What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
98 Comments
- corsairstw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+84Why does it matter who submits it?
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+73He can frontpage an article with a single digg.
- tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47Not to mention leaping tall buildings with a single digg.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37I have. I noticed over 10 sex-related stories out of the maybe 50 that I've seen in the past few days. The quality has been going down.
- hemphill81, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32@imdeanlabouty & spiderland
It was from Digg's official blog is why it went to the front page so fast. I have never had anything go that fast. - DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26I have noticed some changes. I hate to say it, but I think the quality has gone down a little bit. Maybe it's just because I've been a little more critical and reading into it too much, but in my opinion it's gone down a notch or two.
I'm not a top 30 digger. But I'm high enough to feel like I can chime in. I've been keeping my mouth shut for most of this, but it's starting to get ridiculous. Digg should be about external news -- not about digg news itself. That's a little too POMO for my taste. Nobody likes reading the New York Times article about the New York TImes.
My observation: A lot of people are upset because it's hard to get to the front page. That's true. It's hard for me as well, but not impossible. Stop whining and keep submitting diggs. There are a lot of newbies who have risen incredibly fast in the ranks -- some have been passing me left and right -- I say, 'good for them.' I also think they need to get out into the sun more, but hey, it's their life.
They are proof that it isn't impossible to get diggs, it just takes a lot (A LOT) of time. It's not a game or a challenge. It's a tool -- forget the point system. You might be great at counterstrike, but that doesn't mean you're going to be a top digger.
On the flip side: Old diggers, we need to be flexible and evolve along with the site. I don't think we should abandon it outright. So far Digg has been a great moment in web 2.0, media, social networking etc., I don't think it should just be abandoned by some of its most dedicated users because of a little mud slinging by Internet geeks or a change in the algorithm. Lets put egos aside -- get over ourselves and realize that digg is more than the summation of its parts. - hutchike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Are you complaining? ;-)
- Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28@ spiderland -
thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. All Kevin has to do is post *fart* on diggtheblog and it would hit the frontpage, regardless of who posted it. - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21There was a digg news section only for staff members can submit
http://digg.com/digg_news
Not sure what happend to it - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27I invested a lot of my time and energy into digg. It’s correct that nobody asked me to, but people dugg my stuff enough that it encouraged me to continue submitting, which eventually got me into the top 30 users there. Was that the reason I did it? I can say that it wasn’t but that falls on deaf ears.
For whatever reason, after spending so much of my time submitting and digging other stories, I got to the point where I took ownership of a small piece of how digg turned out but what I failed to acknowledge, was how little control I actually had in how digg turned out or how little the users of digg actually cared. As was told to me in follow ups from yesterday, I’m guilty of “rigging digg” by association. Simply because I accept ANYBODY as my friend on digg and yes I have a few of the top posters on digg as my mutual friends. Because of that association…..I’m guilty of whatever is going on…..some kind of smoke and mirrors to pad my ranking to be a top digger. Some kind of back room IRC acknowledgement that if you pat my back, I’ll pat yours. But what anyone who has accused me of wrongdoing has failed to do, was simply look at my digging history. I have less than 3000 stories that I’ve dugg and that is since April, 2005.
But all of that doesn’t matter because the “digg army” doesn’t care about what I have to say. They’ve made up their minds that I have to be up to something nefarious simply because I’m in the top 30 and because I have some top diggers on my mutual friends list. Whatever. - TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27To all of the top Digg users:
Please come back; I miss you guys. You have been here long enough to know that the crowd can sometimes turn on you. It will pass, and I don't think the small vocal group in the comments reflect Diggers as a whole. If you like submitting articles, I like reading them, and I appreciate the work and skill you put into it.
Logic vs. emotion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality#See_also - FluxHarmonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I think there should be a "Digg Announcement" category that people can view that will always put those blog posts on the front page.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I'm not sure why everone is complaing about algrothim change. It is required as digg contiunes to grow to prevent digg from become a "social spam site".
- Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@Tensenki
You make no sense whatsoever. What is windows new site? Even windows NEWS site doesn't make any sense to me in this context.
Amen.. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17two bad yoo never learnt 2 spell
- spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13recursive complaint...lol
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Suprising, Kevin didn't submit it and didnn't credit himself for writing the Blog post like Kevin always does.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Yeah spiderland ... what the hell were you thinking? You completely missed the bit where normal users submit a story then a top user submits a dupe and gets it frontpaged.
