What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
110 Comments
- collintheweak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+58Kevin Rose went off on a multiple paragraph tirade about how you, personally, should read the damned article if you want to take part in discussion/digging.
If you're too damned lazy to read the articles on Digg please have the decency not to tell us about it. - perkonis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35I have a theory that if someone could post a Google video of a Wii running Ubuntu while browsing the Apple store, the universe will implode.
- lava, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32did you just compare digg to MLK?
- dssstrkl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31This whole digg army thing is getting blown totally out of proportion. Human gaming is a part of the system, and people need to learn to deal with it. The top diggers need to get over themselves and realize that the same stories would get submitted and dugg if they all leave today. I can't count how many times I've tried to submit stories, only to get hit with the dupe sign. Those of us with lives outside of digg will get the same info, just not the second it comes out. And Jason Calcainis is a troll.
- Evroccck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28I hope this article gets dugg so people can see what kevin really thinks about the matter.
- BluParadox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25"The algorithm does not care about who submits a story, but the quality of the headline as well as the number of images and external links on the article page also matters."
So it really does promote all stories with "Wii", "Google", or "Apple" in the title? - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Well it unequivocally shows that the diggs from some people carry more weight than the diggs of other people. That's how the gang of 30 managed to run their operation. It's partially how they managed to put themselves in a position of power.
- sandpaperback, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23You forgot "Ubuntu".
- lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20+Digg because it NEEDS to hit the front page.
- radicaldementia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16As with any system like this, there has to be a balance between freedom/chaos and control/stability. On one hand, there would be no weighting at all, but it would be incredibly easy for people to game the system. On the other hand, we have too much weighting, where certain "trusted" users have lots of control and new users have none: very unfair but much more stable.
I think when digg first started out, it was leaning more towards freedom, and then now we've been seeing it leaning more towards control, so its only natural that the system fluctuates between the two until an equilibrium is found.
I think though we should all thank the Digg team for actually understanding this problem and reacting quickly, but not too harshly. - jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Guys... that's not exactly right... images and external links on the article page don't matter at all in the algorithm. I'm not sure how that was interpreted... In any case, I think what we were saying is that digg users react to that sort of thing, which can make two equal stories rank differently.
However, there are a number of factors besides diggs which contribute to promotion...and No, we don't think it favors a small group right now, but we are taking steps to ensure that is the case. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13An actual interview transcription would be nice. This really didn't say anything new for people who understand how Digg works. I dugg this only because some people are too thick-headed to understand basic concepts.
I'm just tired of all the complaints by people who can't accept that the users (not editors, not moderators) would bury a story and whine about how their poorly worded headline doesn't hit the frontpage. These people have five people on their friends list and then complain that the guy who has 200 people on his friends list always seems to hit the front page all the time. - dmoney06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Could he really be that naive" indeed.
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10^ I don't think that's the answer. Limiting votes won't cut it. What should be taken into account and weighted appropriately is your history of diggs, and who you dugg. The more you digg one submitter's submissions, the less weight your digg carries for that INDIVIDUAL submitter.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I don't really give two ***** about people 'gaming' Digg.
That said, the whole concept of 'secret sauce' makes a mockery of the marketing that Digg is some kind of democratic system. As Stalin once pointed out, the true power is held not by those who vote, but by those who count the votes. - UrlorJkron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think Digg needs a Digg section.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@geekee,
actually if you look at international news you might discover that every other country's news is covering the dumb crap bush is saying/doing to mess up things and only CNN/FOX/ABC, etc... and their affiliates are ignoring or avoiding these stories in favor of Jon Benet and cats stuck in trees. - Tazmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9What about articles that are buried only to be resubmitted by one of the top 30 and get 1000+ digs. That's not right. That's "manufactured popularity" and should be stopped.
- yllabianbitpipe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The only honest solution is for Digg to encourage more of the users to participate in the digging and story submitting. I think way too many people are just reading the front page stories. The more people who get involved, the less weight the digg-mobs will have. Eventually they will be outnumbered.
Same as our political system: you don't vote, your vote doesn't count and you can't complain. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Of course, any of us with a security/programming mind could poke holes in any concievable algorithm proposed in this "fix". No, I'm not going to iterate them like in my usual ten-paragraph concordances plus footnotes; I have work to do and I waste far too many words in here just to be flamed over and over.
All the howling would be worth it if it were about life/death/liberty/saving butterflies. But it's a goddamn WEBSITE! I honestly hope there's never a day in Digg's life when a crack tem of tittering teeny-boppers aren't hatching new schemes to "game Digg" with their stupid high school stunts, if that's what pops their sprocket. The stories are the same no matter what, anyway. - docholoday, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's a website people. A website. You know, those things you read when you should be working on your TPS reports. For effing sake, let it go already.
Ok, so some douches are gang raping the front page, you didn't seem to care a month ago while their stories seemed interesting. Honestly, I don't care who submits something so long as it's interesting. If it's interesting I read it. If it's spam, which would be the only reason for someone to "game the system", I bury it. You all should do the same. - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6golf clap for perkonis.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"i don't see what everyone is freaking out about. the top users are hitting the front page more because they submit more good stories. ever stop and think, just for a second, that the top users actually find good stories?"
