What is Digg?135 Comments
- builtby, on 10/12/2007, -18/+121He is right, Wired is making the news in a very unprofessional manner.
- Pixelillusion, on 10/12/2007, -7/+96Another proof to wired corruption, look at this article http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72835-0.html. It's written by an employee of Netscape, a guy who gets money from Netscape. The people he quotes or links to in his article are other Netscape employees. Who fair is that? How fair is that from wired, who owns reddit? Shame on wired and shame on Netscape.
- nichampagne, on 10/12/2007, -8/+87I really don't care about how stuff gets on here, as long as there are interesting things to read on here everyday, i'm going to keep coming back.
- bonch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+73Is anyone else sick and tired of front page Digg stories about Digg?
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+59The potential bias is obvious. That doesn't mean that all of what Wired is saying is inaccurate though. I tend to believe in the "bury brigade" as hokey as that sounds.
Lets see how negative this post will go... - CheckMarshall, on 10/12/2007, -24/+67WIRED seems to be going downhill anyway. I purchased wired magazine last month (last time too) and out of 100+ pages OVER HALF was ad space, and the articles were more like poorly written blurbs. WIRED USED to be a decent mag...now its just sad.
- stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46I'm not so sure about suing as some of the comments on the blog mentioned, but it sure is shady tactics. Hopefully bringing it out into the open will be enough to silence it for a while.
- fliz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35It was just ONE story, kinda like a proof-of-concept. They admitted that their parent company owns reddit. They probably would've even used reddit if it was somewhere near as popular as digg.
This really isn't a big deal. If I had a budget do try experiments like this, I would've done it to. And I would've used digg because it's the most popular.
Digg should not sue wired. They should use the information to improve their algorithms. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Are you only allowed to report nice thing about a company now? What happene to freedom of press? Is digg immune to criticism just because that particular publication has vested interests in a similar service?
Arrington needs to step off the pedestal and not try to leech publicity from this. - Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27Actually, I think Wired is spot on with most of it's allegations.
- tobb555, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I can see how they say Digg is falling apart, because most of the users here are raging *****.
- democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19I, for one, have found that Digg is becoming increasingly NOT interesting. Ironically, I spend more time on here now than ever before. Not because it's interesting, but because I keep hoping that the next time I load the page, something interesting will actually show up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19The author of the article mentions very clearly in the article that their parent company owns reddit, so its not like they were trying to be sneaky
- tch1337, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20This is a stupid article. Sue them for what exactly? How do you make a post titled "DIGG SHOULD SUE WIRED" and not say what they should sue them for?
Defamation? Truth is absolute defense...
Did the Wired author commit fraud, I don't see any misrepresentation...
The author really shows he has no clue about what the legal system is. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"The only people that care about stories about Digg itself are those that have gamed it, intend to game it, or think that the ***** Internet revolves around Digg (or worse, Wired)."
Or those who analyze other's successes and failings, in an attempt to ascertain what they're doing right, and what they're doing wrong.
There's a lot to be learned from digg. Everyone interested in social software design should be following this sort of story. - Slungsolow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9They're pointing out Digg's flaws. Boo Hoo. Tons of people do that on a daily basis with their blog posts saying "DIGG NEEDS *******". It's not like these Wired articles are melting away Digg's userbase (but it sure seems to be pissing off Digg's fanbase). If anything, they're actually providing publicity for Digg. What would be worse, Wired talking ***** about Digg or Wired talking up Reddit?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9y'know, it annoys me when people post articles about digg on digg, but now we've got a TechCrunch article about a Wired article about Digg. Sheesh
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Yaay! More self-referential navel gazing!
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Do I support Digg, my favorite resource online? Or do I support Wired, my favorite resource offline? I think my head's gonna splode!
In all seriousness, it seems like there are some obvious loopholes in the whole "news aggregation" thing. If anything, what Annalee's article taught us is that "Just because it hits the front page of digg doesn't make it relevant or newsworthy, and just because it doesn't hit the front page of digg doesn't mean it's irrelevant or unnewsworthy."
I personally surf both digg and reddit, and find them to be absolutely irreplaceable as a pair. - MacGeekGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wait... I'd like to point out that Wired gave full disclosure in their article of their relationship with Reddit. As long as there's disclosure, this isn't unprofessional behavior or irresponsible reporting.
- MSF2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10OMG! Wired pointed out a legitimate problem in Digg, it must be a conspiracy! Digg should sue!
/sarcasm - Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@macgeekguy
The problem though, is that they haven't disclosed the relationship in past reports on Digg, which makes you wonder if they are doing it now because they got caught.
What Wired is doing with digg isn't any better then what National Enquirer does to Hollywood stars. The up side is that it is publicity. I have a friend who started using digg today because they saw that wired article and wanted to see what digg was all about.
In the end it's shady, real shady, but it might be of more use for digg then everyone thinks. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You must be new here. Here on digg we use whatever means necessary to silence anyone who disagrees with us...
- richsipe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Digg linked the . at the end of the link so you get a 404.
Link: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72835-0.html - nukethewhales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So if a newspaper, magazine, news show, comes along a story that no one has reported about before and has gotten little attention but its repercussions could benefit their own interests they should...what? Keep quiet about it? Give it to someone else?
I found Wired's story very interesting. I had not read about it before and because digg has a tendency to protect itself, I probably would never have read about it unless it came from a big news site like Wired. - tch1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah and I could write the CSS to the google search engine in AN HOUR!
- Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"Is anyone else sick and tired of front page Digg stories about Digg?"
The only people that care about stories about Digg itself are those that have gamed it, intend to game it, or think that the ***** Internet revolves around Digg (or worse, Wired). - neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Once something pops up with more features, I'll use it more. For instance, Reddit/Netscape has multiple nested-replies and the ability to see which users Digg/Buries your comment. On the other hand, the UI and block feature on Digg are better. If a site combines all these, and more, then they've got me.
- neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"To announce that there must be no criticism of the DIGG, or that we are to stand by the DIGG, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the DIGG public."
--Teddy Rooseveltish - ardarvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Interesting news is interesting news -- that's why "buying votes on digg" is the top story. There's no conspiracy here. The fact that a story which questions the infrastructure of digg is a top story is proof enough that DIGG WORKS.
Reading anything more into this is a sure sign that DIGG fan boys got their 'ickle feelings hurt by the bad man who dares to offer conflicting viewpoints. - tch1337, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@namco "Hey idiots, it's called libel or slander. And yes, it's actionable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander"
Hey idiot, what do you think Defamation is? Wired was telling the TRUTH, there is no libel or slander. - topdeck55, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Oh noes! Truth from an interested source!
- nukethewhales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This just proves that if you write an article about Digg on your technology site you will double your page views.
- Lexor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Umm, criticizing Digg and identifying its problems doesn't necessarily represent a slam against the site.
The fact is that Digg is a great or even revolutionary website with a lot of growing to do. What's wrong with admitting that ? Are the roving Digg gangs fearing a loss of power ? I wrote my thoughts on the problems here -- http://grog.ca/digg_effects.html - mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If not for the wired article, people would still be using that company to buy diggs, only less people would know that its going on. So I don't really think wired did a disservice to anyone.
- zoltan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3digg used to be soo much better back in the 90s.. maybe it is time to cancel my subscription
- sequethin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I never even heard of reddit until I read this blurb here... and I went there just now... and it sort of sucks. I mean really maybe "all text and no fuss" is the look they are going for but it seems so bland to me. Digg has nothing to worry about if reddit is the competition :)
- iluvhatemail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think Wired should try the same experiment with Reddit, but will anyone would care about the results?
- ei8htball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I almost agree with you... I'll keep coming back as long as (1) as long as there are interesting things to read and (2) what's interesting to read is on here. It may not seem like a big deal, but '2' is what separates niche sites that have interesting, but irrelevant content from true news sites.
- SaintCrazy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wired doesn't own Reddit, it's parent company Condé Naste does. It's right there in the first paragraph.
- colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't think anywhere they are saying Digg is falling apart. They're just saying to take story submissions with a grain of salt, which should be obivous to everyone on Digg.
- randf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3now that's a good point. trying to take down digg with retarded repeating stories.
hey, can any of you 9/11 nuts ***** out a good conspiracy story about this? anybody?
jeez, where's a conspiracy nut when you really need one? - honestpen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As if Digg didn't do the same for Microsoft and the XBOX.
Trace the money ... are Microsoft and Digg at all related? - cafzal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Digg > reddit on all counts, and I'm not just saying that because I am commenting on Digg.
- Fountain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I dugg this because I love the whole 'echo chamber' 'circle jerk' aspect of this article.
- bertram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you meant the title to be "TechCrunch Responds to Wired's Story About Digg Just to Get Diggs". Marked as *rolls dice* : lame!
- Mitijea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think what reddit has going for it over digg is actual discourse in the comments. I often find myself feeling stupid as I read reddits comment pages, having a hard time following the well thought out and detailed debates and learning quite a bit from them. This rarely, if ever, happens on digg. I can't remember the last time I read a true intellectual discussion between well mannered commentors here, but on reddit it is quite common. Sure there is still the usual asshattery, but not nearly at the level as here.
I guess what I'm saying is, reddit comes much closer to my ideal where people actually talk to each other rather than at each other. Now if only they had the block button. - Chesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So Wired is the new Digg enemy of the day I see. Everyone will be horribly outraged for 24 hours until somebody else writes a story that portrays Digg in a less than positive light and everyone will get pissed off all over again.
Someday I hope Steve Jobs says something negative about Digg and everyone's head will explode in confusion about who they should rant against. - mocheeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So I guess the people calling foul-play @ Wired would rather that these dishonest parts of Digg go un-reported and never get fixed? Just because Wired and Reddit are owned by the same company doesn't mean Wired isn't allowed to make a piece on Digg. Do you really expect a reputable (and often skeptical) news agency like Wired to write a bunch of fluff pieces on Digg? Welcome to the real world kids.
I'd much rather have Wired expose this cheating of Digg than just let it go on. Maybe people are complaining about Wire because they can only get stories on the front page by paying for them? I can't think of many other reasons why people wouldn't want Digg to improve. Go cry to your parents if the big, bad Wired magazine uncovers your corruption. I don't want to hear it. I want to see it fixed.
Another word: Insulting reddit isn't going to add any credibility to your arguments against why Digg shouldn't be fixed. And it's not going to do anything to hurt the reputation of the Wired writer who wrote these stories. He likely doesn't care either way. - neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It would be great if blocking people in Digg also blocked their submitted stories.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is