What is Digg?118 Comments
- StevenBullen, on 10/10/2008, -10/+118I aint bothered about the power diggers anymore. But! Im getting pissed of with power diggers re-submitting the same ***** and getting it on the front page. Defeats the object of trying to get involved in digg.
- bumcheekcity, on 10/10/2008, -8/+108Actually, I'm bothered about the Power Diggers. I'd like a website where a few twenty or so people aren't guaranteed a frontpage if they post, and just digg hundreds of topics in minutes without reading anything, in order to cheat the system.
All I'm saying is it'd be nice if they were banned. Subtle, I know. - inchrnt, on 10/10/2008, -3/+68ie: Rose loves Digg spammers.
- chrissku, on 10/10/2008, -0/+58The politics of digg
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -1/+58If I wanted the same 20 or so people to choose the content I see, I'd go to Fark.
- Hitchhiker90, on 10/10/2008, -1/+52How about getting rid of the power diggers so we could actually have some diversity on this site? Digging the same 5 or 6 sites kind of lost its flair a while ago. Lets see whats on the front page... gizmodo, huffingtonpost, divinecaroline, flickr, techcrunch. Yep, that covers it. Get rid of the top diggers and take back Digg!
- imasuperDOTcom, on 10/10/2008, -1/+49Personally, I'm quite frustrated with Digg. I submit good stuff a lot of the time (Sure, another mans junk is another mans treasure, so don't bother bashing my submissions) but rarely does it ever get too much attention.
Unfortunately, Digg has become a social playground where only the big kids get to play with everyone, and everyone wants to be their friend. In order to digg something that gets to the front page, you've got to be socially networked to a gazillion people. It's incredibly frustrating, and I'm considering no longer submitting content because of it. - goflyers, on 10/10/2008, -0/+48I agree and also think digg really needs to get rid of "friends" and "shouts". It will never happen but a digg where people actually dugg what they liked rather than what their "friends" submitted would be much better. I can remember people bitching a couple years ago because some were digging as a form of social bookmarking rather then digging stories they were interested in. the days of that being a concern are long gone and was relatively minor compared to today's crap.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2008, -0/+35Kevin Rose = A man who is never sure what he wants out of his site. It seems to change regularly.
- robbh66, on 10/10/2008, -0/+33are poisoned if a site which purports to be based on diversity is run by a guy who wants to keep informal editors around.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -1/+31So basically... The POWER DIGGERS like Baby Man are going to not only continue to dominate the site, but are now incouraged too!? Time to leave Digg and go somewhere else not dominated by these TROLLS!
- MattyLite, on 10/10/2008, -0/+30I don't even try to submit stories anymore :(
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2008, -0/+29Agreed. This, imo, is the biggest problem. If people want to be extremely active in their Digg use, fine, but don't allow their submission to supercede the person who found it first. Digg users of any type should be rewarded for finding news first, not punished because their userbase has been fleshed out using add-on algorithms.
- Owwmykneecap, on 10/10/2008, -2/+28Well certain rulebreakers are still around huh.
Digg: Your RSS feed for Huffington Post, xkcd, torrentfreak, The Daily Mail, Cracked and anything Linus says. - PFCalcio, on 10/10/2008, -0/+24The recommendations engine should at least start stopping spam Diggs and start to give good stories precedence
- sonar1, on 10/10/2008, -0/+23mrbabyman = 20+ people alone, multiple logins
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -1/+22The Baby Man just had an orgasm
- jimmyobama, on 10/10/2008, -0/+21Hidden under the illusion that users have an affect on which stories get promoted, hate to say it, but Digg's jumped the shark.
- DekarCorvus, on 10/10/2008, -0/+18so when do i get to swim in royalties? diggers should get a cut of the profits! :)
or at least cookies and punch.... - TheEditor1, on 10/10/2008, -0/+18Proof that digg is being gamed and now that gaming is being sanctioned by the site ownership. digg just became a non-entity, kind of like the U.N. R.I.P. digg, sorry to see you go down in flames and political partisanship.
- stevejobs, on 10/10/2008, -0/+18I'm sick of the the seeing the same submitters, heck one even submitted this story. We need the next Digg already. Who's gonna build it?
- shimmyNshake, on 10/10/2008, -2/+19I don't see why they don't limit the number of Diggs per day. Not only would it limit the blind Diggers, but I think it would encourage people who hardly ever Digg, to digg more often because they will perceive their Diggs will be worth more.
20 diggs a day is a good number. - Tippx, on 10/10/2008, -2/+19***** Kevin Rose
- D3ADBOLT, on 10/10/2008, -6/+22Rose wants *****. In his ass.
- Jeffler, on 10/10/2008, -1/+16Friends are fine - I like finding new people on digg.
Though I do agree the shout system should be castrated. - chinolofus, on 10/10/2008, -0/+15kevins hobby is drinking tea? what the hell kind of hobby is that?
