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.58 Comments
- kevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -4/+118@kango: You're spot on.. for those that don't remember, back in the day (almost 2 yrs ago) we would promote digg news stories (new features, updates etc.) to the front page w/1 digg. We haven't done it in forever, but who knows, we might if we have an important update.
And yes, we have site moderators that ban spammers, remove illegal content, and keep an eye on things. Always have, always will.
digg on and happy turkey day : ) - cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67*post edited by moderator*
- FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40i'm sorry, but it's known that kevin makes his high-priority posts. he runs the damned system, i think it's ok if he has something important to say and uses the front page to do it.
also, moderators are necessary to any forum like this. they ban offenders, add correcctive algorithms, etc. just because they have moderators doesn't mean that these moderators exercise favoritism over certain stories or diggers.
this is getting stupid. - potlucktechn9ne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35although the comments came from a story 600+ days old
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Buy stocks in tin foil. It's going to take a ***** to build a hat big enough for this guy
- stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20How else do you think those 45,000 myspace passwords got removed off the front page, then deleted? Note: It was 45,000, not 4500 as the title says
http://www.digg.com/security/Roughly_4500_MySpace_Emails_and_Passwords_Revealed
I would post links to dupes to those who didn't see it, but that would be bad, wouldn't it? - black|math, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19If its a post from I moderator about a new digg feature, why shouldn't they as long as its not spamming articles for its own gain?
- kanago, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17You’re an IDIOT!
For god’s sake, we’ve all seen Kevin say ‘quickness’ is used to instantly promote stories. His comment doesn’t necessarily mean there are moderators in the sense you think of them on forums.
Plus, that happened over 690 days ago. YOU FAIL. - bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17'It's a website, who cares', 'meh'
@primehifi
It's so fashionable to be lackadaisical and not care these days. If you don't care why are you commenting on this website you seem to undermine by your condescending tone? - Suspected, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I thought the entire point of Digg as to have a community-driven website? Sure moderators are fine for certain things; however, if a moderator wants an article on the front page, why can't he go about it like every other Digg user?
- stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In the post he linked to, I made sure to NOT insinuate that digg was up to something. Just thought some people were under the impression that there was absolutely no moderating being done, and should shine some light on the subject for their sake.
I also posed a question about why some stories disappear completely. Didn't think there would be this much commotion about it. - gr4v3d1gg3r, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11It's the liberal media scam all over! Like you don't get your usual lies and slander on the front page too ,despite me trying to bury it .
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The mods buried this? lame
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm sure this was back when the site was very new and they just decided it was important to get a story on the front page to explain to a new feature.
- MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I assume it is a ratio of some sort, but regardless it does seem a bit few to cause a removal.
- bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lmfao. You are are wacky, wackyT.
- black|math, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, digg needs moderaters to keep the stories from becoming advertisments. And diggers profiting from digging stories on the behalf of paying 3rd parties.
- Four20, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6http://www.duggmirror.com
or
http://themulife.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/mods4sure.jpg - CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Of course there's mods. How do you think people get banned?
- jasnmb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4wow. someone did anyway. I was watching digg spy and I saw maybe 10-15 people bury this as lame or inaccurate. would only 15 buries be enough to bury a 180+ dugg story?
- nanobot001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow -- pretty fast for getting buried ... probably in less than 90 min.
But back to the topic -- of course Digg has moderators ... their purpose is to kill "spam"; stories that get obliterated along with their submitters are the result of these moderators -- you can't find any evidence because they're not "buried at all".
The problem is not that Digg having moderators -- the problem is that they suck. If an inappropriate story gets to the FP for even a single hour thousands of people are exposed to it -- they are only able to check on things AFTER the fact after someone has alerted them to a problem (if there is a problem).
Especially in the light of those phishing exploits hitting the FP -- and then getting swiftly obliterated (evidence of moderators, not burierers) -- that was a privacy disaster. Its one thing that Digg is allowing spammers to make $$$ off of it by allowing obviously spam posts to get to the FP, or allowing its own reputation to get kicked because the fake PS3 story hit the FP as well.
The story about the phisher's is just a disaster -- and I'm surprised no one else is outraged at it.
The original Digg is gone (don't bother going to: http://www.digg.com/security/Roughly_4500_MySpace_Emails_and_Passwords_Revealed) because its gone. But the comments are live at another Digg:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Tomorrow_s_News_MySpace_Phishers_Jailed - cds0528, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, and this was before the Digg Blog was being used too if I remember correctly, so how else would they tell us.
- joffnz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Maybe digg needs moderators.. lord knows the signal-to-noise ratio here is abysmal...
- xipho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://digg.com/digg_news/Add_digg_stories_to_your_site sorry for the top-posting but here's the original article if anyone was curious
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Big deal. Without a modicum of control there would be total chaos. Moderators are a necessary evil to keep things smoothly running.
- michaelphipps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If this story gets enough diggs - maybe Kev will chat about it on Diggnation?
- MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No see, if they cared enough to do that they would also alter the digg number. Not like they don't have access to that...
- phytonix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Those moderators must be homophobic.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Kevin,
The confusion comes in because there is a group of Diggers who feel these "moderators" are not just checking for spam and illegal content but that they may also be burying legitimate content that casts Digg in a negative light.
There is further concern that arises when a "top Digger" posts a dupe of a story and their dupe makes it to the homepage while the "new Digger's" post gets buried.
