What is Digg?60 Comments
- benw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+57Digg users "broke" this news, did they? How did they do so, oh genius guru? They did so by READING IT ON ANOTHER SITE, coming to Digg, and posting the news.
That is not BREAKING THE NEWS.
That is READING THE NEWS SOMEWHERE ELSE. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Whats the surest way to get astory to the front page?
Start title with Kevin Rose. - donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Yes. But that somewhere else doesn't have the power to disseminate the news like digg does. The average person only has a small window of sources from which to draw information. Hence the existence of content aggregators.
I used to use google news and slashdot. But digg gets breaking news stories submitted hours (sometimes DAYS) ahead of other aggregators. - RaysinX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14most important line :: 20 new features by the end of the month
- burnttoys, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16That's just what they want you to think....
- zip22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11theres a "Topic:" field in each post. its right next to the bury box
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11And it took about 10 seconds on various message boards I browse.
Funny, that. - lava, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Well, aren't people the ones that make the news in the first place? Why would machines break the story first?
/meh - d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah, but did it beat Drudge?
- Battleman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"We have 600,000 registered editors bringing content to the site."
With all due respect, how many of these actually "bring content"? And how many of those that actually do submit stories actually make it to the home page?
Probably more accurate is that we have 595,000 "readers"...
At the end of the day, there is a finite amount of news to cover. - pravinkumar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I agree
- pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Link, or otherwise substantiate, please.
- donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Tialys
Google and Yahoo also aggregate news stories that other people break (just not as quickly). They also never lists stories faster than Digg does.
Did you read the article? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry, did not mean to come off like that, more pissed at Digg taking away editorial functions from the users.
- dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3the same news stories "break" on hundreds of news sites, and just for the record, they all get it from the original source that "scooped" the story. Digg gives news stories another avenue for dissemination, but that does not make it any less legitimate at "Breaking News" than other outlets. But one key difference @ Digg is that no one single editor read it elsewhere and decided it should be on the front page - WE DID! And in this case, in less than 3 minutes. Democratic Journalism at it's best. Impressive.
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4207 - spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Exactly what I clicked on comments to say, digg did not break the story, by it's very nature digg *cannot* break stories
People have always, and will always be able to break stories faster than machines, who do you think writes the *****? - StephenChow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Are you sure? I remember a story only had two diggs and it was on the front page.
- iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Ban the pessimist digg-downers. That is the only thing I hate with Digg. When people are digging your reply down for nothing.
- bimmerboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Woopty-doo! The person who submitted the story is probably the web admin or the writer where the news originated from.
- Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Who is Ronald Dumbsfeld?"
You're not the only person to ask that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/middleeast/10marines.html - pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Doc, fair enough, that's why I said 'or otherwise substantiate'. I guess it was too much to hope for a screenshot, but that would require some crazy sci-fi foresight, so that's understandable.
As for the Alexa thing, I'd be curious to compare those numbers to about a year ago, beofre digg got big attention all of a sudden. Could be the tail end of a spike, and if so, gooooood.
Dunno, just my $.02 - tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, like every story on Digg, it had to go somewhere. Maybe you could look in your browser history and see where the actual story was?
- Quiplash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It should be:
" We have 600,000 registered editors bringing ATTENTION to content to the Internet."
Digg is a magnifying glass, focusing the sun's rays into a single deadly point ;-P - pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Doc: *****, I meant to digg your comment up, but I dugg you down instead by accident. Frakking trackpad. I've mentioned this before- I wish we could edit diggs for a limited time the way we can edit our comments.
Anyway, you bring up a good point, and I actually ran a search for 'Digg going under' and came up with nothing, which *is* kinda suspect, given the ammount of *****-slinging that goes on on tha intarwebz. - blankartist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One down, two to go (P, VP).
- pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dracostimpy- I never said it *was* biased, and, personally, I think it's a ***** shame, and that it should get more 'airtime', because it's the only way to build awareness and to spread some truth, and get people thinking for themselves. But that's another issue entirely.
My point was that the Rumsfeld story was a news item about a unique and very timely event, as opposed to a report of things that happen often. Unfortunately it's a lot easier to gloss over "While the U.S. was busy voting, Israel was busy killing Palestinian childre" than it is to not notice "Rumsfeld Resigns" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hard to post a link when the story is already gone from the front page.
