What is Digg?40 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2of COURSE theres serial diggers. anything relating to kevin rose, past techtv employees, diggnation, twit, the broken, or systm gets IMMEDIATELY put on the front page. doesnt matter WHAT it is
- jmank88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What if the system should be change so that the 'digg' button is disabled until the link has been clicked?
I imagine this would at least help a little, although it would also probably just piss off some people.
-jordan - jasonsbytes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Check this out:
http://digg.com/links/digg_stats_page_with_top_5_visitors - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Alexa is not accurate. People need to understand that.
And yes, I think its very obvious that people are digging without even looking at the article.
A link I submitted yesterday that was title "Bill Gates prefers Digg over Slashdot" and linked to a page on my website that said, "This is fake, thanks for actually taking the time to look at the link"...that sucker got 12 diggs before it even got halfway down the front voting page. The only thing that derailed it were smart people that reported it. See for yourself:
http://www.digg.com/links/Bill_Gates_-_I_prefer_Digg_over_Slashdot_ - megatoast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0jesusphreak: That was a cool test you did.
"Serial Diggers" is the coolest phrase ever. - DubiousChrisJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey jesusphreak,
I think it is a matter of platform. If your blog software is not in the dropdown list, but you still register it, I don't think the blog this link is successful. It still registers that you clicked the link, however, and so lists the person's URL under See this post. My site http://dubiousprofundity.com/ (yes, gratuitous plug), runs on Geeklog, which is not an option in the drop down, and I'm pretty sure I could plug in my URL, and a registered account usr and pwd, and accomplish those results. I don't want to test it though, for fear of being banned for bad link behaviour. - koap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I do the same, I digg first then go back and read later. I think that feature is what's made digg so appealing to me. It doesn't need to be as widespread as say, del.icio.us, but I think for what digg has manifested itself to be, it does very well.
- Polly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"of COURSE theres serial diggers. anything relating to kevin rose, past techtv employees, diggnation, twit, the broken, or systm gets IMMEDIATELY put on the front page. doesnt matter WHAT it is"
You forgot Linux, Mac, Apple, Firefox, and Steve Jobs. - MoWorse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jesusphreak... why take the fun out of digging?
Way Cool on "Serial Diggers"... - super_duper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0who cares? I just like seeing the little number fade away and fade back with a bigger number. Instant gratification.
When I digg a page that I'm not really interested in reading, I digg it just because it's cool. It's like giving it a thumbs up. - disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It depends on your definition of success.
If mindlessly submitting stories, digging every story ever submitted, and generally turning a potentially awesome site into a google-and-apple-wankfest can be considered success, then this is the most successful of them all.
But this site in it's current state is fairly useless, since every story here is just recycled Slashdot and Fark fare and a forum for bloggers to whore out their own worthless crap heaps. - Koldark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am guilty. Since I don't really have time during the day, I digg it, then I look back at the article later on. Or I digg it because I want to be able to find it again.
- shovel10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mmm.. not sure if I get the meaning of this post....
"see how many people are just digging stories without even looking at the link; they are just scanning through the titles and descriptions." - Maybe it's called rss or bloglines (1100 feeds)?
I have bandwidth stealer's 2, probably similar problem. Keeping eye on outcome.
PS. - talking about too much data-generation... I would greatly enjoy a link in your feed as it shows in bloglines, saves loading many profile pictures. Comment reading of good articles is my hobby 2 by the way. - exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sometimes if I am in a rush I'll digg stories and then come back and check them later. If I don't like it, I'll undigg it.
- porplem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lately I've been trying to always read the article (or just click the link) before I decide whether or not to digg it. But yes, I did read this article before I dugg.
- SDNick484, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In related news, there's people on slashdot who, gasp, don't RTFA.
- JhAgA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know anymore... Within the last few months, the quality of the top stories has been falling each day. Just note how many stories has the "the BEST EVER!!!" remark. That's so lame.
Perhaps the next generation of digg will have some kind of moderator (not like slashdot), for example, a bunch of people who often post good stories could have the power to digg more points in stories submited by others.
Anyway, I'm not as happy with digg as I was four months ago. - steve693, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So out of the thousands of people that view dig, there's atleast 13 serial diggers? That's nice. Too bad there numbers are just too small to have an effect on what hits the mainpage.
