What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.87 Comments
- imicvic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+58Hmm, this calculates the average number of Diggs per story on the front page. I suspect it takes far fewer Diggs to make it there, but once you are there, the diggs pile up.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58Agreed. Title is inaccurate. This doesn't show "How Many Diggs Does It Take To Make The Front Page", it just shows the average number of diggs the front page stories got. That's very different.
- BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39You could get 50 diggs spread out over a day, and not get front page, But I've seen a story get 8 diggs in the first 10 minutes of posting and make the front page. So there is no finite number. The front page is probably determined more by frequency of diggs over number of diggs.
- rcvictory, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23DuggMirrored at
http://www.duggmirror.com/tech_news/How_Many_Diggs_Does_It_Take_To_Make_The_Front_Page/ - FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21isn't the "weight" of your digg based on how long you've been a member?
- 3monkeys, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Sorry, inaccurate. The average number of diggs to get to the front page is 30-40 range.
- slythfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Wasn't there a TWiT episode where all this is explained. It doesn't really have to do with a set number of diggs to be promoted to the front page, but moreso to a diggs to hours/days ratio, and according to the category.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15that's because it's a poor quality article from a worse quality blog...
- SpollakPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9People are interested in this because it seems that digg isn't as democratizing as people say it is. I've had friends submit stories that I and other friends have dug up to 20 some odd digs in a relatively short period of time. But be cause none of us are "power" users and we don't' have that many digg "friends" they don't go anywhere.
- WinnemuccaMac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9As Kevin Rose said on a TWiT a while back, which stories make the front page is no longer based on the nimber of diggs. It's a complicated matrix in which time and amount are only two factors.
- ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've seen one with 13. What's your point? I've seen one with 62 NOT make it to the front page but STAY in the queue.
I think that Digg's algorithm has serious fundamental issues and needs to be reworked. It's on the right track, just the wrong train. The weight thing sucks, (if it is true, cause for now it's just a rumor) and the frequency thing makes sense on paper, but not in real life application. I could coordinate 3 or 4 friends to digg my submission at the INSTANT that I submit it. Can I make it to the front page that way? I shouldn't be able to, but somehow I think that the Digg Algo ALLOWS it, although it is hard to coordinate that.
http://www.duggmirror.com/tech_news/How_Many_Diggs_Does_It_Take_To_Make_The_Front_Page/ - CameronKollwitz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I also would think that it may have to do with WHO is digging as well, however.
Kind of like who has the most "influence" in an RPG kind of thing. - BigW, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8ahhh... one, .... two, ..... three.
Three. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is pretty cool. Just a few days ago I decided to do an experiment comparing member weighting to number of diggs required (http://somahaiken.net/digganalysis/) that relates nicely to this.
- danieldaniel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wonder how many Diggs it takes to get the Digg Effect...
- nickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I can't read the article because their P.O.S. server is down but here's my say anyway:
Kevin Rose has said in various interviews and appearances on TWIT that it's not based solely on the number of diggs. Other factors include how fast people are digging it. If a story gets 30 diggs in 10 minutes it will make the front page. If another story gets 30 diggs in 4 hours...maybe. There's no digg threshold to make the front. I've had stories that have gotten more than others on the front but it's because it wasn't dugg fast enough. - IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+722 Diggs in 1 hour and no Frontpage. Possibly because it got burried/the section (Tech Industry News) it was posted in/The people (their history/trends) who dugg it.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is inaccurate. His numbers have nothing to do with how many diggs it takes to get to the front page. His numbers reflect the average number of diggs per story on the front page at any given time....big difference.
- pixelsoup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@popdmb
"that's because it's a poor quality article from a worse quality blog..."
I read the article. It's well written. The blog is called Philosopical Musings. It's an opinion. You may not agree with it, but I've seen far worse blogs than this. Perhaps you should read the article before making such a mindless comment.
- - -
Back to the point. Number of diggs doesn''t determine homepage promotion. If it was as simple as that you wouldn't need a algorithm. - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You're worse than those 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
- RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's awesome. Remember kids, Digg is user driven content, just not driven by most of the users.
Man I love pointing out the cracks in this wonderful socialist paradise. Which requires that you digg me down, of course, but thats life. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe this is an OK place to ask this as it's kind of relevent to some of the comments:
In the who dugg this section, what's with the number in brackets after the name? What's it mean? (And can someone tell me of a comprehensive FAQ/Guide that will tell me about these little Digg details? There's more I want to find out, and Digg's official FAQ is pretty crap.) - Plewt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ZaNkY
Digg only shows the number of diggs not the number of people who buried it. The number of diggs doesn't seem to go down when you bury a story, so a story with 62 diggs might have 30 buries therefore not put on the homepage. - maddie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+430 diggs and it has a rather large font in cloud view...
- LecherousVenom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4501 Not Available.
Yaaay for the digg swarms! Death to Apache! - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Can the digg staff just tell us how many diggs it takes or is that top secert info?
- SillyRabbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Stuart Brown also figured out a handy way for how to kill a web server.
- Fisk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4its not just how many its also the person that dugg it and so on.
- paroxsitic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Back up. They were probably just preparing it for the traffic. It seems pretty fast right now (85 diggs)
- rtakach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Top of the front page at 36 diggs, then i clicked it and the site was down...wtf
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I've seen one front page with 17 and one with 110 and one with 90.
- bokumo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Somebody will reverse engineer the algorithm, or at least the most important factors in that algorithm. It is only a matter of time. Of course the algorithm is probably a moving target.
- ekkalvia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I thought all you needed to do was climb to the top of popular upcoming queue within 24 hrs:
http://digg.com/view/all/upcoming/most - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think an interesting twist would be to capture the number of diggs a story's got at the time of its promotion ... you could do this by capturing the data via DiggSpy, since it indicates when a story's been promoted. Combined with the submission time, you'd have a much more accurate view of what it really takes to get to the homepage. And if you *really* wanted, you could mix in the Bury votes too (also capturable via DiggSpy).
Statistical analysis is hardly my thing, but I think it could be done. - da5idblacksun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3didn't take too much digg effect to bring the site down. it was there I saw it.
- IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ FishPoisonCon:
More like on your activity. - SpollakPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Stupid editor sucks I was in the middle of editing my post and it cut off. Arrrgh I was trying to say if we find a cool story that we wanna share with everyone on here we can't do it cause I'm not on Jason Calacanis' list of top diggers?
And what happens to stories once they leave the upcoming stories section? Why isn't there an archive? You can still get to old stories like this one
http://digg.com/videos_gaming/The_LANBus_Can_the_web_launch_a_real_tv_show
if you know the url but can it be dugg up to the top page again if people start digging it all of a sudden?
What is the logic? - polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3yes, it just shows how many people here actually read the things they digg up or down. I would like to see that as a system wide rule... that you need to at least FOLLOW the link before digging.
- kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, to me this just seems like a test to see how many diggs it takes to get your site knocked out. :P
- Abjure, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"The average was quite astounding" Service Unavailable
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The world may never know"
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You could get 50 diggs spread out over a day, and not get front page"
Yes... isn't that annoying? The queue is dropping stories too fast, and it encourages dupes. People using Digg Spy to find stories see even less, only the absolute latest.
So it comes down to the time of day you post a story, not even necessarily if you were the first to post it.
This system should be revised, IMHO. - rtakach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyone think the algorithm takes keywords and maybe even google pagerank into account? I mean, the formula has to somehow decide that the content is worthy of making the front page, maybe they use an outside perspective or have a database of keywords that get dugg up a lot...who knows...all i know is that there's enough categories and subcategories on digg that I don't really have to worry about what's on the front page.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Is if just me or as the days go by does Digg more and more not sound ANYTHING LIKE the alleged democratic crap its billed to be and its really a total SHAM? - lowandgrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@pixelsoup - I read the article. It's well written.
I'm a little late for this but...
he spelled discover wrong...
So, what did I dicover? (second 'paragraph')
Drink more beer (or zima and smirnoff ice's for some), then it might be a good article, maybe... - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On thing he's right about, Digg activity reaches a peak Tuesday-Thursday. I've noticed that myself after submitting stories on a daily basis. It's pretty calm on weekends and more ecclectic stories get through.
Mid-week, it's all the industry gossip, sensationalism stories from the popular sites (CNet, ZDNet, Tech Crunch, etc).
This may be changing with the new algorithm. - UrsusMorologus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I preferred it
- Hergio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@zanky: Yeah, part of the algorithm is frequency of diggs. Why wouldn't it be? If you and your friends collaborate over the phone or IM to digg a story fast and hard to get it on the homepage, then yeah, it will help the story. How the hell is digg going to know? It wouldn't know your a group or just some people that liked the story. Would you prefer the algorithm work like our government and eavesdrop on your phone conversations and email to make sure you aren't gaming the system?
If you take a look at the digg blog, you'll see that Kevin and gang are already on top of this. If you and a bunch of other diggers are friends and continuously digg the same stories together, then the system will see that and weigh your diggs lightly. Its in the works. - jack56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's the number of stories the user has submitted that have been promoted to the front page.
As for an FAQ, I haven't seen one. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ pixelsoup
From da5idblacksun's article:
"Let's deconstruct this:
"The war we fight today...": His so called "war on terror" is absurd. You can't fight a war against a technique. There have always been terrorists and they have always been dealt with as a criminal issue. Turning it into a war and dropping bombs clearly will never reduce the amount of terrorism - actually, it will only increase it as innocent people get killed."
---
Well there's a well-thought-out observation no one has ever heard before....the blog is nothing more than a regurgitation of everything that's been said since we wrongfully invaded Iraq. It's not well written. It's grossly redudant. It adds nothing new and doesnt properly analyze what we already do know. That was what i was referring to when i chastized its poor quality. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is