When real journalism is passed up in favor of the latest thinkprogress.org story on Digg, I think it has little to do with quality of stories. It has much more to do with people and their minions pushing their political agenda on the silent majority who are too lazy to look at anything other than the front page. - ajskhan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4CNN style anyone?
http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_erupts_over_who_controls_headlines - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Hhhhhthealien
I was agreeing with Resolver. Guess I'm Mongoer than you thought! - piper999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think the formula for putting things on the front page takes time into consideration, amongst other things.
The older a story is the more diggs it takes to get it to the front page. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Digg is getting to be more about fighting over stuff and less about good content, I find myself using digg less and less as time goes by.
- illegalchuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3IMHO, the algorithm is already overly complicated. By adding further secret sauce it will only make the holes worse.
- jasyn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13it speaks of your mom and the highly innappropriate and seemingly inhuman positions she attained while trying to forcibly copulate with her pet chihuahua named guunga
- Tazmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look at this search results page for what *I think* is an example.
http://digg.com/search?area=all&age=365&sort=new&search-buried=1&s=bill+gates+doom&submit=Search - patrickweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This article makes it sound like digg's algorithm is a few thousand lines of if then statements.
- LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Some users' diggs have more weight than others? Damn, that sucks. Why not have all the diggs be equal and be done with it? Popularity contests are for high schools, not tech sites.
- siouxmoux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And how many people are losing sleep over this Digg Controversy??
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2or hate Bush
- FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well... that makes sense.
although, i'm confused as to how an algorithm can judge headline quality.
(unless that just means spam-y type stuff) - PsychoPNut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I still am a dedicated digger but it has been pissing me off lately to find out about all of this crap, I know it has been going on for a while but man....
"More diggs = Front page." Is that to much to ask? - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10It's funny that they want to keep the promotion algorithm a secret to prevent gaming on a website with a userbase that's in love with the open source concept of perfecting things.
Anyways, I think a simple solution to these problems would be to give each user a limited number of diggs every day. It would cut back on the astronomical digg counts for each story, but it would prevent people from easily digging every story their friends submit.
The more complex the promotion algorithm becomes the less democratic this site will feel. I think they should keep it as simple as humanly possible. - bloodborne, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Good to see that they're tweaking the algorithm to help break up some of these "digg-gangs." Digg is my favorite site on the internet because of its democratic nature; anything that goes against it (either from users gaming the system or from ninja moderation from digg itself) must go.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The world really *HAS* lost it's mind!
Ok, that does it. Beer, everybody! Time for beer! - Riptide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yay, finally someone with common sense instead of stupid propaganda. A little up thumb for your cooment
- docholoday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed. This article is very biased. They were ready to hang Kevin and Jay before talking to them and thankfully restrained themselves.
- Resolver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i'm not saying this isn't true, but i'd like to see an example of this if i'm going to believe it.
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I still don't think that the suggestions made are going to solve the core problem because it will mean back-slapping and egos will still be around - it'll just take a little longer for the back-slapping to take effect.
What do I mean? Well, top users add other top users as friends, and lower users add top users as friends too. Top users still digg each others submissions (circle-jerk, as some other people have put it). That means a queued story might have 20 diggs. In the future those 20 diggs may have less weight than they do now, but it still gives that story an unfair advantage (visually, if nothing else: 'oh wow, 20 diggs, this story must be popular'), and so there's a good chance it'll still carry on to the FP anyway.
The new algorithm changes sound like they'll help, but only to stem the blood. I think to pull the knife out, the whole idea of ranking users needs to be done away with and submissions should be anonymous. I think those combined with the already-proposed changes would be the best solution. The algorithm changes would mean it'd be more difficult for groups of close friends to circle-digg stories that they paste to each other in IM/IRC/E-mail etc., and the anonymous posting would mean other digg users who have no actual contact with the submitter can't digg stories based on who submitted them.
Beyond that, digg needs to decide whether it's a news site or a social bookmarking site. I cannot see how it can be both. If it's news, it simply HAS to be fair, giving every story a fair chance so that the story quality alone determines the promotion or otherwise - but then it isn't for social networking. If it's social bookmarking then fine, friends groups, ranking and blind-digging is an acceptable priority over sheer quality of article - but then it isn't a reliable place for news. It can't be both. - Slick50, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5WHO CARES? If you don't like it, don't use the site. Or here's a better idea; start your own site and run it how you think it should be run!
- Lazybones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I like the idea of the system treating groups as one mind. That should in theory balance out the old schoolers who always digg the same things, with the lower ranked noobs who have fewer points toward the score.
I do however wonder about the article content check system.. Really despite the rules how often to we see a link to a blog about a story instead of a link to the story more directly from the source? - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Please stop whining.
- Resolver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@docholoday
thank god for you sir. maybe people will finally lay off. - detonate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2""So... We... the epitome of democracy, don't do it right. Who does?"
As far as I know, nobody."
Here in New Zealand, we use the MMP system of proportional representation. This matches the number of representatives for each party directly to the percentage of votes they got nationwide. The only caveat is that your party has to get a minimum of 5 percent of the vote to be represented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional - Resolver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i guess your argument would hold true, except for the fact that the total percentage of business & politics catagory submitted by the top 5 is a mere 15.9%. keep in mind, also, that politics occupies only 2/5 of that catagory.
i'm not sure they're that adament about pushing agendas. although, i see where the suspicion comes from. - mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article was a little short, but I found it to be satisfactory. Now we and (more importantly) the disgruntled users have a better idea on how the system works.
I'm done obsessing with this issue. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is