What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
474 Comments
- largeora, on 01/24/2008, -9/+450Finally someone says the truth! Brian, please notice that many of these so called "top diggers" are SEO's/Marketers who promote sites for money. The digg changes will effect their business and that's why they are trying to create a problem on digg. This is not fiction, this is a fact. Look at their profiles and you will see that for your self!
- koolman3, on 01/24/2008, -10/+400QQ, so what you can't continue to control digg, get over it.
- scabbers, on 01/24/2008, -9/+354The top diggers can suck my balls.
- Filipp0, on 01/24/2008, -7/+265I love that this article got to the front page with 27 diggs.
- largeora, on 01/24/2008, -9/+266Their are losing their income! this is a big business and these so called "top diggers" are nothing more or less then a bunch of marketers promoting the sites they get money from.
- proxypants, on 01/24/2008, -4/+193The end of the "old digg" was the endless iphone sories "top diggers" have been pushing for a year! Goodbye top diggers, you will not be missed!
- Hazardc, on 01/24/2008, -1/+159I read their little whining story (by them, i mean "top users") last night, and assumed that a lot of digg agreed with them on their stance that the new changes sucked
then i read the comments and saw that the majority of digg was laughing in their face, and it restored my faith in this site 100%
Good job to Kevin and the rest of the staff, this is the best change made in a lonnnng time!!! - rhabd0mancer, on 01/24/2008, -3/+130Somebody call the Wahhhhmbulance.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -3/+126top diggers = topic spammers?
- exegesis48, on 01/24/2008, -2/+108I've long been frustrated by the lack of TRUE community offered by digg. I think any changes that are made to make things a bit more fair, are for the better!
- bekeleven, on 01/24/2008, -0/+101Ka-CHING! Us friendless losers are making a comeback!
- Sinudeity, on 01/24/2008, -3/+96Ticks me off... I submit an article, no one diggs it. Someone else submits it 3 days later, it makes the front page. That sucks even worse than corrupt politicians.
- QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -40/+127Don't. Mr BabyMan is one of the few ethical people left on digg.
- thcobbs, on 01/24/2008, -1/+85This is the most arrogant "charge" I've ever seen about dig:
"5) Repeated and flagrant disrespect of its top users."
That alone writes you off in my book. - oldhick, on 01/24/2008, -2/+73Thank god! I myself won't miss them one bit.
- KibibyteBrain, on 01/24/2008, -5/+75Yes, the famous "Top Digger" club. Kind of like the special olympics division of Yale's Skull and Bones.
- ErrorS, on 01/24/2008, -1/+70Glad to see them go
- GRTWHT, on 01/24/2008, -2/+60Welcome to the digg of the rest of us.
- Bhima, on 01/24/2008, -4/+59well, that explains a lot.
- mlostracco, on 01/24/2008, -1/+55I wish they'd fix it so 3/4 of the stories in the "upcoming" section weren't spam. Because of the endless spam and lame, milled-out press releases, I never go vote on upcoming stories any more. Worse still, so many of them are from the same sites or same sources—if the same PR and aggregator sites keep getting flagged as spam, shouldn't those not be able to be submitted (along with just canning the account holders)? And if an IP keeps getting flagged, block that IP instead of letting people sign up for account after account after account...
- tyzer, on 01/24/2008, -2/+56Anyone got a mirror of this story? i'd be interested to read it. thanks.
- victorh86, on 01/24/2008, -3/+55point 3 is funny. "3) Lack of transparency – Digg only shows you the stories that people have dugg, but not the ones that are buried."
You can't see them because their buried. *****. That's the sole purpose of that option.
And another one, "Is Digg anything without us?" What kind of question is that? That's a big D-U-H. No users=no site:many users=site.
Seriously people, like the man said, get over it - Araxen, on 01/24/2008, -20/+72***** Yeah, no more Ron Paul Spam!!!
- chriskzoo, on 01/24/2008, -0/+50All these "Top Diggers" can take their dumb asses elsewhere. Digg 1.0 is when Digg was truly great.
- Mordanthanus, on 01/24/2008, -2/+51You mean, there is a digg algorithm? Most of us just wanna read the news...
- DietRitePure0, on 01/24/2008, -3/+51A little perspective: "elitists", on Digg? If these folks are so desperate to be the aristocracy of an Internet website that generally features among its top content pictures of cats, videos of cats, and scarcely sourced political blogs, we may as well let them have it. If their top ambition in life, or among them anyway, is to control the flow of cat and Apple related links to an Internet website, let us pity these poor saps and let them have their "elite" status.
- bubba9999, on 01/24/2008, -4/+52buh-bye little server that thought it could.
- m3mn0n, on 01/24/2008, -0/+48I couldn't help but laugh at the elitism and arrogance of the guy who wrote the "top digg users upset" story.
Do they really think the content would not find its way to digg if they did not post it?
They whore RSS feeds and other similar sites and submit everything they possibly can before we "commoners" can submit it after actually reading the article. And don't even get me started on the friend system manipulation so called "top diggers" do. - dreesemonkey, on 01/24/2008, -1/+45Except, you know, for posting duplicate stories.
- QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -5/+48Well they have fought back with this epic post which asks the question "Is digg anything without us"
They intend to prove it too.
http://thedrilldown.com/?p=58 - mlostracco, on 01/24/2008, -0/+43"Wahhh! Digg OWES ME for putting so many stories on the front page! I MAKE THEM WHAT THEY ARE! They should be THANKING us!"