Basically it would seem USERS ARE NOT ALWAYS IN CONTROL OF CONTENT.
From the Front Page link that was removed, Digg is 86th on Alexea and falling. And you can kind of tell, far less users it seems more recently. - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2DeusMachinae,
Am I missing something here? Where in the world did anyone not confirm that Israel killed 18 people on the same day as the election? How in the hell is that inaccurate? It's a FACT, and if the submitter's headline is a bit angry from that fact, does that mean the fact is suddenly "inaccurate"? Where are you going with your argument, because you are spinning this like Ken Mehlman when asked if he's gay? - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So biased topics don't belong on digg? Funny, cuz I don't see anti-MS/RIAA/MPAA headlines being buried for their obvious bias. And I don't see where the actual story itself is biased... it's linked to The Guardian, which is a fairly well-known international news source.
And Pablo, yes this stuff does happen all the time, but that's probably because it can go on without public scrutiny thanks to people like DeusMachinae who bury "biased" stories like that. - pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's an interesting concept, and it would certainly expand the discourse if you have to validate in writing a digg down. On the other hand, I can also totally see comments like " 'cause you're a dumbass" etc. start becoming more common.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I often get dugg down due to my name.. but if I make an especially good comment diggers are able to ignore it and focus on the content within my comment instead of my username. It would be nice if I weren't judged by it so often though -- I asked once if it was the reason people were burying me and they admitted that it was.
- pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You can reply to the originating message by thread. If you sort your comments by date, as opposed to by digg, you may see this more clearly.
- pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Digg is a magnifying glass, focusing the sun's rays into a single deadly point ;-P"
Now that's style. Nice. The other thing was good, too. :) - cbasst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And they also stole the headline word for word from fark.com
- PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, someone is as jealous as *****. Kevin knows how Digg works. He didn't literally mean break the news - but you knew that.
- pizzaman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Cant wait for the twenty new features.
- DeusMachinae, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4That's because the title is inherently biased and not objective news, douchebag.
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would just like to make sure there's oversight on digg-downers and ppl who bury stories to make sure there isn't reverse gaming going on to suppress certain articles that might be disparaging to certain entities.
Kevin's still working on making sure the right stuff gets promoted, but I hope after that he finds a way to make sure things that get demoted are done so justifiably and not because some asshat like Jack Thompson hired a PR firm to create 80 digg accts to bury anything negative about him. - Tialys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Did you read my post? I stated that the point was that Digg (powered by people) beat Yahoo and Google (powered by machine). I apologize for the misunderstanding with the term 'service'. I meant aggregators.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+120 new features in one month? Wow..
- pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You can block users in your Profile settings
- joshjoneswas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Who is Ronald Dumbsfeld?
- iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Where do I add a block?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think this is another example of Digg and those who run it having an exaggerated sense of their own importance.
Getting wealthy and famous for running a 'Web 2.0' version of Fark will do that to you...
I think the 15 minutes are almost over. - DeusMachinae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If something is obviously biased, you can expect it to be buried as inaccurate. Anti-RIAA headlines are a lot less inflammatory and controversial, plus based a lot more in fact. You don't see to many "RIAA kill women and children" headlines.
That's how the Digg democracy works- deal with it. - iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes there is a topic field. But when you are on the front page, then you can not see in what category it is. Buttercup you are an idiot, you are now on my ignore list, my first one actually. Bye idiot.
And why can not I reply to all posts? Just some comments has a reply box. - cm32438, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1DocWhoWho:
Generally, buried stories still exist, they just are not on the front page. If you remember the headline, you can search for it. Just make sure you tick the 'Include Buried Stories' checkbox.
If digg removed it as opposed to the story being buried by users for whatever reason, though, it may very well be gone. - mariusaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Don't make me be the first person to say it.
- cm32438, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You can only reply to a Parent Comment. Replying to a reply is not possible, so when you are trying to talk to someone who replied to a comment, it is standard practice to reply to the SAME comment, so you keep it all in one thread.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I see Digg just removed a front page story about Digg going under.
Corporate take overs do that.
Say goodbye to Digg folks.....in some cases good riddance. -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is