Meanwhile, the story itself has to be the most useless, substance-free blog post. - sjalloul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12It shouldn't matter if you Digg from your friends, on the same token if the story is interesting maybe it deserves a read. But many worthy stories lead a short-life, since they are not aggregated in the same channel; this is something that can be worked on by digg development team. It's not a hard concept to improve on...or else divide stories in tiers, this will simplify the aggregation process in bands. I believe this would separate stories based intensity rating, and maybe offer users a way to gauge a percentage from each category. Let me know what you think of the idea! There are numerous way to implement this to the community. This will achieve a level of fairness to all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I think soleblazers mad because they're some of the 11,972 users ranked higher then him.
- SgnDave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11There's nothing wrong with Kevin submitting it himself. If it's a democratic system, he has no undue power.
What *is* un-democratic are folks who submit stories with their friends for the sole purpose of getting it to the front page quickly.
Digg is not a purely fair democratic voting system -- such a system does not exist -- instead, it relies on smart algorithms to figure out what stories are popular. Since the "digg vote" is not taken at a single time, it has to rely on rules and algorithms (heuristics, technically speaking). Exploiting these story-promotion heuristics is like stuffing the ballot box. Changing the algorithm is NOT un-democratic; it is simply levelling the playing field for the people who don't want to cheat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7i thought the top users especially p9 blew this out of proportion simply because kevin had the bad choice of using the word "gaming" to describe what they do. It really was a bit over the top IMO, that they felt so personally attacked by kevin..
i can understand being mifted at some of the submitted diggs but not really the one explaining the algorythm changes. - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16I guess I never understood why any algorithm was necessary other than diggs vs. buries. If enough people are sick of (as an example) mises.org posts or otherwise, they'll mark it as spam anyway, right? Shouldn't the long-standing members who have seen plenty of crud make it to the front page be enough to overcome the newer users that can't tell spam from the-same-old-crap?
- spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The fluid nature of the user ranking system (updated daily) and queue aspect of this site means its always changing. Slightly weighted votes should tend to tilt the FP's bias toward quality as well.
For these reasons, even if you accept "digg gaming", "auto-digging," whatever, as fact, it really shouldn't matter.... If you're that bothered by something, mark it as lame, make friends with others who agree! Build your own network and become a top user too...Wash, rinse, repeat. Just don't expect it happen overnight...it wouldn't be worth its salt as a community if it did.
No one can dominate it forever folks, not even the "top users" That's the beauty of it. It may not be 100% democratic, but its pretty close and its a lot like life. You won't always agree with it and you probably shouldn't...it doesn't mean the system is broken though. - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@whitey
My comments weren't specifically aimed at you, but rather the vocal folks that have blasted myself and some of the other top30, simply because we are in the top30. Do I care that I'm in the top 30? No. But I do care when I'm accused of something that I'm not doing, simply because of my ranking.
As all of this drama has unfolded, I've realized one thing....and that is that I cared too much how digg turned out. It's very difficult for me to let go of digg and I still debate with myself if I really want to. Perhaps I'll stop paying less attention to the comments and just continue digging...
On a side note, I do agree with keeping story submissions anonymous until you've dugg it. I too agree that more people should spend time in "upcoming stories" and finding those diamond in the rough stories. There is truly a plethora of good content there that never makes front page..and that's a shame..
In fact I'd go so far as to say that that is where digg shines.. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I agree with you, spinchange. Are we going to eventually have to "de-friend" our friends to make our diggs count? And what? Wade through 3000-4000 upcoming stories to find our like-minded friends? This would affect comments, too - which I think is a huge part of this site. Digg is always referred to as a community - and the friends feature is key. Otherwise, it would just be a soulless aggregator.
- DragonAura, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16It's a shame that Digg users need Kevin to babysit them... It's nothing but complain, complain, comaplin.
- h0zae, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12in other words -- "Diggers, please come back!"
- optimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Has anyone brought up the idea of making the `Upcoming Stories` page the default for registered users, instead of the front page?
I could be naive, but it took me a few weeks to realize that tab was even there. I am certain there are hundreds of registered users that don't know how valuable their time spent on upcoming stories could be. So, give the Front Page as a default to guests, or mix the no- and low-digg submissions in with the super diggs, and list them all at once.
I really love the tools for viewing upcoming stories, I just wish that people would go there first to have their vote heard.
