that I think they are so good they should all go popular or even get many diggs at all.
It's an entirely different thing for them to be buried within minutes after appearing, before they've even gotten diggs to attract attention. That's a completely different pattern in terms of how we've been listed before. If you love digg so much that you can't stand any criticism of it, fine. Dig the hole, bury your head along with burying stories. But the reality is for my site, right now -- it is clearly being targeted with buries. Not allegation. Fact. I simply can't see who is doing it. But that's fine -- I'll get in contact with Digg's PR team right now and see if I can get an official word on what's going on. They're happy enough to ask me to write about Digg features (which I've done before). Shouldn't be an issue to get some clarification on this. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Just a note -- an entire thread from this page has now disappeared. It began with canewediggit saying:
"i'm burying this as spam. you know why? all those "bury brigade" articles are WRONG. they have been proven WRONG. yet some people feel the need to continuously write them and report them. the data was INACCURATE, they proved nothing. and i'm getting really f-ing sick of seeing these articles every day. apparently, burying them as inaccurate wasn't doing the trick, so now you get my spam vote. come with proof." - bonch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8No proof of a bury brigade? One example is that every freakin' submission linking to LGF gets buried. But links to crazy, high-profile left-wing sites get dugg all the time. It's so bleeding obvious there's an elite network of users burying stuff they don't want to see, and most of their behavior is ideologically driven. Here's more info (catch it before it's buried!): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24662
Digg isn't run by a community. It has editors just like Slashdot. But at least on Slashdot, you know who the editors are. - cbpelto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7P.S. As an addendum, as an old colonel once told this, then young, captain....
There are two ways to exercise power.
The first is to make decisions for people who would be better off making them for themselves. The second is to withhold information from people that would allow them to make better decisions for themselves.
So-called liberals and progressives, or so they are misnomered, exercise both of these to the best of their ability. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6lol, they addressed the issue by covering everything up. They must have some former government employees working at Digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Oh the irony. Digg user says there is no bury brigade and promptly buries the story.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4heh -- really, i'm just about to sign-off :)
I don't buy into just linking as somehow saying something's accurate. As for expressing pointing out they are false, here's exactly what I said about them
* Digg Bury Expose was a site from David LeMieux trying to let people peer into bury activity, out at the same time as the article above, out this week [notice i don't say true or false and use the qualifier word "trying." That word isn't there accidentally. I was specifically trying to say this wasn't a perfect look]
* The Bury Brigade Exists, and Here's My Proof from Pronet Advertising kicked off this week's look at activity suggesting a group of people might downplay stories, after tapping into the site above [again, note the word "suggesting," again a qualifier]
* Hunting Down Digg's Bury Brigade at Wired reprinted an article from NewAssignment.Net looking into the bury brigade allegations. [again, a qualifier, the word "allegation."
I've been writing about search engines for a long time, where you're often dealing with allegation and speculation rather than facts. I'm very careful to use qualifiers. I didn't point at these articles and say look -- proof of a bury brigade. I pointed at them to recap the concern that buries are not transparent (a concern independent of whether there's a brigade doing them).
The only "argument" they supported for me was concern over buries -- not a brigade. When I talked about a brigade in that article, I specifically referred to what's happening with submissions from our site. They're clearly being deliberately buried. Brigade or one or not, it's not accidental or coincidental. And buries being public would at least let me know who is doing it, so I could perhaps try to engage them as you and I are talking now.
Hope that explains things more -- and have a good weekend too. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh, one other thing. The were an issue this week perhaps of the false claims you say. But they were already an issue with me before that. The story points out how before all this stuff had come out, I'd already written about bury abuse in terms of flagging stories as spam.
That's my real concern -- not that buries happen, but that they happen and wrong reasons are used, and that they aren't transparent. I was already writing about this before the entire attempt to tap into Digg Spy to see if there was coordinated action of some type. - philbutler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A good example of this would be a writer how really had altruistic intentions, who because of time constraints really had little understanding of how the whole process works. This enthusiastic and honest person just writes stuff about cool gadgets and throws in a little "save the world" stuff to be good. He makes the front page of this WTF newspaper a few times, and thinks: "Hey maybe I am doing something good" Then he finds out that pretty much every story he writes gets buried.
