What is Digg?155 Comments
- aaaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+109I wonder How many will read this Article before digging & or commenting
- iFelix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+102What article?
There are articles to read???
Where?
;-) - AmeriMex2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+100Sometimes the header is enough for me to tag it for later reading. Depends on how much of a rush I'm in.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+84I still say there needs to be a way to save an article for later reading without digging it.
I think a lot of people digg an article just to have a way to read it later. - TomP, on 10/12/2007, -13/+50Sometimes I just digg it to read later :)
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40Maybe Digg should offer a "bookmark" button. That way people can bookmark the article for later reading, without actually having to digg the article.
- H3BR3W, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33There's no problem with digging to read later, as there is an undigg option. I do it all the time. It's just commenting before you've read it that's retarded.
- bryxal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28If i read correctly its not as much the digging that's annoying as much as totally off topic comments that demonstrates the user's ignorance
- iFelix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25From the article
"But it does surprise me that so many commenters chose to engage with bntphoretwunny's original comment and argue about whether MySpace is a waste of time, rather than responding to the content of the actual article."
It doesn't surprise me.
More often then not the article is a catalyst for a discussion and that discussion may not be directly related to the article.
I also think that this is not a problem. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21As many of these people have just demonstrated, he is not speaking of people who "just digg an article" he's mainly speaking of those who will spout out their un-educated opinion without reading the article at all.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Yea but will this run properly on Ubuntu?....cuz it's the greatest distro known to man. Wait this article wasn't about Ubuntu?
- zadadka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17IMHO, bntphoretwunny and teradome simply demonstrated a (general) trend amongst Digg users' mindsets.
There's those that post things "willy-nilly"...those that post things that they consider "worthy"...and those that only comment and read (yes, there are middle-grounds for these too).
An awful lot of Digg users go by the title, and respond to that (be honest, we've *all* done this)...only if the title is attractive will they actually read the article.
Even then, I suspect there are an awful lot who say "reading? I don't do reading....give me interactive!"....you know the type, "no pics/movie....no digg"
I could go off ona diatribe about attention spans, but I hear y'all yawning already.
Suffice to say that like Newsgroups, there will always be those who troll, those that go into knee-jerk reaction mode, and those that read and consider carefully...and their Start menu commences with the title's attractiveness quotient.
But unlike newsgroups, the low-attention Digg users can drop bombshell comments and run away without their comments haunting them...
Lesson : Make sure your title is attractive....and relevant. - dan2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I open numerous links in tabs, read them all and then digg them all at once after I'm done reading them all perhaps other people do that too which would explain some of the chain-diggs.
- kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I've watched the digg spy and I've seen users digg one story after another, without pause. On one occasion I've also seen a potential troublemaker go through and 'batch' lame all of the world news. I've also seen some of my friends on some occasions digg 3 to 5 pages of content in a few hours (are they just fast readers?)
Recently I had a user make negative comments regarding the title I chose for a story I had submitted. Having not read it, he did not realize I was quoting from the story. (I had chosen a sensational title, because like all submitters, I too, want my stories to be dugg)
That brings to my theory about this phenomena:
Perhaps submitters who want to be dugg make large numbers of friends for this purpose alone and digg many stories without reading them because these stories are submitted by their friends. They do this because they've figured out how to work the system of 'reconciliatory diggs'. When I see somebody pop up on the digg spy and immediately digg 10 items in a row in a matter of seconds, I just assume they've logged in and are simply digging up their friends stories.
I don't think the purpose of friends was meant for this, but that is the nature of human beings and society itself. I personally like to think of friends (since you don't actually interact with them) more as filters. In theory you should 'friend' people who share similar interests in items and generally digg good quality content. That way, when you log in, your 'friends' can help you find the content you care about.
I've never understood how anyone can stand to have a hundred or so friends. All of those green ribbons and green comments everywhere? Sheesh. Go figure.
- iFelix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Didn't you realise that this is a social news site, you're not allowed to use Digg for purposes other that it was designed for, didn't you read the EULA you agreed to?