Any thoughts? - spiderland, on 10/12/2007, -32/+37No, probably because it was submitted by a top 25 user. Any average joe who submitted this wouldn't have gotten it in the front page, no matter what the subject read.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The best way to solve the problem is this:
If you keep digging the same person's stories your vote becomes weaker with each new story. At some point your digg has no effect on promoting the story to the front page.
If the front page is constantly swamped with new stories, your average reader will continue to not bother looking at or voting on new submissions, and digg will be ruled by gangs promoting their agendas. - LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Solve it and be done. Digg is great.
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@GregD
As I've said in other threads: this isn't about the top users. I think the actual problem is the 500 people who friend each top user. And the huge number out there that digg and bury articles without reading them.
The digg system has a fault. Your not guilty of anything (and I don't think most of the top 100 are either). But the fault needs to be fixed.
Digg should reward digging upcomming stories.
Digg should reward diverse articles.
And Digg should reward the first to submit instead of the most popular to submit. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the interesting thing is the inacurate tag doesnt remove it from view, unlike the lame one.
i think it makes it more effective for the censors.. rather than remove an article from veiw and be branded as censors, they leave it in view and let people know they think it is all lies.
It does get abused, especially when the article is opinion or documentated fact. often things just get marked inacurate for the title.
one submitted digg about an amazing little game of 100kb was marked inaccurate simply because the author said the game was less than 1meg.. apparently while 100kb is truely less than a meg, it is too far less than a meg to say "less than a meg"
I dont know, it is just slightly annoying, but i do think it is abused. - zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The quote above was just for fun ..
My problem was less with the fact of weighted votes (and not even with the issues of fairness regarding older submissions being passed over) than the astronomical, and seemingly capless, value of the weighting. It seemed an insurmountable difference that only grew exponentially as they dugg one another perpetually.
I don't think that newbies should have the same editorial value as veteran submitters. But I also don't think that some of the stories that veteran submitters seemed to get to the front page (with so few diggs!) did anything for the quality of content.
Yes, I know you could always digg for better content - but then what is the point of the front page anyways?
As for getting credit, I don't care who the hell gets the credit. I don't care who is a top poster. I wish that weren't an issue.
I just think the value needed to be changed, not the rule. I want variety on the front page. - unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Digg has very little room too maneuver here.
Like MrKite said, a small percentage of digg users do submitting, and a small percentage of digg users actually digg for unpromoted stories.
The vast majority of people just digg from the home page. So a story bounces around for a few hours, gets 50 diggs, and then hits the home page. And then boom - 1000 diggs. OK, we've all seen that happen. Most people digg from the home page.
So digg has been trying (through Digg Labs and Digg Spy) to get people to dig deeper into the site. And of course, cutting down on spam and duplicate posts goes a long way to helping that. But it's having very little effect on the variety of submitters and deep diggers.
By the way, I don't think that changing the algorithm for how many diggs it takes to get to the home page will stop the trend (ie: top 50 have 50% of the home page stories). Som people are so active on the site that they rightly deserve top 50 status. So some stories might take longer to get to the home page, and some might never get to the home page.
But a bottom 25% submitter is not going to suddenly start finding unsubmitted stories if he hasn't been finding them so far. So if the good stories are submitted by a handful of submitters, how is that going to change with any alogrithm you can throw at it? It won't. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"It was from Digg's official blog is why it went to the front page so fast. I have never had anything go that fast."
That was likely due to everyone else who's got Kevin's blog on 24/7 watch trying to submit the same story. You beat them to it, so when they got the Dupe warning, they had no choice but to Digg your's.
----
"I don't root for the looser, I like to win."
You don't like to spell check though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>digg will be ruled by gangs promoting their agendas.
So how is that different from what's going on now? - GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The official statement from Kevin is appreciated.
The upheaval seems to suggest how attached people are to the scoring mechanism.
Only a small minority seem to realize that all statistics about people (and algorithms for working with such statistics) are... severely limited in what they can reflect. (Actually, statistics are, by definition, a summary and can never reflect detail.) In this manner, all democracies are limited. (But then, no system has perfect justice.)
Treat the scoring as a guideline; the objective is not to get the best score. Digg or undigg according to what an article means to you. Don't consider the algorithm in terms of fairness (that would be expecting too much of it). At best, the algorithm can only be tweaked in a manner that appears to balance quality and diversity of what we hope is legitimate news.