Any red blooded American (or any other nationality for that matter) boy, would have the first reaction of a pissed off badger to begin with. I am just glad some of you guys stayed on top of this for everyone else. Lest we just post stuff to Digg to offer info and get a little notoriety, only to be sabotaged by some weasel. Second reactions (off the football field and onto the sneaky sob tarmac) render the same resultant "clothesline" response from me.
In response to "cane" there are too many coincidences. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@canewediggit
See further below for my reply in the next thread -- sorry, again hit the wrong reply link.
I'm also going offline now for the weekend. I'll check back Monday and respond to any questions you have. Again, seeing the other thread -- where you feel falsely accused -- I can totally understand your perspective, upset and anger. And sadly, if Digg published buries, you would have been able to more easily push back. - captinherb, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5Hmmm. We spent a good deal of that thread debating. My position being there is no bury brigade and there is nothing fishy going on with Digg. This isn't looking good for me...
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ah, look. Someone else submitted another story from us -- nothing to do with Digg but rather about an glitch with Google that might make you think few of your pages are listed. Buried:
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_About_260_Problem_Google_Site_Command_Glitch
http://searchengineland.com/070302-134536.php
Probably would be interesting to some people on Digg, but one or two people secretly get to bury it permanently, as part of what's clearly going to be a standard pattern with our site for the near term.
FYI, Google's now posted official news of the glitch after our story and others went up:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Confirms_Disappearing_Site_Glitch/who - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sigh.
I keep saying that the article was not about those allegations. I didn't go into whether those other stories were correct or not. It's tiring to keep repeating that point. I didn't talk about top 50 users, whether the data was accurate or not. I talked about some very specific things and backed all of them up. In particular, in a nice neat bulletpoint summary:
* Buries have been an issue this week (they have)
* Kevin addressed them but said they don't need to be visible (he did)
* Explained how people can tell if they've been buried (many don't know how to do this)
* Explained that there's a good reason to show buries, because people abuse them by marking things as spam when they are not (they do, and you yourself proved this)
* Explained that for our site, there's clearly a bury brigade of some type burying all of our stories. That it might be, as I said, a mini-brigade. There might be different people doing different buries. But we clearly have been targeted (we have -- it's obvious)
* That if buries were public, it would be easier to identify such actions
* That Kevin saying the data was inaccurate in the other stories only points out that Digg itself should provide accurate data
Sending an abuse complaint should not have gotten a thread pulled. It should -- if abuse actually happened as deemed by Digg -- gotten you pulled or warned. Instead, if the complaint just got a thread pulled to remove your self admission of burying stories using the wrong options just because you dislike them. Hey, that's even more worrying about Digg.
Again, I have not accused any one of any thing with false data. Read the story and feel free to leave comments on it pointing out where I'm falsely accusing people or not backing up the specific points I'm making. That's work. That's not just knee-jerk.
Looking at the link you sent -- I understand (honestly) why you must be so upset. This data citied in another story called you out as a member of a bury brigade, and you say you didn't do that activity. That sucks. It really does. But I neither backed that story up nor accused you.
Instead, you can blame Digg itself for not giving the transparency to protect you. Second, you can step up and shoulder some blame for now actually doing what you say you were falsely accused of -- being a brigade (if only one) burying stories without caring if they are accurate or not (which is ironic given your accuracy rampage). - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@canewediggit
The article was not a rehash of other stories. The article looked at how on our site, 11 different (and completely unique stories, only one about Digg bury issues) were buried.
You are free to bury whatever you want. That's why the Bury feature exists. But the bury feature more and more seems to be used to kill stories out of proportion to the Digg feature. And more and more, people are quite fairly asking why buries aren't shown as Diggs are. Why be open about the positive but not about the negative.
In addition, the Bury feature is being misused -- as you yourself have done. You've reported a story you find lame not as lame but rather spam.
Reporting stories as spam to me is the bigger issue. It's simply wrong and inaccurate, ironic given your concern over accuracy.
Flat out burying stories from any site at lame, regardless of the content but because a site might dare to write something critical about Digg, I suppose that's ultimate up to the Digg community to decide. Digg is a democracy revolving around what Digg users want. If they only want things on how wonderful Digg is, they can have it. But I'd suggest you might be more selective in buring the negative Digg articles, rather than just any article from a site that dares to question Digg.
