What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
56 Comments
- digitalgopher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+72As a heavy submitter myself (I prefer not to use the term top user) I have to say that I applaud digg for trying to keep things fair for everyone. I really do not think that they're trying to 'beat up' on heavy users by making things more difficult for them (maybe they are, maybe they're not... who knows, but I don't think they are).
I think only time will tell how the new algorithm works to 'level the playing field' as many have referred to it. I also think that there's no such thing as a perfect algorithm in that it will need to be continually tweaked as the site changes, spammers find new ways around the anti-spam mechanisms, new users come and go, etc. - mk32066, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48It is not that Digg fights its top users. It tries to make it fair for all of the users, that way everyone is able to get there story on the frontpage. I think it is kind of dumb when all of the top users complain. I understand where they are coming from, but they will always be a top user. I mean Albertpacino's last time on Digg was 23 days ago, yet he is still number 2. Even if they do leave they will hold their spot for a very long time. So just calm down, and don't leave Digg fo such a stupid reason as you won't get as many stories on the frontpage.
- digitalgopher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33@blooms
"Dude, you are the #1 Top Digger. It says that right on the page."
I know, but I say that because even though I spend a lot of time digging and submitting, there are a whole slew of diggers out there that spend a lot of time in the upcoming section of digg and find really cool stories to digg (I've even found some and befriended them 'cause I think they tend to find and digg really cool stuff). Many of them never even submit a story, but are active diggers in other ways. In my book, those folks are equally deserving of being on the 'top digger' list as any top submitter. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22@mk
You meant 293 days ago, but yeah you are correct. The top users are so heads and shoulders above the rest it will take years to dethrone them. And then those new guys will start bitching and moaning.
From what (little) I understand, all Kevin is trying to do is stop people from having stories nearly AUTOMATICALLY promoted, just on sheer numbers of friends that certain users have. If Dude11 has 640 friends, and even 10% of those friends "Auto-Digg" his stories, then boom, no matter good or ***** the article is, it is front paged. Whereas Dude22, who has 20 friends finds a friggin' awesome assed link, yet no one ever sees it because it gets blown away because of all the other more dugg stories.
Maybe they can tweak it where you can only digg so many stories per minute. Like say 3 to 5 per minute, forcing people to actually READ THE LINKS they are digging! But what do I know? Not much obviously. Anyway, I am rambling, and I need to stop.
Kevin, keep up the good work, I've been a member since 2004, and this site rocks, despite whatever flaws it may or may not have.
@gopher
Dude, you are the #1 Top Digger. It says that right on the page. - ansonparker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Uhh, there's no "explanation of the Digg algorithm" anywhere in that post.
- sw0rdfish, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26*waits for all the cry babies to arrive and complain that they're being discriminated against again*
I fail to realize how people can think Kevin Rose and co are being "anti-democratic" is that at all how his personality appears to you in Diggnation, Systm, the broken, The Screensavers? It boggles my mind that people think these guys are out for anything but a fair, and top notch system that makes the experience a great one for the user.
Take two seconds to sit back and look at who you guys are attacking. - zoransa, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Kevin,
Many people complained that Digg fights its top users. I understand that as always few people does most of work even digging :) Even if your enemies say that digg is not something new and revolutionary but at the end of the day all it is, is a forum with a different user interface.
I disagree. Those votes, simple actions that help in selection and community do matter. Voting is fundamental thing of every democracy and that model is as far as mankind knows best form of organizing community.
I wish you good luck with changes and maybe you will be first to find put how to make democracy even more fair. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19gopher,
I too applaud you. You seem like a decent human. Thank you for your time, effort and hard work. - mk32066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@ the blooms
Thanks for fixing my error, i must have forgotten to type the 9. And i totally agree, it will take a very long time for any of the top users to taken away from that top spot.
@ gopher
I applauder you. At least we have one person on the top diggers that isn't trying to keep all the power to themselves. - tastethevenom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Does the algorithm deal with User/Submitter and the other pay-per-digg services that have sprung up?