I find the second option interesting as Digg ALWAYS stops me from posting a dupe. Does it always stop the "top Diggers" from posting a dupe? - geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From Digg's FAQ,:
"15. I submitted a story and now it's gone, where is it?"
"Newly submitted stories live in the upcoming stories section between 12-24 hours, depending on the popularity of the topic submitted to. After this time has elapsed, if the story has not been promoted to the homepage (become popular), the story falls out of the queue..."
It doesn't say: "After this time has elapsed, if the story should be, in our moderator's eyes, just as popular as anything on the Drudge Report, we'll push it to the home page with just one vote (the submitter's)."
So what gives? Le'ts read Digg's About Us:
"Digg is a USER DRIVEN [not moderator-driven] social content website. Ok, so what the heck does that mean? Well, everything on digg is submitted by the digg user community (that would be YOU!!!)"
The only thing Digg has in it's favor is that screencap is one year and seven months old. Maybe Digg *used to be* moderator-controlled, but no longer is. In which case, nothing is wrong. Now.
Have fun slugging it out with each other while I go read something else. - binky79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sometimes it IS necessary for stories to advance to the front page quickly. Sure, digg is an awesome online social community for some who come here everyday and digg the stories that they feel are important. But first and foremost digg is a NEWS site. And if you cant get breaking news to the front page in a hurry you absolutely WILL be left in the dust. Matt Drudge doesnt have to wait for 35 votes to put a story on the front page.
- binky79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You imply Kevin pushes (what he thinks are) important stories to the front page."
I didnt imply that he does. I said that he should. Digg, above all other things, has to be competitive with other news sites. Or people will go elsewhere for their news. - mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure, submit your stories, but if one of our boys submits one it makes the front page with 1 digg and yours won't with a lot more. That sounds fair to everyone, doesn't it?
- shauncullen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The "I hate moderators" comment right after Kevin's comment is pretty good.
- MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2But the whole point of digg was that there isn't any moderation.
I suppose if they stick to only the news posts from mods, bannings and the removal of spam from comments it might be okay though. - presta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More highly regarded users have a lower digg threshold to get to the front page. Digg employees need even less than that; Seems to follow logically for me.
- dayquil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A good percentage of this community thinks that having some control over what gets attention implies ownership. I, for one, am fully sick of the entire exchange. I couldn't give two ***** if digg has moderators. As long as I continue to get the news I want to see, I'll come back. When that stops, it will be because the will of those who run the place and my interests have parted ways. And I will continue, at that point, to not give a *****, because it is not my god damn business.
Those who think they have some sort of right to dictate how digg operates need to double check their realities. It's a business and it will be run like one. Sit back and read, for *****'s sake. - binky79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I dont think you understand my point.
- nanobot001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, go here instead for all the incriminating comments
http://digg.com/tech_news/Tomorrow_s_News_MySpace_Phishers_Jailed - parthanant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree there are some problems with Digg's sytem. This blogs has covered Digg extensively - http://mediavidea.blogspot.com
- BigBrother87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did you really think the Dark Tipper himself could keep track of every user and find spammers? Of course he will have mods, even if they're not official. We're all mods here, right? Maybe he trusts some more than others. I agree completely with having mods.
- cds0528, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yeah, this was a year and a half ago... Anyway, I say next time a story hits front page with 1 digg, we all mark it as spam, I wonder if it would work. They've definitely got mods though, although I think the myspace passwords being taken down are a better proof than this little picture. For all we know this thing could be photoshopped (probably not though).
- mail2selva, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1yah, moderators are sometimes neccesary
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Let me take a moment to thank the "more equal" members of Kevin Rose's Animal Farm for burying content and putting an end to the social news experiment.
I'll be over here waiting in line for the slaughter house. - geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Just for everyone's information, the "kevinrose" in the screencap is SUPPOSEDLY not the REAL Kevin Rose. Read this June 15th 2006 article on Netscape, called "AOL copies Digg:"
http://tech.netscape.com/story/2006/06/15/aol-copies-digg/
Key quote, from Mike of Newsvine:
"I've emailed Kevin Rose and am awaiting a reply, so check back. In the meantime, a commenter named kevinrose (but who is not the real Kevin Rose; *verified*)..."
I'm confused. Two users can't have the same username... - chrisewalk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8yah, moderators are sometimes neccesary, but a story with 1 digg shouldn't go to the front page.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I agree with that. There's not much of any reason why mods should have that sort of power. Though I suppose if it isn't abused or anything, it's fine.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1EDIT: He figured it out on his own, such a smart boy...
Bury me. - geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0You don't seem to understand mine.
"Matt Drudge doesnt have to wait for 35 votes to put a story on the front page."
No, Matt just puts them on his front page, just as I put what I see as important stories on my front page. No one has to agree with me, and I don't allow voting, but it's my own site, so I can do what I want as the owner, writer, editor, system admin, and if anyone disagrees with me, I don't really care.
Kevin did a strange thing. He gave his website to us, for free, and explained why in the About Us and FAQ.
You imply Kevin pushes (what he thinks are) important stories to the front page. I dispute that contention, for two reasons:
1) the screencap is old as the hills. I don't know when it changed from a moderator-driven to a user-driven site, but it did, so your argument that moderator driven stories are "necessary" nowadays is hogwash.
2) I don't think Kevin pushes his own stories anymore; he just submits them like anyone else. He's popular enough that he's guaranteed front page if he just pukes on Diggnation (anyone recall that episode)?
So what was you point, again? - kirk06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Edit. Deleted-ish.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 