@captinherb
Actually, buries do seem to carry far more weight than Diggs. This story was buried less than 15 minutes after hitting Digg, with only five Diggs. How many buries happened? One? Five? Three super powerful ones? Who knows, because Digg doesn't tell you.
If people are sick of seeing new articles, I understand that. But immediately bury them? I mean before anyone else in the community has even had a chance to review them and decide if there's new information or not (and in my article, I think there is).
It doesn't surprise me either the article was buried. I figured it would, if it hit Digg. But within 15 minutes? Actually, within 12 minutes -- and maybe sooner than that. Yeah, that's surprising. And being buried probably because one person with power inaccurately called it spam. Not surprising. Disturbing and wrong. - JJorsett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How long before enough people get pissed off and divided into squabbling factions that it effectively becomes "bury everything"? That seems a likely outcome given how things are going.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dannysullivan
You misread what I wrote. I didn't suggest that buries don't carry more weight than diggs. I said that the kind of bury doesn't matter. You seem upset that he marked it as spam but it was ok if he marked it as lame. Seems to be semantics to me as spam and lame would carry the same weight in getting a story buried.
>>"How many buries happened? One? Five? Three super powerful ones? Who knows, because Digg doesn't tell you."
Does it matter? What would you do with the information if you knew how many buries it was. What would you do if you knew who buried it? I suppose you could email Digg and say 'so and so' had buried all my articles, but what is digg suppose to do, ban that user for thinking that your stories are lame?
>>"If people are sick of seeing new articles, I understand that. But immediately bury them? I mean before anyone else in the community has even had a >>chance to review them and decide if there's new information or not (and in my article, I think there is)."
I'm not sure what you mean by sick of seeing new articles, perhaps you meant people are sick of seeing articles about a bury brigade. I any event, what should a person do if not immediately bury it if they read it and think it's lame,inaccurate etc... Bookmark it and come back later to bury it, doesn't seem very practical. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dannysullivan
I try to respond without quoting as it could get very confusing quoting you quoting me quoting you..
1.You assume that articles flagged as spam could result in a site being banned. I don't think that is the case and I point to littlegreenfootballs and malkin as cases in point. I can assure you that they get flagged as spam unrelentingly and have for quite some time and yet are still able to be submitted as articles.
2.They show who dugg a story in an attempt to be a social digging network. So that one may befriend someone with similar interests and see what they dugg in order to find interesting articles. The opposite would make little sense, and I would think would lead to abuse of the bury system. If I can see what my friend buried I can very easily go and bury that article myself. Makes it much easier to form a bury brigade.
3. I said "immediately bury it if they read it and think it's lame,inaccurate etc..." You see, I did in fact mention reading the article. Or at least get the gist of it. You don't have to read very far to understand that it's another article trying to convince people that Bush and the CIA brought down the twin towers. - castoroyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would have to add that Digg needs to be very concerned about this issue. If content linkers become discouraged from adding that digg button to their sites or start removing them, Digg is going to become another Internet Dinosaur like Webcrawler.
- dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@canewediggit
Came on for a quick look, saw:
> i'm trying to say...
Yeah, that was a great Colbert. Look, I'm not saying you are, I'm just trying to say :)
Look, if Kevin Rose himself can link to one of those same articles and use the same type qualifiers I do, then you're being kind of harsh on me. What did he say here: http://blog.digg.com/?p=66
"Just wanted to post real quick about some stories I’ve seen in the blogosphere regarding an alleged ‘bury brigade’ on Digg and on the Digg site blocking process."
He doesn't say it's false. He would know if it was false, right? He simply says it's "alleged," which is totally not the same as debunking the allegations. Same term I've used, except I don't have access to prove if it is false or not. So why isn't he saying it’s false. Why aren't you calling him out for being more specific?
He also says:
"Quite a bit of this data was gathered inaccurately as the author states in the Digg comments."
Again, he doesn't declare it all false. He goes with the "quite a bit" qualifier, implying that some of it was actually accurate. This is the person who should know -- and he doesn't say. If you're upset people are repeating false information, you should be upset with him. He -- Digg -- could definitively settle the matter. They haven't, not with that post.
But more important -- and this is the last time I'm going to reiterate this point.
I DID NOT WRITE ABOUT THE ALLEGED BURY BRIGADE IN THAT ARTICLE.