- kdavid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I also digg for later reference. There should be a "tag" option besides a digg. I check the front page a few times a day at work but wouldn't read articles while at work. Make it so Kevin Rose.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Unfortunately, teradome's comment didn't come soon enough to prevent the Digg discussion from going off on a long, rambling tangent about the general merits -- well, mostly the demerits -- of MySpace."
That's not exactly a sign that people aren't reading the article. Many online forums, chat rooms, IRC channels, tend to stray from the posted topic. It only takes one person to say something slightly off-topic to start a whole new conversational thread, on a completely separate topic.
Other than that, I agree with the author of the article. - UNL1M1T3D, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13afghanwhiggle: "I work for digg"
Prove it. - mrsmoustache, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Interesting article. I agree that it's very easy to just glance at the headlines and never read through the whole articles. I'm very new to this digg phenomenon but I have been back to the site everyday since I found it. Mainly, it's the Swarm visualization that has caught my attention. It's a lot of fun to see all the news stories spring to life around you. However, it is very easy it is to get caught up in the excitement of so many stories bouncing around you that you often neglect to read the articles because you just want to see what all the other bouncing headlines are about.
- pbull, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11For folks like myself, for whom Slashdot was my mainstay for many years (although I visit Digg much more frequently these days), I like the fact that Digg links directly to just ONE article/story/site, and that the title of the post is that link. I think that encourages many users to actually click on the link... and the fact that the comments are displayed as a secondary feature discourages at least some uninformed comments. But... there are still obviously a lot of users who are Digging without reading -- whether that is for the purpose of saving the link to view later, or just to be a pest.
However, both sites have a pretty high signal to noise ratio when it comes to comments, although personally, while I find Digg commenters more entertaining, I find more Slashdot comments to be informative. But I also think that a lower percentage of /.ers are are RTFAs than with Digg. - Mitijea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I've found myself many times having spent an hour or so reading articles and comments only to realize that I never dugg any (of the articles). When this happens I'll skim back over the articles and digg the ones I find worthy. Might look like I'm just spamming diggs but I'm really just playing catch up.
As for comments, I'm really good at digging those up or down in real time... not sure why I tend to forget the article itself.
As for this article, I found a lot to agree with, though I'm not sure if it is really a problem or not. Some times I really hate when the main threads of conversation skew off on tangents, especially if I'm feeling particularly strong about the intended topic. But then other times, I am happy to read a tangent that takes a lackluster topic into a much more interesting direction. So... really, I can't fault the system when I don't like how it's working at that moment because at other times I reap the benefits of the same mechanisms. - Leftyshields, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I didnt read this article and I totally disagree with it.
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Wow, the article's point is entirely proven by this first thread of comments. The writer is not so much referring to people digging/burying articles without reading them. He's referring to people who make assumptions about the article's content based on the digg title/summary and then make totally uninformed comments (like most of those above...this article has nothing to do with digging vs. bookmarking, and yet the commenters turned it into that).
- noelsusman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"And how would we go about doing that Cody?"
Look at the beginning of the comments. There's a drop down box with one of the choices being "sort by most diggs." Hopefully you're comment wasn't sarcastic because if it was then you look like a real jackass right now. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"There should be a "tag" option besides a digg. I check the front page a few times a day at work but wouldn't read articles while at work."
I agree. If people are intent on using Digg as a bookmarking system, Digg should give in and give the people what they want. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Which brings up another point -- people making comments without reading the comments already posted. If you had, you'd know this joke is already old. :)
- ActiveMatx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I always read the comments first, then the article. I find the comments more interesting, and I even find that I get "more" out of the article if I read the comments first.
Also, the comments give me a nice "movie preview" of what I am about to expect. ANyone else do the same? Or do you guys read the article first. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@afghanwhiggle - Man you really said a lot without actually making a point.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7'RTFA' has been a common refrain since BBS times. Nothing has changed.
- winberrym, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I completely agree. Kids sit on their computers all day looking for friends and waiting for comments, instead of actually going out and interacting with people.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I agree with iFelix's observation, though, that there are times when the topics posted here facilitate a spectrum of discussion. I can also see the point of view of the author, in that he sees the comment section as one in which the topic at root gets lost while people begin to pile commentary with little merit on top, and no real discourse over the subject is accomplished. I find the comments entertaining reading either way. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes I was a little dissapointed he didn't point out the merits of these sometimes digressive conversations. Still, a very good article and one to consider.
