What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
44 Comments
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24No, his idea is spot on. Hide the number of diggs and the submitters name in the upcoming stories list. This *forces* people to judge each submission on quality alone, and not on any other factor.
For example, right now, I wrongly use the # of Diggs when looking at new submissions. If a half-hour old submission doesn't have many votes, I don't bother with it, because time has already shown it has virtually no chance of making the front page. My eyes just naturally skip to those with digg numbers 10 or greater, and then I vote from there. Even worse, sometimes I just sort by "upcoming stories" and digg from there, because those definitely have a chance of making it. I shouldn't do it this way, but it just feels natural. Of course, the big problem here is the higher numbered ones are also usually the friends digging friends submissions. Even with the new algorithm to cancel out the friends digging friends problem, the digg number is still intact in the upcoming stories list, and still provides a *huge* advantage for friends digging friends.
But if you get rid of the users names and digg amounts from the upcoming stories list, it virtually forces you to read *everybodys* submissions and decide independently if you like it. It's a brilliantly simple solution. - blindReticle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Wait, wait, wait...
People use digg for their personal agendas, not for the sake of providing the proletariat with useful and interesting information on a daily basis that they can digest and grow smarter from reading and commenting upon?! YOU'RE BLOWING MY MIND. - b7illsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Good points. I've never understood why front page stories remained open for diggs, it's not like it can be promoted any further. If digging were limited to the stories in the cue more people would be digging where it counts. I'm not to sure about the author's idea about hiding the number of diggs until the story reached the front page though. It would be better if a user knew the current number of diggs immediately after he dugg it, this would give the user a sense of immediate gratification while preventing the information cascade.
- melmyfinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Great read and great solutions brought up.
At the messageboard that I run, we removed Post Counts from the public for the exact reasons that you said. - steelmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I feel that Digg can be a game. For example, whenever I post comments I go back to the post to see how many diggs its gotten.
Or if someone submits a story its like a game to see if it can get to the front page. - NoDakMAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I disagree on that slightly. The social aspect is OK, but I honestly haven't been too involved.
For me, the BEST part of Digg is that people add to, clarify and confirm what's in the story. Every time I read the comments to a story I find 2 things:
1) flaming idiots
2) answers to every question I had while reading the article
If Digg could continue to provide the added information without providing a forum for bitter misfits to share their lovely personalities, that would be great. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The holy grail is to solve the Politics sections mess. :)
If you can come up with a system keeps that protets it from gaming, groupthink and conformity, then you've definitely got a robust solution.
btw, fascinating article. Probably the best one I've seen on Digg in a month. - b7illsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@helix400-
I didn't make my point very clear. What i was suggesting wouldn't expose the digg count to you before digging the story. In other words if you don't digg the story, you don't know the count or submitter. After digging, what difference does it make? I think we are in agreement about hiding the information, we don't agree about when the user should see the results. - jtjdt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Life is a game
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5We should get experience points and stuff. Mod-proof armor, a "Front Page Story" spell, gold pieces for every Digg (and you'd have to PAY to Digg a story!). Plus homepage customizations, like in the Sims. You should be able to plunder booty and display it on your homepage. What booty that would be exactly I don't know. Some sort of virtual booty.
You would mod stories down by deathmatching the submitter.
"I didn't like that story, now I am going to kill you." - mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I was ready to pass this one up due to the overexposure of this topic.
This is an insanely fascinating read, and written simply enough for layfolk (like me) to understand. Well done. - Floris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is getting pretty pathetic. It's a great community wth a handful of wankers who think getting the biggest story increases their penos size. No it doesn't .. just digg what you like, and tell your friends about it. And if some article is duplicate, mark it as so. And if it is inaccurate, mark it as so. There's no game to it. It's news, controlled by how popular it is. Nothing more. There is no secret underlying layer of internet filling the tubes here .. massive groups of friends digging and laming stories is not a game, it is abusive behavior by lame 15 year olds. That's all.
- alex.bosworth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Submitted even though he says I'm wrong :P
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's the updated link:
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/spin/spin.html - NoDakMAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry to go way off topic, but Helix I checked that link (satellite footage) and it's dead now. Do you (or anybody else) know if there is another copy somewhere?
Thanks - duketime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One thing that could be done to ensure that Diggs are real is to have the link run some Javascript:
Initially have the Digg / Bury greyed out.
Open the link in a new window (or tab) and at the same time run a brief counter before the Digg / Bury activates. (And maybe have the timeout before they can comment to, people often shouldn't comment on something when they haven't RTFA)
This probably wouldn't impact "true diggers" who go to the content because they're likely to spend 10 seconds or so on the next page anyway, so they won't see any change. However, those who "circle-digg" would have a harder time going about it. They have to click-through from the digg page and have to wait out a timeout. Also, it'll help prevent this blind digging discussed in the article because you have a better chance that people are going to be digging / burying based on the content and not because it already has 300 diggs.
