What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
71 Comments
- dub2, on 11/02/2007, -15/+73but you're here to comment on a story submitted less than 3 hours ago about how little you're on digg? something tells me you're trolling digg-related stories to tell people how much you don't like digg. i'm willing to bet that you actually love digg, but are having trouble coping with your loyalism to netscape/propeller.
- DigiDave, on 11/02/2007, -2/+43And maybe the backlink spam is gone - but now I get shouts up the wazoo. Trading external spam for internal spam.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/02/2007, -2/+29I have no friends. Problem solved.
- inactive, on 11/02/2007, -6/+30Actually I read it at the source and saw that it was on digg, hence the quick comment
- radicaldementia, on 11/02/2007, -2/+25I got so fed up with shouts I had to fully disable them. They are undoubtedly the worst feature ever to appear on digg. Maybe some people use them how they're supposed to, but the vast majority just spam the hell out of their "friends".
In my opinion, digg is taking the wrong path to combat spam and lack of quality. Instead of turning digg into a shouting contest, I think they should be taking a trusted-user approach. Back when the top user list was still around, I think the front page articles were much higher quality, real news as opposed to top 10 lists and stupid pictures, and the site was more stable in general. The system wasn't perfect, but for the most part the top users were known to constantly submit quality articles. They dominated the front page, but other users could get articles promoted too. It just took some effort and time to build up a reputation as a quality submitter. Now digg is more of a free-for-all, and it's a lot easier to get "OMG BEST PIC EVAR" on the front page than a real news article. - DigiDave, on 11/02/2007, -3/+21Yea Dub2 -- I'd look into Charbarred history -- he/she (sorry, I really don't know) has been part of Digg's community for a long time. Not a troll at all.
- Okari, on 11/01/2007, -1/+18It's almost the end of Oct., and there's still no pic section.
- DigiDave, on 11/01/2007, -3/+18I disagree. Nothing about emberjohn personally -- but with shouts what I see is brand new users (or users who used to never be active at all) coming into the scene and getting a 50% front page ratio or higher. I just feel the ethos has changed on digg. Less about content and more about shouts and rubbing other digger's backs. When I see a submit get 60+ diggs in under an hour -- I think something is wrong. Is that just me?
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/02/2007, -9/+21Wait, so you blindly digg stuff without reading the article? That's exactly what Digg is trying to prevent, *****.
- tomboy501, on 11/01/2007, -0/+11That's a very good point. And right on the money.
And if you do the math on that, digg didn't do anything to improve the quality of content that is dugg to the FP with the changes...just made it worse. Because there are now two available strategies to game the FP: the popular user model with '500 valuable friends' digging every submit....and now, for the newbie...you can grossly abuse the shout feature and get the same result.
Good times! - cyberpope, on 11/01/2007, -3/+14I've been with Digg for quite some time now. I don't believe the profile change is that bad. I open each digg story my friends have dugg that look interesting in tabs, then open the articles. if I need a mirror I look for one among comments. I read the article, look at the comments, then decide whether to Digg the story or not. Don't quite understand why charbarred finds this change so bad.
- clickwir, on 11/02/2007, -0/+101) Partner with Metacafe
2) Link to fake videos that draw attention
3) ???
4) Profit. Sadly, no joke. - cyberpope, on 11/02/2007, -2/+12Dammit couldn't get this thing in the edit box fast enough bah. Anyway just noticed Char happened to have quite a few more friends then I had thought he had. While I can understand his plight a little more, I like to think you should befriend people you actually know and have relations too. That though is a completely different issue but that's just my 4 cents (CAD).
- Firehed, on 11/02/2007, -0/+9I didn't get spam via Digg until this change. Now I've got a bunch of random people friending me. I don't use the friends system at all, but I thought I'd check things out. Turns out that every one of them was someone who'd joined quite recently with five or so submissions from a single domain with next to no comments or diggs but several hundred friends.
Needless to say, I didn't bother making the friendship mutual. - platypibri, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8Out in the light?!?!?!? Under the burning daystar? Wait... moonlight is just reflected sunlight. Why don't vampires burn at night?
- verge, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11question, from a USER perspective... is the time that's allegedly saved by not viewing seo spam offset by the time spent wading through myriad shouts pimping the sender submissions. if i turn shouts off, am i left with the old digg? no. my friends submissions are now more difficult to view and digg.
as many have said, the friends submit page was the heart of my digg user experience. the article is well-written, thought out, and is a good submission. i didn't find it through friend's submissions because i unfriended the submitter because of multiple shouting of stories. i love many of emberjohn's submissions and digg them if i do like them. i'd digg them more and find them more easily without the changes that were done for whatever reasons.
i look forward to the pictures section and other ui changes that maybe in the pipeline. the verdict is still out for me, though, on whether the fp has more quality stories now or whether the site structure was optimized for ease of use. - Richandler, on 11/01/2007, -1/+7I think the whole site should be this way. Seriously unless you have read the story you should not be digging it.
- floodyberry, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6A new user shouting their story to 500 people has the same effect as a popular user with 500 friends following everything he/she submits. The only difference is the new user is "spamming" while the popular user has no shortage of users willing to digg everything he/she submits for a chance at forming a "valuable relationship". I suppose shout spamming might seem like a travesty if you had worked your way to the top of the heap with "valuable relationships" i.e. submission and reciprocal digg spamming, but in the end both strategies are merely exploiting the submission model and neither are particularly conducive to good content.
- platypibri, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6That's my policy. I like to make friends mutual, but only if they look like they are serious diggers. The joined yesterday, 500 friends today folks don't need me.