- StephenChow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Hell no, think I have that kind of time? I'm hear to make witty comments; when the number in the upper-right hand corner reads "+15" it makes me all warm inside :)
- DopeWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I read the entire story...
... if it's interesting enough. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I often digg an article with the intention of reading it later and undigging it if I decide it isn't deserving later on. That doesn't really do well for the ranking system of article promotion, but there issn't any other way to "bookmark" something on Digg.
Kevin and gang really need to consider offering an option that let's you stack a bunch of articles that you intend to go through later, without it affecting the promotion rank of the articles at that time. They could call it "stacking" where you would sort of stack the articles in a pile that you can run through at another time, reducing the stack. Not really bookmarks, but not really digging. - psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Maybe Digg should offer a "bookmark" button. That way people can bookmark the article for later reading, without actually having to digg the article."
That would suck. It would ruin the simplicity of digg. Maybe they should just make a complicated system where you have to read the article before posting. OR maybe we can just digg down comments that are stupid and have nothing to do with the story. Because thats a feature...... - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I would like digg to have a click-thru on the article and a time on the digg. And weigh the people that click and digg higher than the people that don't click the article.
Eh, something like that. - SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Frankly, it's clear to me that its just a web site. Who cares who says what or who reads what? Does it really matter anyway, 95% of the people who do read the artical and comment still don't know what the hell they're talking about.
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You proved the whole point of diggers. Since No forum has successfully gotten rid of trolls and stupid comments in general. It is our job to undigg them into submission. The fact that we tend to read the buried comments is more for entertainment, IMO. I just have to see what goes on at this freak show.
- bilton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dugg for the summary
- fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately, this is one of the problems with democracy, and Digg. You get people who will vote and/or voice their opinions, even when they're too lazy to actually read the material first. So they end up sticking their foots in their mouths. So many people do it that soon everyone starts talking about a topic that has nothing to do with the article.
- cody50, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Wouldn't it be cool if you could go and make it an option so that the highest dugg comments got dugg to the top of the comments section."
You Can. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I don't have time to read the back and forth debates on digg anymore, sorry."
You're certainly free to do whatever you want. That being said, I don't see the point in coming to the comments page, typing something into the form, and leaving. Not saying that's what you did, but it's what's done. - diggerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4some folks I place on the 'friends' list for the opposite reason... why do I want to know what people who think ~like~ me digg? I want to hear the opposition.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Most of the time I just read the title and come back later.
- bigbchew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why is this an issue? Skimming headlines on digg is the same to skimming print news articles, or flipping through the guide on TV.
With the wealth of everything available now, I'm sure none of us have the time or patience to give anything a chance - unless it's worth it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why make me click on every link? Is that so spam can make money? Sometimes I care less about the story than what the other Digg users have to say about it. Sometimes my comment is directed at what some other Digg commenter had to say. Sometimes the link's server is dead. And believe it or not, some of us actually could concievably know more about the topic than the blog link to the blog link to the blog link to the same story we read three days ago on LXer does.
I would have left this comment in reply to the article on the page itself, but didn't have the patience to go through the list at Bug-me-Not and try every login. I'm certainly not giving my email address just to tell somebody that they really aren't important enough to whine about their article about MySpace not being taken seriously.
Damn, that free will really is a bitch, isn't it? - Dathker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you may be busy, but don't digg something or burry something if you haven't read it to the full extent.
- mhanley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I do often Bury an item without actually reading the article. When you are looking through Upcoming items, and you see 12 articles with nearly the same title as one that is already on the homepage (e.g., how many posts were there on the Tivo/Echostar lawsuit today?!), I feel justified in judicious use of the Bury button!
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I have to read the dozens of stories I submit every day to find good ones to submit. Other stories I'm interested in I Digg and then try to read when I have time.
- coheedcollapse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Personally I use Digg to bookmark sites I want to check out and surf them all later when I have time unless the issue is really pressing (or if I am interested in it more than the others.)
I think it would have been funny if he would have just written "anal sex anal sex anal sex anal sex anal sex" or something like that in the middle of the description. It'd have gotten his point across a bit, even if I do disagree with it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is