What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee’s singing debut.
39 Comments
- lemieuxster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Yeah, the real to false ratio was about 1:4 so one out of every 4 burries was actually committed by the user. They have apparently fixed the hole, and quite quickly too.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It looks like they closed the gap that allowed us to see this info.
Ironically enough, a story from my site was the last bury listed (as lame).
It's obvious Digg could make this data available to us fairly easily. I don't see any reason for them not to. - richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I wish someone would collect data on this post to see it in real live action.
- MrBabyMan, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8http://www.lemieuxster.com/digg/expose/
Look at how much effort is spent by each user on just burying stories! If these users spent half the effort submitting rather than burying, you'd never hear complaints that a small monopoly of users dominate the home page! - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Am I missing something here, how does this show a bury brigade? Looking at the link provided in the blog most of the buries weren't marked as spam, and they weren't all of similar nature, all kinds of things were buried from "The Bar Code Clock" to "Software Bug Halts F-22 Flight". Also note the posting at the top : "NOTE: Random sample testing indicates that not all burries attributed to one user were actually comitted by the user." The only thing it seems to show is that users bury some stories, which we already knew.
http://www.lemieuxster.com/digg/expose/ - msaleem, on 11/12/2007, -2/+10You know, people argue that this is a random thing. Have a look at this:
http://pages.prodigy.net/trbclb/diggspy_lgf.JPG
Doesn't look random to me - RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Amazing how many buries some users have and also amazing how many of them are marked as spam. Why Spam? Does a Digg Down (Spam) carry more weight than a Digg Down (This is Lame)?
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"buried as inaccurate until I see otherwise"
How exactly would you go about un-burying this story if you were shown "otherwise"? ;) - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8blake, grow up!
bloodjunkie - top Digg submitter msaleem - top digg submitter. How is exposing a flaw in digg childish behavior? Are you really so closed minded that you can't discuss a flaw in your precious digg? - plannters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There's definitely something wrong when a story disappears from the front page just because it vaguely takes a view on abortion that some people on digg don't agree with.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6check his system, i haven't actually buried it yet......
- ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't understand, digg removed data that exposed these people. This is ridiculous, they KNOW this is happening yet they refuse to acknowledge it...
- msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Meant to mod it down. It's okay Skitzzo not everyone can be level-headed like you.
- ilkeryoldas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only if Bury feature worked the same way as Digg it..
- bobpaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Because there's no option for "Poorly Written", "***** Blogspam", "Duplicate Story" or any of the other reasons I bury things. Blog spam is the biggest. If I click the link and am lead to a summary and need to find a link on that page to the original article, I bury it. Worst is when one lame blog cites another lame blog, which sites the source.
Sometimes blogs do more than copy/pasting a quote from the article and actually add some insight. Sometimes they cite multiple sources showing extra coverage on the story. In these cases I don't bury. Most of the time they appear to try to pass off the work as their own and only include a tiny link to the original source right above the comments. - ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Blake10
Shut up, you have absolutely no idea how any of that works, they are great digg submitters who were at digg first and CONTINUE to be very active diggers while also putting time into netscape. - Khebab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some guys are getting paid to post links on Digg, reddit, etc... It seems logical that some are maybe getting paid to bury stories.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I would guess so although I don't think we know for sure. If I had to bet though, I'd bet on yes.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5there was the one submit about "so you're digging lgf stories" that i believe was calling for buries of all their stuff. but that's one topic and what seems to be an isolated incident that came along well after the "bury brigade" was a part of the digg lexicon
- richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How was the real:false ratio determined though. That means you'd have to have some kind of "real" data to check your results against?
- ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What a dumbass, your telling HIM to stop complaining, YOUR complaining about someone complaining...
- mbthompson, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Why hasn't this story made the front page?
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6the examples used show people burying different stories, not a concerted organized effort. therefore, i have to say it is inaccurate and the "bury brigade" does not exist. do people bury stories they don't like/don't agree with? yes. is there an effort to force certain topics down by a group of users? i still have yet to see any proof.
buried as inaccurate until i see otherwise - canewediggit, on 11/12/2007, -6/+8saleem- you do realize those lgf posts were buried as a result of lgf submitting numerous stories about the diggtards/diggbats etc and having several of their stories hitting the front page in a few days, right?
i'm still waiting for the _organized_ effort evidence............. - OrangeTide, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1I admit it, I wrote some scripts to operate 30 digg accounts simultaneously. all it takes is about 30 coordinated buriers to shovel enough negatives on for a significant group of people to just "join in the fun" and bury every post as well. A lot of casual diggers thing the "bury brigade" is a club you can join by simply burying when you see a lot of negative diggs. And I suppose in a way this is really how it works, even though it was never my intention for the burybots to operate this way.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A live diggspy with the information listed as on that output report (which is great research btw, Muhammad) would be interesting ...but, ultimately very distracting from the stories themselves and the on topic comments that are supposed to follow. I just see too much analyzing and chaos once users names are attached to buries.
ehh...maybe that would be good...it's been a bit boring around here lately. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The key point that Kevin made is that, while I think it is an interesting insight, it may not be the whole story. The digg spy tool is rate-limited to show only some of the current activity, not 100% of it - so true conclusions would be harder to extrapolate.
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You are both geniuses, but a real genius may try using the correct contraction here - it's you're.
you are = YOU'RE
belonging to you, showing possession = YOUR
Why am I surrounded by ***** morons? HELP! - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yup, do you know that 77 in 2 days is all the information needed to make it to the front page? You have to know how it's supposed to work before you can cry foul.
- Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2These people are obviously just burying stories for ideological reasons. Or how would explain the fact that the same story gets buried as "lame", "false", "spam" and "duplicate" at the same time?
It appears this system is open for abuse, because an ideologically controlled group can prevent groups of opposite ideologies to gain less karma than they do (because theire stories never make to the front page, thus they gain less karma). - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+277 diggs in less than 2 days and still not on the front page?
- gnilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://ilikenewstuff.blogspot.com/
- zwsnipboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2These people are obviously just burying stories for ideological reasons. Or how would explain the fact that the same story gets buried as "lame", "false", "spam" and "duplicate" at the same time?
It appears this system is open for abuse, because an ideologically controlled group can prevent groups of opposite ideologies to gain less karma than they do (because theire stories never make to the front page, thus they gain less karma). - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is a crock. I am listed as burying down multiple items, a few of which I dugg, and the rest I didn't even see/digg/bury/anything. I NEVER bury stories, I am just not motivated enough, but for some reason, I am on this "proof."
- gnilly, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0http://vbpvoqdi.tripod.com/glucosamine-hydrochlorid/glucosamine-side-effects.html
http://vbpvoqdi.tripod.com/glucosamine-hydrochlorid/glucosamine-for-dogs.html
http://vbpvoqdi.tripod.com/glucosamine-hydrochlorid/glucosamine-sulfate.html - Animosus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Blake10: I think you need your teeth knocked out and stuck to your head, little pro-censorship bitch
- blake10, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5blookjunkie - submitter (netscape employee)
msaleem - author (netscape employee)
if i were a netscape exec i'd be fuming at the mouth that these children are engaging in activities like this - blake10, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2okay genius, you can identify a bury brigade but you can't offer an solutions...stop complaining and give real world examples of what digg can do about it
- vrtsflipflop, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2The simple solution is to do away with the bury feature. It invites abuse, and stories can just rise or fall based on the number of diggs.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 