Problems with my idea:
Some people don't want new windows / tabs (I do) and it would be murder for IE users (but they deserve to have a 10 window stack if they use it). A solution would be having a small table in the DB where clicking on a link will "activate" that story for commenting and digging/burying.
It would prevent people who have seen the link elsewhere from digging and burying without having to click to the content again, even though they already know if they like it or don't like it. To me, this is probably a minor problem since people come to digg to find new content and these people probably wouldn't care much at all about something they've seen elsewhere.
Just my thoughts for bulletproofing digg a little bit. - dyl0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Don't agree. The most entertaining part of digg is the social aspect. Remove it and its just a news site.
- migurski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4At least two great suggestions at the end, but I don't buy his conclusion that "Digg will become a user-generated meme, truly democratic." It's quite a leap, and not entirely clear. At the very least, continued experimentation will help Digg continue to evolve towards a more egalitarian-yet-fun experience.
- psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That article makes so much sense, it is assured none of that advice will be followed.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It was an hour long video about a guy in 1992 who recorded satellite signals normally meant for TV studios only. And....I just found it, looks like it was two months ago. http://www.digg.com/politics/Satellite_Feeds_Footage_you_were_never_supposed_to_see
It showed how well known figures such as Bill Clinton, George Bush, Al Gore, Larry King and Pat Roberson act when they didn't think the public is watching them. Absolutely fascinating stuff. The politicians were...well...politicians. Larry King can't think about anything else but getting more exposure. And Pat Robertson is one of the scariest human beings to walk the planet. - mk32066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When I read group think, for some reason I tthought of double think.
- usherzx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@b7illsmith
brilliant idea!
"It would be better if a user knew the current number of diggs immediately after he dugg it, this would give the user a sense of immediate gratification while preventing the information cascade." - Simen, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8With accompanying comments such as this:
"This is how the front page looks on a daily basis.
Article About Digg
Article About Digg
Article About Digg
Article About Digg
M$ vs Apple
M$ vs Apple
M$ vs Apple
Apple vs M$
Apple vs M$
Apple vs M$
Lame Kevin Rose Article
Article About Digg
Article About Digg" - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I *really* liked your article, good analysis!
But I was sad to see no mention of comment moderation. :) How do you think the comment moderation system should be fixed? It seems to be an entirely different animal. - NoDakMAC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like the solutions better than the current environment, but I disagree with a lot of the assumptions along the way.
The story seems to indicate that people who follow 'Top Diggers' are trying to game the system. While a small number may follow that model, most have other motivations. I suggest that many people care less about their rank or power than about doing something they enjoy or getting involved in a community they enjoy.
When I digg a story, it's because I want it to get promoted and read by others. This seems more likely if it was posted by a Top Digger. If there are 6 threads of a story that I like, I'll either digg the most popular one or the one that was posted by a Top Digger. It's rational behavior, not corrupt.
Also, Arrington's point is not lame, the reason we have a home page with the same themes over and over again is because there aren't enough people scanning the cloud. It's a good thing to encourage people to scan the upcoming stories. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, his idea is spot on. Hide the number of diggs and the submitters name in the upcoming stories list. This *forces* people to judge each submission on quality alone, and not on any other factor.
For example, right now, I wrongly use the # of Diggs when looking at new submissions. If a half-hour old submission doesn't have many votes, I don't bother with it, because time has already shown it has virtually no chance of making the front page. My eyes just naturally skip to those with digg numbers 10 or greater, and then I vote from there. Even worse, sometimes I just sort by "upcoming stories" and digg from there, because those definitely have a chance of making it. I shouldn't do it this way, but it just feels natural. Of course, the big problem here is the higher numbered ones are also usually the friends digging friends submissions. Even with the new algorithm to cancel out the friends digging friends problem, the digg number is still intact in the upcoming stories list, and still provides a *huge* advantage for friends digging friends.
But if you get rid of the users names and digg amounts from the upcoming stories list, it virtually forces you to read *everybodys* submissions and decide independently if you like it. It's a brilliantly simple solution. - yottabite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1alex this is completely off-topic - but why are you using random incongruous images to the left of all of your yahoo ads?
- Neuro99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a great article, but I disagree on the proposed solutions.
Proposed solution 1 (do not profile Top Diggers or elevate anybody higher than anyone else) is inconsistent with the payoff/incentive premise of the Digg game theory. As noted by the author of the article: “where non-paid voters are concerned, reputation is the over-riding incentive for voting a story (top-digger status, etc.). If you remove this incentive, let me tell you that Digg will be a very different site than the one we currently know. The “fun” of submitting stories will wear off fast for several users. The number of submits is poised decrease a lot. But then again, Digg has reached a level of maturity which will allow the site to manage the decrease. In other words, Digg could still survive if the number of submits went from 4000 daily to 1000.