I mean... we're still seeing stories with an unimaginable number of diggs that link to ad-infested pages with little or no juice. I can't help but question whether or not the unpaid class of diggers are still choosing the stories. - thedak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No kidding. I'm typing from an iBook, I have a core 2 duo imac sitting on my desk, I develop for the mac. And I'm sick of seeing the apple stories, I cannot begin to even imagine how people who don't like apple must feel having to sift through all those stories every day. The odd story is nice, but the continuous dupes aren't necessary.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm tired of this "black box" digg algorithm. I want open source digg with a digger verified paper trail!
- sw0rdfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9yeah it's more of an explanation of what went wrong the past few days with it, I guess.
- bootle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Inaccurate: This doesn't even REMOTELY explain the 'digg algorithm'
- Dragular, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hrm. I guess I'm going to have to start digging more... I've been addicted to this site since may '05 and have only dugg four or so pages worth of stuff.
- slythfox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So what's this thing about "This means no more stories sitting in the queue w/100+ Diggs!"? Does it mean that stories that slowly reach a high digg count will eventually reach the front page. (Example, 100 diggs in 4 days)
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@digitalgopher
I definitely agree with you. I think a lot of top diggers thought unfairly that this was an attack on them, which I never thought it was myself. I just thought it was far too extreme. I knew it was just to try and level the playing field for newer users, or users who don't submit as frequently, which is great and what digg should be for. I think they now are finding a better balance in their algorithm that will suit everyone best.
People were too quick to assume this was going to be a permanent change, as the digg team really doesn't have a means of testing their algorithm changes well, without releasing it to the wild, seeing how it plays out on the live site. That's the best way to see how it will work, and make changes accordingly.
I do think this is a shift in the "digg economy" per se, and it will certainly be a fundamental change in the algorithm and how digg's economy plays out. Comes down to the difference between socialist (equal) and capitalist (fair/equal opportunity) economies, if you will. A theory and topic I thought of recently and I pointed out to msaleem who recently wrote on it here recently (very good read):
http://www.blogherald.com/2006/11/06/the-digg-economy-socialist-bookmarking
(I'd like to see more posts like this come up on digg....bringing fair and debatable topics about digg algo changes, rather than just the typical jumping to conclusions we see too often)
I also agree with digitalgopher's point that their is never a perfect algorithm.....very true. If their were, we wouldn't need the human component/element, which regulates the sites quality of content. Ultimately the digg team can make all the changes to their algorithm they want....but without diggers holding up their end and doing their part in regulating digg's quality of content...then all the changes to the algo the digg team makes are useless and meaningless. The digg team provides us with the tools, it is up to the digg community to use those tools properly. - IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@theblooms
There's no actual way to force people to read the article they are digging. I don't think a time limit will do it. - jeff1943, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If he was specific, then people would try to figure out what the algorithm was and take advantage of it. The algorithm is meant to be a secret, that's why they change it constantly.
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He didn't address specifics...does the algorithms promote diversity so more diggers will feel included by getting frontpaged? Did they make it harder for some to get to the frontpage? How exactly do Friends affect a submitter's story?
- Darkness123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I appreciate what the top digg users do, but they seem to be complaining more than the rest of us. I have submitted few stories to digg, which never made it to the Frontpage but you do not hear me complaining about it. It seems that Digg is aware that mainly the top digg users articles were getting to the frontpage so they tried to even it out a bit, but made it worse. lol It seems they worked out what was wrong in the end. You all got to remember with computing in theory it should work, and in reality blows up in your face.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I started using digg to find out about new stuff on the web, mostly hardware and open source projects, if you look at whats making the front page it's just garbage and not enough to hold my interest. Oh and I could care less about who is the top submitter or digger. Digg is losing it because they are forgetting that the web is about content not a bunch of junk stories about how much better your computer is than mine!
- kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Simple solution, get rid of the friend system.
- IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So, does anyone know what is this "new factor into the algorithm" that they included and monitored during the weekend?
- domr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But there are flaws in the system, and those flaws mean that the "top diggers" can pretty much submit whatever they like and it will be dugg to the home page.
