What is Digg?163 Comments
- MrVictor, on 10/19/2007, -8/+135The best thing about slashdot is the insightful commentary. This is something digg is lacking _severely_. It proves the digg moderation system is, without doubt, inferior.
- sirdaz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+114I think it's safe to say that /. inspired and started off a lot of people on there way. There wouldn't be Digg, reddit, or anything alike as we know it today.
- HAMM3R, on 11/03/2007, -2/+89"but when you have a loosely knit community you get "Man Gets Hit in Crotch With Football"" ... Sounds like digg!
- uberchaoslord, on 11/03/2007, -6/+91Yeah unlike Digg, you need to have a clue what you're talking about when you post there.
- xXShadowstormXx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+82/. is awesome. The commentary is second to none. I often find myself just lurking to read what other people say but not posting because I often feel stupid in the face of all the technical mumbojumbo.
- karlschmidt, on 10/19/2007, -4/+66The commentary is a direct result of the community. Slashdot's community tends to be more thought-provoking and insightful, and Digg's community is more reactionary and closed-minded.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -9/+66"you want news decks free of typos, go to a news site with editors (like Slashdot)."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH - DigiDave, on 10/10/2007, -5/+58HA! I love when right after I submit something I see a lazy typo. But since I'm doing this while I am at work -- I'm sure everyone understands - you want news decks free of typos, go to a news site with editors (like Slashdot).
- SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42I love both /. and digg. Slashdot has better quality, digg has better quantity.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+46Digg look like a pool or retards when comepared to Slashdot.
90% of the stories on Digg are crap. 5 - 10% of the stories on /. are crappy. - bpapa, on 10/10/2007, -10/+46I have to be honest, ever since I discovered Digg a couple of years ago I haven't visited Slashdot more than a handful of times. And I used to go there several times a day.
But still, it's a great site. - calmario, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35/. has always been the first site I go to when I wake up.
- rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30the reason is simple. allowing everyone to rate comments so easily makes commentors vote whores.
- Wedge1212, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Slashdot is number 1 on my list of places to visit when i get to work in the morning. Digg became a quick second. Fark is my third.
- HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29I guess those digging you down have never been to Slashdot...lol
- strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28Go to hell!
- jasonumd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24I used to love /. but they just don't have enough stories a day for me. I check it out once a day though.
- Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23When Digg was new, and the crowd was 99% techies, it tended to be exactly like /. but about two days faster (meaning, stories "broke" here first). For awhile, Digg supplanted /. for me. Now I prefer both, since Digg gets so off topic (if there even is a topic). Digg used to mean you thought something was cool. Now it describes what you have to do to find the good stuff here.
- VinceNoir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I was there in 1997 when it started. I used to be "CaptEno" before my account was lost in the wires. Yeah, it got to be bad as soon as they let the trogs in. But, I can't say Digg is or has ever been anywhere near as good as Slashdot during it's glory days. I think the difference is that Slashdot emphasized community and entrance to the community required a certain level of intellect. Digg has no such filter. It lets everyone in with no barriers. This means that you get people who *think* they know a lot about something but really don't, coming in and making asinine comments. (Watch some fool try and turn that around on me now...) Much like Usenet back in the 80s and early 90s, there were filters to make sure that the participants were of a certain caliber. Digg does nothing of the kind. And Slashdot kind of lost that once they became really popular. However, I'd also argue that Slashdot was also made into what it was simply by existing at the right time. The 90s dotbomb boom was largely responsible for Slashdot's popularity as well. If they'd tried to launch in the heyday of Usenet, they wouldn't have made it. If they tried in the post-dotbomb era, they would have been too late. All about being in the right place at the right time.
- djauto23, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Then you can't be much older than 10 years...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22digg is like the fat chick that is an easy score ;)
- joe90210, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Slashdot is still the best site around for serious tech discussions because of the people who post there and the commentary, people there actually know what they're talking about.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16From Araxen's Article:
---------------------------
Would it be fair to compare Slashdot to Digg and other "user-generated," Web 2.0-ish sites?
We're somewhat unique. Digg is not Slashdot. We have the community submit stories but maintain editorial control over what gets seen. Digg is lowest-common-denominator media. The problem with all of these user-generated systems is that they start small, with a focused community interested in the same things, but as they grow, they tend to move away from the core that made the site interesting in the first place. At Slashdot, our core is our editorial team that maintains quality.
Look at Reddit. It started small with smart people. As it's grown, the stories went from links to interesting stories with well-thought-out articles, but now it's denigrated to "Here's a neat picture." The attention span of the crowd behind it has degraded over time.
The question comes down to how much of a layer you want to put down between the crowd and the core. As an example, during August, a slow media month, we slow down our stories (to maintain the level of quality). But the voting sites keep the same velocity and so are universally crap during that month. They're spewing out lightweight garbage and far too much of it.
Slashdot isn't a purely automated system. People are behind it. People who read and care what content hits the site. As a result, we maintain a consistently high level of quality.
---------------------------
Reading the Digg headline, I thought Malda was going to be all sour grapes. However, I think he has a very important criticism for the Digg community. There really IS a lot of uninformed crap that makes the front page of Digg on a daily basis. - ivorysky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Nope, a funny rating doesn't increase your karma.
- joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16the community revolves around the information being presented on the site. slashdot demands a more knowledgeable audience, whereas a site like digg's content can be anything that the community makes it to be. as such, this community has a younger demographic because there are a lot more individuals in the younger age ranges that have more time on their hands that they are able to spend on the internet frivolously. the younger content presented draws younger commenters, younger dialog, etc. which is exactly what we see here. it's not that people aren't as thought provoking or insightful, you just have to realize that we're dealing with such a widely varied demographic which includes a lot more individuals who would never frequent slashdot.
- RoboDonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"Crowds work when you have a tightly knit group of people with similar interests, but when you have a loosely knit community you get 'Man Gets Hit in Crotch With Football'..."
*looks at front page of digg*
HE'S RIGHT! - jabab, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Ron Paul FTW
- bilbravo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Although there are still commenters who are ill informed or just trolling. Although, to your point, it is less common than on Digg.
Both are great, I peruse each regularly. - AoSDFA, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14I, for one, welcome our...uh....oh, nevermind
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Look at Reddit. It started small with smart people. As it's grown, the stories went from links to interesting stories with well-thought-out articles, but now it's denigrated to "Here's a neat picture."
Digg started out small also. The articles were 99% technology oriented.... now, all we get are sensationalist BS blog spam, "FW: FW: FW: FW:" 1996 chainmail pics, unfounded rumors, and more blogspam. - jonrad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9That's one more than most people
- op12, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think what he meant to say is that they require *a* level of intellect...i.e. you're not going to find stories that are just "Funniest picture evarrr!!"
That said, I think each site occupies its own niche. I like the quality of Slashdot stories and comments better, but I like the timeliness of Digg better too. - VinceNoir, on 10/19/2007, -2/+11Hehe... I still "hit it". Mainly because the community there is much better than what Digg has. I'm not trying to start a flamewar or anything, but Digg's lack of community and lack of focus on the readers (ie. me) is what I've never liked. And of course the lack of any kind of intellectual filter (ie, the news on Slashdot is only interesting to people who are guaranteed to have a certain level of intellect. Even more so back in the days before they had multiple non-technical sections (before the gaming and politics sections came online).
- VinceNoir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I agree completely. The only reason I'm on Digg these days is because the story flow on Slashdot has slowed down tremendously. If they were able to get more submissions, I'd likely never come to Digg again.
- VinceNoir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Diggers please fix the unfair moderation on mem2's post. Digg really IS the fat chick who is an easy lay. Slashdot has more style and substance.
- ostracize, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10And because there is no limit on "votes"/diggs, some people just madly digg up every single comment they agree with and digg down ones they don't. Even if the digger is only into iphone rumors and pro-Ron Paul comments.
Limiting the number of diggs per page, who gets to do it, and how often would prevent digg from being poisoned by highly rated stupid comments, but that would ruin the point of digg wouldn't it? - Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9>You really can't beat digg.
o_O - Ryosen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Arnold from Happy Days...
- m3t00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9you fail it
- VinceNoir, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10You just never "got it" apparently. You're an idiot. You don't matter. Personally I liked the community there. The problem with Digg compared to Slashdot is that there is NO community here. And the posters all seem to be averse to lengthy comments. The only reason to post is because you have something to say, not to get a jab or "prop" in for something.
- astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The immediate feedback you get from digg "votes" is what makes Digg's discussion system compelling, despite its many, many glaring flaws, bugs, annoyances, trolls, and overall lack of design.
However, the votes do nothing to promote good discussion, where as Slashdot's moderation and meta-moderation does an excellent job of burying the noise and promoting intelligent conversation. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No, the comments are NOT predictable, you insensitive clod!
*runs away crying* - zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6memes and stupid jokes gain immortality on /.
- Matt2k, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Does anyone actually say "Bwahaha"?
Just askin' - VinceNoir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's not what I saw. I joined Digg (that account got revoked for too many posts critical of Digg) and saw a lot of the worst of Slashdot techies seemed to have migrated here. Conversely I noticed that as Slashdot's traffic dropped, the people who stayed were the smarter ones. The quality of the conversation went up again. The problem with a lot of the "techies" on Digg is that they tended to be know-it-alls who knew nothing. They spouted left and right about things they didn't understand. They spread lies and misinformation as fact, and the other segment of these supposed "techies" followed along blindly which resulted in the perpetuation of even more flawed information. Places like Digg make people dumber. Slashdot is the exact opposite.
- astrosmash, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7LOL Bias. Either you fit in to the community or you don't.
You're just upset because your comments are always mod'ed as -1 Troll. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"If Einstein had never contributed to physics, somebody else would have picked up his contributions sooner or later."
The fact that Einstein contributed what he did to physics means that someone hadn't done it sooner. And if he hadn't done it, later would have been many years.
Sure, Digg might have eventually come to be, but without slashdot it might not have been even thought of yet. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The moderation system set up at slashdot is a work of genius that was, and is, WAY ahead of its time. You could easily write dozens of doctoral sociology dissertations on it. Basically what they did was recreate, electronically, the same group dynamic that would occur if a group of people were having a real-life discussion. And they did it in a way that did not require a ridiculously complex system.
If they had applied that same brilliant social engineering to the story selection they would still be, by far, king of the hill. Maybe the dude that worked out those social diagrams for the mod system died or something. The touch of a rare genius mind is there if you really take a look at it in detail. You'll also notice that it stopped changing rather abruptly. Firehose is a freekin joke. - VinceNoir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6What the hell is your problem commernie? Your stupid is showing... Can you fault people for wanting to actually BE intelligent and to encourage being intelligent as something cool? Contrary to what popular media and (ahem) "culture" indicate, being stupid is not something to be proud of or to aspire to. What are you? Some kind of conservative?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5-1 Troll.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 160 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