If you reject solution 1 and Top Diggers have incentive to get their story on the front page, solution 2 (do not show profile or # of votes for up-and-coming dugg articles) could be easily circumvented. Any top poster could post his submissions on his website or even e-mail his friends and ask them to digg them. - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -2/+3Out of curiosity, what was your last favourite article Digg, a month ago?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just think Digg -- and the Digg crowd -- should just go ahead and take over/take out Google, and kick their ass. One main thing to do along these lines would be to radically improve (and speed up!) Digg's search -- and Digg's user interface in general. Power on the Internet (as in society in general) is all about trust, and Google's lost it for me, while digg retains it.
Digg and its users should up the ante a little bit and pull out all stops to deliver something that truly...delivers! (There's nothing wrong with a little 'groupthink,' as long as its constructive.) - foxgnaws, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All of this digg navel-gazing has become tiresome.
- duketime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know if you (or anybody here) reads reddit, but they have implemented these features (certainly for the reasons stated). They keep track of "karma", but there isn't a page where you can see the "Users With Top Karma" which keeps some of the personal motivation to contribute (your karma), but removes some of the motivation to game the system (there's no official ranking of karma).
Additionally, Reddit has a period after submit where they won't show an article's points, so that people don't see that an article is on the rise and instinctively jump into it. Then after some time they show the points so late-comers actually have a metric to find the most interesting articles.
One other thing is that they only show link titles (no summary), which is both good and bad. It's good in that it encourages users to click through to articles before they up- or down- vote, but it's bad in that it provides you less information to filter on.
I still keep up with Digg, but Reddit's pretty cool too. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg needs a forum for this kind of stuff.
- GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I especially like not showing diggs for stories in upcomming.
I thought it was a good idea not to show the profile, and not allow your friends to see it till it is dugg to the front (or some certain time period).
But Rose and Jay are right, sharing stories is important.
"As a compromise, only show the profiles and votes on the articles that make the digg front page, but make them un-diggable from the front page"
But how to you weight a story once it is at the front? - duketime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I also disagree. The best part of Digg is the turnover. There are few other sites that can provide so many (generally interesting) links daily. If you really wanted a strong social aspect / community you would probably be better served going to slashdot (or even Reddit) where the comments have a much better hit rate for informational / interesting content. Problem with those sites is you have to wait longer to get new links.
On Digg, many users don't seem to be as much interested in really developing the articles through comments, they are already clicking on the next link. On top of that, articles simply don't get enough exposure for real discussion, they float off the front page too quickly. Finally, Digg doesn't encourage follow-up. You can see the articles you've commented on, but you can't jump to the comments and have no means of see who replied to you (the fact that I'm replying to dy10n but am also addressing notes in MyDak's post illustrates this).
Digg's community and Digg's algorithms/site design are trying to stifle community discussion.
Edit: They're not trying to "stifle" the community, so much as promote link turnover and new content. Nothing wrong with that, just their decision. - duketime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Digg would survive a drop from 4000 submits to 1000, but I think you oversimplify "maturity". As the number of submits has increased so have the number of consumers, all of whose interests vary. If submitters start leaving digg there won't be enough content to interest some of these new consumers who will leave as well (good riddance, you might say, but Digg will hurt for this).
I also think you miss the points of the solutions. In your response to solution #1 I assume you mean Diggers have *no* incentive to front-page their story. I don't really think that's true. You still see their name on the story, and there could still be ways to see how active they've been in submitting. As far as solution #2 you miss the point completely. Only digg knows how many diggs or burys a story has and if Digg hid this information it wouldn't necessarily stop circle-digging (they can IRC, email, IM their digg link), but it would stop the issue he talks about, people blindly digging or burying a story because it's already been heavily dugg or buried. - gaiserrc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This guy has taken digg way to serious and I for one am getting tired of this BS. You know what, if your tired of people "gaming or hogging the front page" then don't look at the front page!!! Use the topic selector or the upcoming stories tab. Thats what I do... Just a thought.
- marc26uk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Got a 404 on those feeds. damn they sounded interesting, any ideas (tried google, youtube, p2p)
- ARamone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4FIRST POST!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8This is how the front page looks on a daily basis.
Article About Digg
Article About Digg
Article About Digg
Article About Digg
M$ vs Apple
M$ vs Apple
M$ vs Apple
Apple vs M$
Apple vs M$
Apple vs M$
Lame Kevin Rose Article
Article About Digg
Article About Digg - kirakun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Frontpaged stories should continued to accept votes. The vote count is not only for the purpose of promoting a story --- it is also an indicator of the degree of the overall popularity of a story.
Yes, there is no more promotion in the *system* but we still like to be able to say, "whoa, story A has over 5,000 votes and it's the *top* story of the day!" How else can diggnation choose from the "top" stories of the week? - Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3How Digg is a game.
And so is life. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1---damn wrong reply
- Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Digg is definitely a game. I like to troll and see how many times I can get dugg down. If I see myself with -50, which has happened before, I get really excited and happy just to have irked that many people.
Call me strange if you will.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is