- benologist, on 10/10/2008, -0/+15Because they do it in exchange for other retards digging their stories. There's no shortage of people on digg who blindly digg anything and everything their friends submit so they'll get dug in return.
- bushout, on 10/10/2008, -0/+15Yeah, I came to that conclusion after about my 3rd attempt. Why even bother having the whole 'digg' system? They might as well just call it a frickin links site - it's really like google news plus a comment system.
- WNW3, on 10/10/2008, -0/+15Saying two conflicting things to different audiences for the purpose of pandering...is he running for president?
- shutaro, on 10/10/2008, -0/+14If you have to ask, you probably aren't...
...it's OK, neither am I. - LeviTheSmith, on 10/10/2008, -0/+14What he(the 'power user') should have done was get the original story and shouted that to his 'friends'. Rather than re-submitting it as his own
- fwertz, on 10/10/2008, -0/+13Digg. It's not just any sphere of influence. It's a wtf?octagon of influence.
- SynVisions, on 10/11/2008, -1/+13That's a dumb idea.
It's a surefire way to turn Digg into even more of a circlejerk than it already is. - MoralThreat, on 10/10/2008, -0/+11And here I thought this wasn't high school.
- TheOther1, on 10/10/2008, -0/+11A biased google news.
- soomprimal, on 10/10/2008, -1/+12I agree. What makes it different than any other news source if there are powerful gatekeepers? Kind of removes the edge, allows for corruption.
- bratterscain, on 10/10/2008, -0/+11Want more fairness, more/better news, and less kids, go to Reddit. I'm not as crazy about their interface but stories and comments are of better quality. Digg is way over-rated.
I appreciate Digg users for giving me news for so long but if the whole news source is from the users and the most popular submitters are being encouraged by the site's owner, it doesn't set a good precedent.
Goodbye Diggers, these may be my last words before I'm banned. - MrZaiko, on 10/10/2008, -1/+11PAPA ROSE HAS SPOKEN
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2008, -0/+9No, I've tried it, that doesn't happen.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/11/2008, -0/+9Long answer:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... - artfuldodga, on 10/10/2008, -2/+11digg is a great site, but yeah... i think the fairness just isn't there, explain how some duplicate post submitted hours after an original makes the front page, shouldn't the original automatically take the place of the dupe? including that storys diggs and burys... I think that could bring alot of fairness to digg.
this only applies to dupes submitted from same source, same story different sources... thats a whole other problem - sonar1, on 10/10/2008, -0/+9true.dat
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2008, -0/+8I bet Rose is getting a fat paycheck somewhere along the lines.
- Mononuclear, on 10/10/2008, -0/+8because the whole point of digg is for users to vote on what they like so that the front page has quality articles. Digging hundreds of articles just because your friend submitted them defeats the entire purpose. Most of these diggers that digg hundreds of articles a day do not read any of the articles they digg. So how are we supposed to get quality when the people digging them don't even know what they are about or if they are good or not? Also completely against the purpose of digg are power diggers. Anything they submit becomes popular regardless of quality.
We need an upcoming section that has a couple hundred articles max not a few thousand. Then people could actually go through the upcoming section and pick articles that were good. If you limit someone to 1 or 2 submissions a day then they would submit only stuff they thought was worth while. Then with a small manageable upcoming section people could actually choose from those the ones that are really good and deserve front page. It shouldn't matter who submitted it.
As it is now there are thousands of articles submitted everyday so unless you have a huge network of people who digg everything you submit regardless of quality then your chances of every getting front page are slim. The chances of someone even seeing your article in the upcoming section are very small unless you actually tell people it's there. You shouldn't need to spam or tell people you submitted an article. Again the upcoming section should be small enough that people can stumble across your article easily and it won't get lost like a grain of sand on a beach. - ddizzle, on 10/10/2008, -0/+8riiiiiight...b/c paying users to submit content worked out really well for propeller/netscape
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/10/2008, -0/+8because if you digg upcoming articles before they hit the front page repeatedly it increases your weight in the digg algorithm. If I digg a couple thousand articles throughout every day, chances are a few will make the front page every day.
And if your digg weight is higher and you submit articles you can get to the front page faster.
The problem is this has ruined digg. There are articles that make it to the front page with 200 diggs over a 24 hour span and then you find articles in the upcomming that have over 500 diggs in a 12 hour span. - LeviTheSmith, on 10/11/2008, -0/+7:(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
- bushout, on 10/10/2008, -0/+7Look at all the daily mail articles recently that hit front page.... seems to me like they must be paying for that and it's being pushed in as if the article was really dugg....
I know I go on about the daily mail, but I hate the paper and besides that find these shenanigans quite suspicious. - GrodyChamp, on 10/10/2008, -0/+7In other words he wants the huffingtonpost and dailykos spam to continue to give him ad revenue. Sweet.
- bushout, on 10/10/2008, -0/+7Actually I would go further and say that digg is a 'metaphor' for democracy; started out with good intentions, but ended up corrupted by money and cronyism
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is