- cal0001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The original dig users should be the ones who moderate beceause 6 months ago digg was the best site ever. also the kevin rose/TWiT/Diggnation fanboys are pissing me off. i mean we know a new twit comes out every sunday night. it is ok to have stuff like the ipod nano thing but not (TWiT is out Now )for the 22nd time and people who dupe the same god dam stories all the time. we kneed to start blocking IP addresses
- VijchtiDoodah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hehe, I'm the complete opposite from these suspected "serial diggers." I'll click on links and read what's in them, even think that it's great material, but only if I really want to mark it for future reference do I ever digg something.
- FemGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SO WHAT! There are alot haters out there. I have a link of digg.com on my web page and encourage friends and family to check it out. And yes I read sometimes and scan other times. I actually like it when Kevin and Alex read them out, so if it's a high digg I look for it too come out on the video show. Once again, SO WHAT!
- nads, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Deviant Tech no closing a tab isnt and going back isn't.
I said: "That would make it easy to visit a story and then go back to the digg frontpage."
It's a usability issue not a "let me teach this idiot what firefox can do because I'm assuming he doesn't know but because I do this, it's great and so should the rest of world.". - aardwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its the same over at slashdot, except with Microsoft, Apple, SCO, Linux, RIAA, and Apple. Did I mention they have dupes to? It gets better, if your lucky you'll see comments about Natalie Portman, hot grits, and Soviet Russia.
There are a million and one Slashdotisms, and given enough time (And a threaded, moderated comment system) there will be Diggisms. We're just now starting to see them really evolve in 2.0 with all the new users. - jasonsbytes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I often digg a story before I read it because the title sounded like something I'll want to read later. So, I digg it to bookmark it so I can look later.
- Abraxis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone remember the Google Grid predictions? If was itself fictional, but made some good forecasts about the internet. I'm afraid Digg will get ruined by people on soap boxes and fake articles. Until then, I really like it--but take more and more of it with a grain of salt.
It may eventually be impossible to tell real articles from the fakes, ruining the info exchange. - sarasweet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, I am thankful for the "undigg" button once I do have more time to go through my dugg stories. It's like a temporary bookmark for what I think might be cool.
- Solis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I digg storys without reading them sometimes, and quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with it.
- Etunus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0These recent Digg introspection articles are getting me down. To paraphrase Freud: "Just go sleep with your mother and move on."
Why do we need to analyze digg? Why can't we just use it? - Deviant_Tech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quote: "I do the same, I digg first then go back and read later."
What, bookmarks too difficult for you? Digging a story before you read it to come back and undigg later when it sucks skews the digg scoring system and combine that with the Serial Diggers and you narf it up for the rest of us. I mean, how else am I going to know Kevin Rose has a new image in his mobblog!? - nads, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The fundamental problem, that the designers of digg decided they would try to avoid or hide under the rug was - what comes first, digging the story and TRUSTING the submitter or visiting the link and then going back and digging.
The latter seems more like an administrative chore, don't even say that it is not!
The only design change I can think of is using frames when you click on a outside link (eurgh) like about.com does with external links. That would make it easy to visit a story and then go back to the digg frontpage.
Even I have on occasion have TRUSTED the submitter (I'm talking to you jesusphreak!) and when I have some spare time go through my digged stories and read them, as the chances are the story is no longer easy to find. - Deviant_Tech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quote: "The only design change I can think of is using frames when you click on a outside link (eurgh) like about.com does with external links. That would make it easy to visit a story and then go back to the digg frontpage."
Use firefox and middle click links. When you're done reading the friggin article, close the tab and digg or don't digg. Is that too difficult? - moorey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Digg are mostly for links and some comments. Slashdot for discussions. Both has a lot of noise, very little signals.
- pr0t3st, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=digg.com/
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Something I just noticed and I'm trying to figure out - the first person who has blogged this post - I went to the site, and no such Digg is on there. Heck, no mention of Digg is on there at all. It looks like there's someway to exploit the system. Basically people get a free link to their blog, without even having to mention Digg. ?
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well damn, I'm a perfect example of it. Lol. I only read the title and description, and then I clicked your link after I commented (thank God I didn't Digg before I read it). Anyway, I see that you mentioned my "study". Cool!
I'll Digg it now...cause I've read the article. :) - jsk2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0serial diggers will vote for just about any story...or politician.
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yeah, I really wish that didn't exist. It automatically makes everything here at Digg biased.
- monicarocks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1i luv digg
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@MoWorse
Just like drinking, you have to "digg responsibly". :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0could be the worst story ever,... everyone please undigg
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is