- HappyScrappy, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5There are more comment spammers than ever. I see 10 a day.
And it keeps getting worse. - aboyd, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6What's worse is that some resourceful digger used the digg API to build a photos section over a weekend. It's still out there, although I don't recall the address. But it worked very well -- using the API, he selected stories that had [PIC] in the title, and put together a very Digg-looking list of stories. It was great. If he could do it in a weekend, I'm not sure why Digg itself cannot do it in 6 months.
- joegibes, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6I just look at stories on the front page and maybe in the gaming section as well.
If I get bored, I GO OUTSIDE. - robwilkens, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5If they eliminated the spam, what's with all these Apple posts and similarly the FiOS ads posing as stories
- Bamborzled, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4I agree. Within a month of opening up my shouts page, I now have 8 pages full of shouts in my inbox. And I just got two more! This is ridiculous how so many people could spam me so many messages.
- musicbear, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4I have only token friends myself, and even then I couldn't understand a good use for Shouts. I'm not sure why profiles is such a difficult thing, it seems to me it needs to be streamlined so you click on all friends or individual friends and see their stuff in a list like normal and move on. If you want to break this wide open into a diggmyspace... well... then they need a serious rethink.
They also need to get a little bit more hands on with digg. They need to have a scraper that forces onto the front page all the top stories from all the major news feeds in their proper categories multiple times per day. That way, amongst the user submitted kitten crap, I can see all the actual headlines and have the opportunity to digg and comment and to also be able to use digg as an actual one stop news gathering place. It would bring the maturity level of digg up and it would allow folks to concentrate their time on wading through actual news and not blog spam and kitten videos.
The hands off thing is cool when it was niche tech site, but now that it wants to be a social networking news "thing", the editors have got to get a lot more hands on and they gotta make the social stuff simple simple simple. - Rawler, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4how many times must i tell you that vampires do not exist platypibri! This was my proof all along...
- bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Speaking of spammers... ^^^ What an *****. Buried, blocked, and reported.
- RockinGoodNews, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3I would love to be your friend. However, I have no friends. As such, it would likely be tough for me to be your friend.
- bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3I buried this because it was from emberjohn, who's one of the WORST of the shouters.
- bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Did you notice the submitter of this post (emberjohn) is one of the worst shout-spammers? Bury it.
- Cameleopard, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3I think that was a step in the right direction, but I also think you shouldn't be able to digg a story until the link has been clicked, further frustrating spammers.
- haooken, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4"How Digg fought spammers and increased page views in one fell swoop..."
Started counting spammers as pageviews! Brilliant! - Sazime, on 11/02/2007, -3/+6I find your comment and the fact people agree with it (+5 Diggs right now) deliciously ironic.
- WisR, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2If they were after truly high quality, the only place a digg button would be allowed is at the end of the actual article, not even on digg itself.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Could make a decent band name, though...
- m3mn0n, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2The excuse is "we built it with a thumbnail section, so bla bla bla our 100+ servers bla bla bla it takes longer"
Screw the thumbnails. They really should have just made the section, did thumbnails later. The demand is there, both for people who want it for viewing pics and people who want it for blocking pics. - Rawler, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3The good thing about all of this is that the chance that a developer somewhere will listen to the individual user is higher than, say, in politics.
- captaindigger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Fighting spammers by making the browsers' back button the most important thing on digg. Makes perfect sense to me.
- emom, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3This guy thinks a Digg change has an effect on Google Page Rank? WTF?!
- xman2, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2what about people spamming on comments??
- suxmonkey, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3I'm a moderate shouter ... I accept shouts from friends only, not everyone ... and I send some out each week to people who have shouted me or expressed that they are fine with receiving shouts. However, I can see that if people didn't want shouts with stories at all and did want to use the shout feature to talk the shouts could easily end up being like junk mail: a lot of filler between real messages. I just wish they'd separate out the two things - Digg story sends and message shouts - to deal with the problem once and for all.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 11/02/2007, -4/+5He already said, *over 6 hours* before your comment, that he read the story at it's source. Please make an effort to read beyond the first comment before posting.
- Doug3242, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Only Google cares about nofollow. Dumbass.
- reddfox321, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2MtheoryX... I don't think you get it
If char wasn't digging the articles in his friend's profiles without reading them why is whining about not being able to? Especially when he said he can't wait the minute to open up a web page to actually RTFA.
Bottom line:its still spamming. - RockinGoodNews, on 11/02/2007, -2/+3I don't even know what the changes are. But I like them. Or at least I think I do. I'm not sure. Occasionally I forget.
- Wraithius, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I concur.
- anaesthetica, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I look around, I look around, I see a lot of new comment spammers. (diggers laughing) Shut up. which means a lot of you have been breaking the first two rules of digg club.
- arjie, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1There's a Firefox script (or plugin) that does that. You get a little bar on the top. It got annoying after a while though.
- arjie, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I go by comments. That's what really shows bots up. Even if they do only two or three people every few days. Though one huge paragraph of 'added as friend' is instant red light.
- bamapachyderm, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The problem is, when you get 20 of those ***** a day, who has time to go check their profiles to see if they're shout-spammers or people whose stories are interesting? I gave up and don't even look at "new friends" any more. I started blocking the pathological shout-spammers (yeah, the ***** who just joined yesterday and appear to barely speak English) so I could keep track of them and bury all their *****, but that's a massive waste of time.
What's funny is on some threads, you can see all of them in the comments (I know it's them because they're blocked). Of course, those are the ***** posts that end up getting front-paged. Bleh. -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is