That was NOT the point of the article. The article was about problems with buries in general -- and there are issues about buries in general. Digg shouldn't be afraid of discussing the problems in general. That's what will make it stronger. I pointed at those articles simply to say there's been new concern about buries IN GENERAL but then focused on some very specific "non-brigade" issues with one exception -- pointing out that a brigade, if only one person, is currently dinging Search Engine Land. And that's a fact that's obvious to anyone who does a search and looks at the stories that have been buried from us in the past two days or so.
That's why I'm not calling him out -- because I didn't write about the issue. But I'll tell you what. Here's my contact form:
http://searchengineland.com/contact.php
Pick my name, send me your email. I would be more than happy to talk to you more by phone or by email to review the bury brigade allegations. As I said, I didn't cover them before. But I will now, to try and set whatever record straight you think isn't correct with my readers. You can share what happened to you, how you say you were falsely accused and get your point across. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I used no false information, and frankly, you are doing exactly what you're so upset about to me -- saying inaccurate things. It's not that I didn't write "solely" about the brigade. I didn't write about the brigade other than the specific one hitting me. And I covered a lot of real issues with buries in general.
Saying Kevin doesn't have to issue a statement. Well, he did. And he didn't fully dispute the charges. Again, if you feel a victim, you should take that up with him as well.
You don't want to talk to me, that's fine. I wasn't asking you to prove your innocence in as much as I never told my readers you were guilty of anything. But I offered you a chance to spread your views on the situation beyond Digg.
As for rushing to write, I reiterate. I wrote a story about issues with the bury system hurting stories before the "*****" that happened this week. It wasn't about a brigade but instead about how buries can be misused by ANYONE, ANY INDIVIDUAL, at Digg. My current story was really revisiting those prior issues. I'm sorry you continue to want to inaccurately lump it in with the stories you're so upset about. I'm sorry you continue to accuse me unfairly of not checking facts before writing. The offer remains open if you want to talk more. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@captinherb
> You seem upset that he marked it as spam but it was ok if he marked it as lame. Seems to be semantics to me as spam and lame would carry the same weight in getting a story buried.
It's not semantics, in that I assume a site repeatedly being flagged as same might find no articles could be listed on Digg. In contrast, lame -- that's an opinion, rather than a pseudo-crime report.
> What would you do with the information if you knew how many buries it was. What would you do if you knew who buried it? I suppose you could email Digg and say 'so and so' had buried all my articles, but what is digg suppose to do, ban that user for thinking that your stories are lame?
Why do I get told who Diggs stories? Show one, show the other, that's fair enough for Digg to do.
But I won't take that cop-out answer, even if it is true. Showing who Diggs stories publicly can make it easier to spot abuse. So, too, showing buries. In addition, if I saw the same set of users constantly burying my content, at least I might be able to engage them and understand why.
Digg takes a lot of flack that the comments can be unruly, that people yell at each other. Yet I've often found people can and will change opinions if you engage them or explain more.
The main thing would simply be knowing. In fact, by rights Digg ought to change the color of the icon for a buried story to something like dark gray, so a content owner isn't doing guesswork. That's why I spent so much time on my story today, to help people who might have no clue understand if their content was buried.
> I any event, what should a person do if not immediately bury it if they read it and think it's lame,inaccurate etc...
Would it be fair to say that someone should actually read an article before deciding it is to be dugg or buried? I think so. Realistically, I know people won't read things. Many stories get Dugg based on just the concept of the story. OK, so up with the positive. But when you're getting negative, I don't think it's unreasonable that people exercise more responsibility.
My story was inaccurate? No, what I described happening to our site -- the main "evidence" of that article, was entirely accurate.
My story was spam? I didn't submit it. I didn't use a ghost account to submit it. It's original content. There's nothing spammy about it.
My story was lame? Totally support anyone who wants to say that. But then by rights, I should know they called it lame, rather than abusively calling it spam. - cbpelto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4TO: canwediggit
RE: Proof?
"but the bottom line is that nobody has any proof of a bury brigade. and when they come with "proof" it is inaccurate lies." -- canewediggit
I'll wager that even if a court of law found that there was a 'bury brigade', you'd deny it was 'proof'.
As for me, I'm still undecided, but NOT about whether there is an effort to bury information that some people find 'an inconvenient truth'. More along the lines of how organized that effort is.