I suspect that there is more room for changes in how people participate in bringing more articles to the front. So far, I've managed to find a couple of nice features for this (the cloud view and RSS feeds for friends). But, I'm sure that everyone has there own preferences for this. Finally, my motivation for submitting articles is simply a matter of happening to find something that hasn't yet been posted and I think would be of interest. If it doesn't get dugg, so what? - DaveMode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Then people would just submit the url "digg.com" and we'd have to see it on the front page twice.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've always liked the upcoming stories area, but it seems like in the old days it was more manageable. Nowadays, there are just too many stories submitted constantly, so that one person can't possibly look at even the titles of all the upcoming stories.
Now I hear that there are a few organized gangs of so-called 'top' users, who are hogging the front page.
Perhaps it is those abusers who also clog up the upcoming stories area by submitting just too many stories, many of which are dupes! Many things are killed by overpopulation!
I sure hope this thing gets fixed soon, or digg will quickly cease to be great, and will just become another boring, run-of-the-mill news site. - ERSWeb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey, at least they are being proactive and trying to keep Digg great. (unlike other sites that have gone to crap over the past few years)
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There is a new way that some people are 'gaming' Digg, and I would lke to see a modification made to address the problem.
The new 'game' is to 'report as inaccurate' any story that they disagree with. This is particularly done in the politics category.
It is a sleazy trick, and effectively limits the democratic nature of digg, by giving everyone, particularly some organized 'gangs who are gaming digg...the power to curtail the free speech of others. (Or is it 'freedom of the press'?)
This feature MUST be changed for the good of Digg!
One possible solution would be to make it impossible for any number of votes to remove a story, once it has made it to the front page.
Removal of stories should ONLY be done by the digg staff, and only perhaps if stories are found to be slanderous to individuals, or otherwise promoting anything illegal that might jeopaardize digg.
It's pretty easy to see how the 'reported as inaccurate' function can be, and is being misused. - spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So it's OK to use the "friends" feature and "dugg upcoming" and "agreed upon" just as long as its in moderation, or what? Additionally, if you regularly make friends with other like minded diggers, aren't you gradually limiting your future ability to getting a front page story? Either its a community site or its not. Digg doesn't need to be some king of ideologically pure democracy...especially when the votes are weighted. This seems to be getting kind of schizophrenic.
- bluephoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The quality has been going down since the new version of digg came out people. This latest development is just further proof that the website's credibility is going down in a spiral...It's too bad, I thought it wouldn't happen, but digg doesn't stand out anymore for tech news. I don't even bother commenting much anymore on stories because it's a waste of time. People are tired of hearing about it, the top users are fed up (and actually it isn't their fault , it's the inherent nature of the system that caused the problems recently) and the stories are becoming less and less relevant. Its really too bad.
- RobertBogley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really would not bother to submit a story to digg if I knew stories submitted by others would get a higher priority. Obviously a waste of time unless I wanted to commit substantial time to building a top 30 user profile, which is I have to say not at the top of my list of aspirations.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's the tone, not the content, that gets you dug down. You're being antagonistic. Polite posters who don't condescend, antagonize, or bully are on equal footing with everyone else on the site.
Now about the "thought police", I think you're dismissing the masses influence on popular opinion. Some ideas are just popular and people generally agree. There are plenty of people who just want to digg up a comment to say "me too" which is fine with me. "me too" classifies as freedom of speech. - eug2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@DigiDave
Well said. Digg is supposed to be about stuff not about digg, so stop talking about digg and start talking about stuff, before there's nothing left to talk about. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3..I'm glad you brought up my digging habits and my interests, b7illsmith - because they are specific. I primarily am interested in world news and politics and that is what I digg, no matter who submits it. I have gravitated towards those with similiar interests in mine and use the friends feature the way it's supposed to be used.
Also, and I am surprised that no one has brought this up before - straight-up world news articles tend to be pretty quick and bite-sized. Unless it's an analysis or opinion piece, a lot of times you can get all the information you need from the headline and description. Especially if it's a breaking story. You click on the article and a lot of times you are just reading a re-hash of what was just summarized for you in the headline and text.
It's the way I get my news every day. If there's obviously more to the article - I'll read it. If not, I'll digg it and move on. Yes, my brain moves that fast. If that's considered gaming and auto-digging, then this site is doomed. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The quality goes down every weekend.."
That's because there are usually no new tech stories on the weekends. There's nothing to submit except offbeat stuff and editorials. -
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is