It's mainly due to the "friends" system. Lots of people add top diggers to their friends list, and so get notified of their stories. A digger with no friends who submits equally relevant stories is far less likely to get the stories promoted to the home page.
And this isn't about "ego" - it's about the rest of us who primarily use digg to read news, who are missing out on some excellent stories. - thedove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7are you reporting the dupes?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Whatever happened to inaccurate?
Used to be everything became inaccurate as soon as it hit the front page. Now rarely does anything ever get the inaccurate tag.
What was the change there? - electronaught, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think to get better content digg should limit the number of submissions to like one story a day...then people would submit more quality content and more different users will get there stories promoted. badaboom badabang!
- electronaught, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I mentioned this below but i'll mention it up here again....i think a limit on the stories submited would result in better content on digg and more users getting their stories promoted b/c there'll be less crap to sift threw. So like a one or two submission limit per day sounds good to me. Then the top submitters could take a break! And everyone will be more involved and happy! woot!
- Dragular, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Needs more bureaucracy!
- andykram, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While you make valid points I have to disagree with your statement regarding democracy. Democracy is one of the most volatile forms of government known to mankind. Most people usually deem the US a democracy, and then say that we have enjoyed such great stability for that reason. This, however, is a fundamentally flawed statement as the US is indeed not a democracy (in the classical sense) due to the deliberate efforts of the Framers to avoid such a system. But I really don't feel like politically charging the thread (too much) so I'll simply end with - mob rule is not always the best rule ;)
- tainedhero, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Ugh, Thank god they fixed it. I was tired of stories with 60+ diggs not get front page.
Good job Kev. - bremstrong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'd like to see greater transparency in how the total diggs is calculated. Rather than a single sum, if both the + diggs and - diggs were tallied, you could tell the difference between a controversial comment with an equal number of + and - diggs and a comment with just a few diggs in either direction.
I think it would also improve the site if you could sort by the total number of diggs, + or -, in addition to sorting by net total diggs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31) Remove the friend system.
2) Remove the "top user" list.
3) Plant moles at places like spikethevote and kill the accounts of people using it.
4) ???
5) Profit! - Edenbayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe it is not the right place to comment on the subject I want to bring up, but it seems that there is a lack of categories in DIGG - e.g. I would like to see "Travel" as a category. I think it leads a lot of people to a "catch all" - "Offbeat news"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6It isn't an "algo tweak" that has stopped submissions with 100+ diggs sitting in the queue.
The diggers who are capable of submitting stories that will get that many diggs in less than 24 hours are no longer submitting. or digging. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2IvanB,
A user may not be FORCED to read an article, but there are ways to determine if he/she has visited the article. In fact, using average speeds of comprehension, it may be possible to determine a time nessicary for a user to read something, based solely on the number of words on the page. - elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yup. My friends submitted queue is less than half of what it normally is. People including myself have lost interest.
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Show me where I threatened to leave.
- ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Thank you Kevin and the Digg team.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3For most of those storeis, sitting in the queue with a lot of diggs was a GOOD thing.
- thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4At least 214 people, right now. If people aren't even remotely interested, it doesn't get to the front page. If you don't care, why did you click on this story?
*Note to self: I must make a text file so I don't have to type this speech again* - elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Either way "Algorithm" is simply another word for editorial control.
- bloodywolf, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Can you add something in the algorithm to filter liberal whackjobs?
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I just come here to annoy you.
- AgentBlu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Its broken! There is stupid ***** all over the front page.
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2It might have levelled the playing field, but it seems like there's a LOT less frontpage links and those that are there, just aren't as interesting.. oh well.
- Harbinger67, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Why do people even care about being a 'top user' on Digg. Digg is about submitting news that was written by someone else; what is the big draw of having the 'top status'?
This place is worse than Counter-Strike. The drive to pwn noobs is the same, it's just done in a different way. - thedove, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2not any more...block!
i'm sorry, what did you say? huh? i can't hear you :) -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 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