I've seen so-called 'liberals' and 'progressives' bury information on blogs in the past. They despise anything that they disagree with. And kill it in an effort to hide these inconvenient truthes from others. It's their modus operandi. So I know this sort of thing goes on as a fact. I've seen it myself.
The only question is how organized are the people doing it HERE. Not that there is no one doing it. Go watch billious627 at play here....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What they are teilling you may be important. What they are NOT telling you may be vital. -- cbpelto] - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i replied to this a few hours ago, but when i submitted, digg went down. so here's the abridged- i know you didn't write solely about the brigade, but as the basis for evidence that this was more than just your site and something larger was happening, you used information you knew was false and did not make the claim the data was false. without those false articles, kevin doesn't issue have to issue a statement, and all you have for evidence is what happened to your site. you can dispute kevin when you feel he's wrong, but you make no dispute towards the obviously false info.
thanks for the offer, but i've already proved my innocence in the matter. you saw my comment link, and you know the author himself admitted the data is 25% accurate at best (but yet that fact is not found in your piece), and i haven't seen any proof that it's even that good. i just don't want you to give further credence to false reports. that was the problem this week, everyone rushed to blog about this story and it became a little *****, but nobody bothered to check the facts before writing. i'd just as soon never see another article on the matter again as it ruined my digging all week. unless of course someone has some real evidence of orchestrated burying. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@captinherb
I will follow in your non-quoting lead :)
It's not unreasonable to assume flagging sites as spam could make them be banned and seen as spam. Moreover, the sites you mention? I would suspect they might have been banned, then overridden at an admin level so future spam reports wouldn't matter. Can't say for certain -- may be completely offbase. But with other options available, I'd say people shouldn't use spam when they mean something is lame. Otherwise, why does Digg offer various bury flavors.
Understand what you say about showing buries making it possible to form bury brigades, ironically! Yet I think showing who is burying still outweighs that risk. Seriously, plenty of friends already digg and bury through IM. Displaying both activities just makes it more visible to the world.
In terms of reading my article -- I'm confused. It has nothing to do with the Twin Towers.
I take your point that someone can read a story and get the gist of it perhaps quickly. However, I've had several stories get buried on Digg where people clearly did not read -- yet made assumptions, said things were flat out incorrect about them and so on (and I've had several stories go popular where the same thing happens)!
That's another reason why the bury history would be useful. Certain people will be followed because they are intelligently finding great stories. Discovering that they or others are inaccurately dissing good stories would be useful to know as well.
In the end, I think it's especially helpful for a site owner like myself to discover if there are only a handful of individuals powerful enough to bury every story we have submitted. If that's the case, at least I know I can stop bothering giving Digg my own traffic through Digg buttons. I can also explain to my readers who also use Digg -- and I have plenty -- why perhaps a small handful of people might be messing with their chances of voting content up that they might like.
I think that brings me to the last thing on buries. Once a story is buried, it's dead. You don't come back to life. That's wrong, it seems. You get one or two people powerful enough to do that, it stops a story from perhaps getting popular when it deserves to. It stops it from being easily visible at all. If we're about the voting, then let things move up and down -- not just stay down once knocked out through the mystery bury process. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3i'm trying to say you're an *****......
i bet you think i think you're an ***** now. see, now i never said you're an *****, just that i'm trying to say it. point being (i don't really think you're an *****) is that your qualifiers don't count. i know that data is false. you know that data is false, and assuming you did your homework, you knew it was false when you wrote the article. and you should have stated such. or better yet, not give any sort of free publicity or credence to people running inaccurate smear campaigns by posting their "findings."
i know that wasn't the crux of the article, but i see no reason for that garbage to even be a part of it. you lost all sympathy from me if there actually are people trying to bury your submissions.
but yes, people shouldn't bury things as spam when they are not. - dannysullivan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've had content go popular here before, so I think I produce plenty of good content. I've been producing good content for 11 years now and am widely recognized for it.
I find it hilarious that after we post a story about the bury brigade allegations, 11 (now 12) stories in a row from our site (most nothing to do with Digg) all get buried in the past 48 hours.
If the stories aren't good, they simply don't get diggs. I've said that -- several times here and if the story I wrote. I've made no suggestion that I think they are so good they should all go popular or even get many diggs at all.