/delusion - lcarsdeveloper, on 01/24/2008, -9/+52Yeah his posts are never full of spam, he doesn't even have his own blog! I'm sure if other people were that good at finding new content they'd be tempted to blogspam everything.
- QGYH2, on 01/24/2008, -3/+43From what I've been able to gather, this is what digg is doing:
- lets say a top 10 user has a story with 200 votes
of those votes lets say (for example)
25 are from random people who saw it and liked it - these votes are counted
50 are from friends who have a pattern of voting for some stories from this top user - ones they like - these votes are also counted to the score.
125 votes are from friends who upmod everything this top user posts, and as such the system ignores their votes.
So, the story has 75 'real' votes and the rest are ignored.
The top users are panicked because they counted on their adoring fans to blindly vote up anything they submit, and now they will have no choice but to come up with good content, just like any ordinary user, to reach the front page.
So, needless to say, they did the one thing they would be expected to do: post a message saying they are going to quit digg tilts the system back in their favor:
http://thedrilldown.com/?p=58 - cyberworm, on 01/24/2008, -0/+39All of this talk about who's "story" makes the front page or not. I barely come to Digg anymore because it's become all about the submitter, and not whether or not what is being submitted is worthwhile. Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't community based editing supposed to be about weeding out the crap instead of who made the front page the fastest?
The story should get the publicity on it's merit and not by who posted it. - deMonkey, on 01/24/2008, -0/+38Good! Digg is about democracy. It's about the people choosing the best stories, not a handful, but everyone.
If being popular or having had submitted stories in the past gives you more power (or exponentially more power if you're a top digger) it's not a democracy. It's funny though that there are so many blogs out there complaining about the changes as if they're unfair, but by taking power away from *specific* diggers, they're bringing this site back the roots that made it great.
And the funniest thing is how several people claim they won't be submitting their links anymore. Who cares? Digg has so many submissions already -- if you cut this number by 90% it probably wouldn't reduce the quality of the content. It might even help it. - darkane, on 01/24/2008, -2/+39"thats the real reason digg added social networking"
Yeah. I'm sure it had nothing to do with users demanding it, or the fact that it's a basic feature on every community-based website. Nothing at all. - david76, on 01/24/2008, -6/+4143 diggs. Site down. Poof.
- STKD, on 01/24/2008, -9/+43Frankly I'd settle for not having to log in again every few hours... silly, broken digg.
- DarknessGP, on 01/24/2008, -1/+35I agree, the digg of the rest of us, involves not getting FP'd period.
- ericcire, on 01/24/2008, -0/+34You've never had your balls sucked, have you?
- mooninite, on 01/24/2008, -3/+37Hm, I have very few friends on my digg profile and I managed to easily get a story on the front page. You don't need to have 100+ friends (real life or not) to get a front page story.
We don't need them no matter what they say. - jctambay, on 01/24/2008, -1/+32It's not a ***** competition, you don't get a prize if your story makes it to the front page, and you don't get laid any more. The website is about sharing interesting information with each other, not who's name gets put on what.
- Gonz037, on 01/24/2008, -5/+34He doesn't find content, he goes through the upcoming section until he finds something interesting that someone else posted and then resubmits it.
- Sinudeity, on 01/24/2008, -4/+33Well, if you REALLY have to know, cause it was about the 1st African satellite launch. I'm African. Then some American *****, who couldn't find Ghana on a map, posts the same story. And JUST because, he has a ***** of friends added, his story makes it front page. His source, was American. Mine was African. Sort of like, the first African in space, was actually born in the US. You get it?
- sekhui, on 01/24/2008, -1/+28no harder than hijacking stories off of upcoming and spamming everyone's shoutbox with them.
- brstilson, on 01/24/2008, -1/+27No one gives a ***** about the "top users" except themselves. Why the hell should I be "thankful" to them? What have they ever done? Gotten stories on the front page? Please. These douchebags act like the site wouldn't function without them. As if NO ONE ELSE ever finds the articles they submit. They need to wake up and realize that if they were gone, everything would be the same. In fact, things would probably be improved. Oh, and threatening to "leave?" BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's like a homeless person complaining about the long lines at the shelter. Beggars can't be choosers.
No top digg users deserves any more of my respect than anyone else, and anyone that disagrees can suck it. They do nothing for me and nothing for the community. They submit a lot of stories to a free social news website, big ***** deal. The fact that they waste hours a day on this site means I should revere them as gods? ***** that *****. In closing, to all "top digg users" who are threatening to leave over this: BYE! Good riddance! Couldn't have happened any sooner! - pictureDIGGER, on 01/24/2008, -2/+28Spare me, you are a power user on reddit, so you are somewhat biased, not to mention you linked to the 'top user's diggnation imitation' below, operated by msaleem, zaibatzu and MrBabyMan. 'Top Diggers' post good content, then they also post their own circle of friends websites for SEO and traffic purposes. I am glad digg finally caught on to you guys.
- ayeroxor, on 01/24/2008, -2/+28what's your point, "dude" ?
- uselessexpert, on 01/24/2008, -6/+32***** all the "top" diggers!
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -3/+28To: All of my Digg friends
Please Digg up my story using your "No Friends" account. -
Show 51 - 100 of 475 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