It's an entirely different thing for them to be buried within minutes after appearing, before they've even gotten diggs to attract attention. That's a completely different pattern in terms of how we've been listed before. If you love digg so much that you can't stand any criticism of it, fine. Dig the hole, bury your head along with burying stories. But the reality is for my site, right now -- it is clearly being targeted with buries. Not allegation. Fact. I simply can't see who is doing it. But that's fine -- I'll get in contact with Digg's PR team right now and see if I can get an official word on what's going on. They're happy enough to ask me to write about Digg features (which I've done before). Shouldn't be an issue to get some clarification on this. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2buries have been an issue this week- they have. yes, because people wrote FALSE articles making FALSE claims. and you should know those articles were false by now. but you still link to them, and by not expressly pointing out they are FALSE, you give them credence. and you know that anybody reading that article and not knowing the truth would assume those articles were accurate. you used a bunch of lies as the basis for your argument. does your local newspaper cite facts they know are false in their articles?
so yes, by linking to those articles, thereby using them as evidence for your argument, and not calling them out for being patently false, you are accusing me as well as every other member of the so called 'bury brigade'. because anyone that reads your story and doesn't know the truth and checks out your links is going to lump me in with the 'brigade'. so pull those references or state the fact the data they contained have been proven false.
edit- have a good weekend. i'm glad you finally see where i'm coming from on this - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4danny- the article you wrote proves nothing other than the fact that you can rehash a bunch of stories that have already been proven false. maybe that's why your stories keep getting buried? god forbid people actually use the bury function to bury crappy articles like this one.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@dannysullivan
You have utterly confused me. In the first paragraph you stated that by burying this story canewediggit proved that a bury brigade exists. Then in the second paragraph you sated that if he found it lame then "Mark it lame....That's fine". Well, which is it? Is it because he marked it as spam. No one has ever indicated that that carries any more weight than any other marking. Frankly it doesn't surprise me that this article was buried along with other articles about the "bury brigade". People are sick of seeing articles about it that bring no new information to the subject and are just complaining.
@GaffleSnipe
>>"Stop burying based on opinions. Nobody cares what you think"
Why do you think the "lame" option exists on the bury tab, typo? - SilverStar830, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2There's proof, and plenty of it. However, you obviously don't bother to read it or investigate it or you couldn't possibly make that claim, you simply just BURY IT... again, as already pointed out, you and your ilk are absolute proof that it is true.
I love the irony of the DIGGital Brown Shirts hive mind :) - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2so now i've made your post AND an abuse complaint, yay! did you bother to point out the fact that all of those 'here's the bury brigade proof' articles were wrong? did you bother to point out that the users in the "top 50" which you link to were falsely accused? or do just make a habit of using inaccurate data as the basis for an analysis?
looks like the only one who got anything censored here was you- when you sent an abuse complaint that got a thread pulled. maybe i should send an abuse note about you and everyone else that implies i'm part of some bury brigade because you all seem to be able to post the links and claim them as evidence, when in fact they have been proved inaccurate? why do you feel it's ok to falsely accuse others without accurate data? that, my friend, is abuse. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2oh, go and put this in your article- http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_s_Bury_Data_Exposed#c5459347
PROOF that the 'bury brigade' data was wrong. flat wrong. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2danny- i find it hilarious that throughout this thread you keep making the assumption that there is some agenda out to silence your site and never once saying "jeez, the community keeps voting me down. maybe i'm just not producing good content." you really think you're so important that people have developed an organized effort to keep you down (re- "that's not organized?")? dude, check your ego at the door please. you say you're buried for no good reason, well, here's a damn good reason- your article sucks. it's a dead topic and diggers are sick of it.
produce better content and quit complaining. - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5thanks. but the bottom line is that nobody has any proof of a bury brigade. and when they come with "proof" it is inaccurate lies. some people don't want to accept that maybe, just maybe, the digg community doesn't like their article, and it gets buried. there's no conspiracy, no organized burying effort. just people bitching about their articles not getting promoted and insinuating others are part of some effort to keep them down. how many times do we have to see the same damn story, especially considering it was proven inaccurate?
i don't come to digg to see my name attached to multiple articles every day claiming i'm doing something i'm not. i know i've been a dick about it, but i'm fed up.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is