Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
The Digg Paradox: How Digg Creates the Problem It Solves
techconsumer.net — "When I first heard about Digg I was quite excited. What appealed to me is that you don ’t have a “gatekeeper.” You can submit content to Slashdot, but there is a group of editors who have been hired to sift through stories, find the good ones, and ultimately determine what makes it to the front page. When you have gatekeepers, you will have bias."
kazzyD- 199 diggs
- digg it
- btgoss, on 04/09/2008, -9/+2Well this is not quite the "fair and balanced" reporting one would like to see about the problems with Digg, it is not totally without some merit. No real new ground is covered, but not a terrible read.
I guess the main point is we still need some form of "gatekeeper." Perhaps there can never be a truly democratic system.- peskypescado, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5I'm sorry, but digg is so far from a "truly democratic system" that it isn't even funny. Digg = mob rule.
- Popdmb, on 04/09/2008, -2/+38Simple fix: Hide the submitter's name until the story hits the front page. The concept of a "power user" in a democratic system is flawed.
- kazzyD, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9I like the idea, but then what do we do with the friends / shout system?
- estvir, on 04/10/2008, -1/+17Drop it? Who cares about either of them? The Friends system, maybe, but the Shout system is a joke. They need to stop trying to be all 2.0 social and just focus on what Digg originally was and come up with changes like the one Popdmb suggested.
- tropican8, on 04/10/2008, -1/+14The friends/shout system is a joke. It's not about sharing news stories with people, it's about mutually currying favor with other users. I know it sounds absurd, but your friends' "dugg stories list" should be stricken of names until their either frontpage or reach 24hrs in age, just like the rest of the site under Popdmb's suggestion. If they are your friends because they submit quality content you're interested in, you will still digg the stories there. They will just be unable to reciprocate directly by digging one of your upcoming stories -- unless you too are submitting quality content, in which case your stories will also get dugg for the same reason.
- bossm4n, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5The biggest problem with that is having to wade through the ungodly amount of crap submissions to actually find legitimate stories. Just take a few minutes and watch the upcoming page of new submission occasionally. 9 out of 10 submissions these days are typically SPAM and many are porn related or something about nude celebs, or someone resubmitting an old popular story repasted into their site or blog. Personally, I like the ability to see what friends submit and digg. I choose them as fans or friends because I either share their interests or opinions or I consistently enjoy their contributions.
A possible solution might be to revise the algorithm/policies to have a probationary period for all new digg users. For instance, you have to have an account for a minimum amount of time before you can submit a story, and/or you have to participate a certain amount over a period of time to be able to submit. In addition, diggers who submit obvious dupes, especially stories already made popular should be penalized. If your stories receive a 'Bury-Duplicate', that should affect your ability to submit content. The same thing goes for people submitting obvious SPAM or people who are offensive. I haven't seen any proof that marking someone as offensive actually accomplishes anything. BTW, was this story written by one of those slashdot gatekeepers? He sure seems to be biased toward slashdot, not just pointing out the difference in the two sites. - squishee, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Keep the shouts anonymous too--that way, you can really judge a submission based on the content vs. who sent it to you.
- zaibatsu, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4Have you checked out politics in our "Democracy" do you have a few million in the bank. We'll if you don't, forget about run for local office. Not to mention the Whitehouse.
Have you been to court, watch the rich guy get off in 'Democratic" US of A.
Hell Iraq elected a leader for their democracy... but can we leave... naaahhhh because that wouldn't be democratic *sigh*. - GerryBot, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2Yes, I like that idea - it levels the playing field somewhat. It does cause problems for promoting your submission via shouts and friends, but it might result in a better system and better quality front page entries.
- kazzyD, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9I like the idea, but then what do we do with the friends / shout system?
- WiseWeasel, on 04/10/2008, -1/+11Watch this story get buried hard by those same top submitter networks...
- zaibatsu, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5I shouted it to 40 people, how about U
- WiseWeasel, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2I don't shout stories, it's annoying...
- zaibatsu, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5I shouted it to 40 people, how about U
- chemdiva, on 04/10/2008, -0/+5sometimes i see the comments about digg and the problems with it as relevant comments on democracy in general.
- spammishking, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4Part of democracy isn't just about being correct or being better, it's about convincing people to follow. Obviously some users are better than others at convincing people to follow their submissions.
This is why I agree that the shout system has to go, let the story rise based on its own merit. - ivankraszl, on 04/10/2008, -0/+10This is the same problem we have in elections. Democracy doesn't guarantee the best candidate wins, it just gives a certain chance to everybody.
- zaibatsu, on 04/10/2008, -1/+27The problem I have with digg now is I just can’t push content that I care about. I love politics, science and tech stories.
Well, thanks to the algorithm, if it’s not a cute photo, a sports story or an offbeat comedy piece I can’t hit the FP.
What’s worse is I think the digg community or at least the (digg algorithm / ghost moderators) heavy handled approach with us power users, forces us to play to a greater audience.
So I go for the known, sites that people will digg up, because I know if I post a story about some great new solar powered concept from a little know blog, even with my weight on digg, it just won’t make it to the FP *sigh*.
The FP matters, less and less to me, I really enjoy the diversity and content that I can find in upcoming everyday, but the real passionate users in science, politics and tech are dropping like flies.
Hopefully the new and upcoming vanguard of new diggers can carry the torch and bring an influx of great stories… not the 20 hour stale crap that we’re forced to endure. Check my submissions, the only stuff that hits is crap, I’ll admit to it. But the stuff I care about dies on the vine, so I give the algorithm the crap that it so loves.
Oh and to all the people who think Andy and I make money of of digg, well… type Andy Sorcini into google… he works for Disney and doesn’t need the money and well I’m just plain well off, I do this for fun. Oh if you mention our podcast we have 1 sponsor $250/month. that’s dinner for 2 nights for me…
God sorry to sound like an arrogant bastard, but I ate when people think we’re on the take.
Sorry peeps, love all you diggers, even the ones that hate me, keep me in check, tell me when I post crap.
Oh I’ll even put money where my mouth is, a free iphone to anyone that can show that I make money off of digg.
Damn, I think I had too much wine tonight, lol.
Peace
Z
BTW... I just speak for Mrbabyman and I. But I've got a shiny new iPhone right here and hold me to it.- bossm4n, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2All the arrogant, pissed off people from reddit say that you and babyman are on the take so obviously it's true. Now where's my phone? /sarcasm
- hdar3415, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Reg, you and Andy are the main reasons I've stayed with Digg. I'm not a "Super Digger" but the new algo effects me as well. I also submit a lot of "fluff" stories now, it's the only way to hit the FP. It really seems odd that Digg has chosen to "punish" the people that put so much work and effort into making it the #1 Social News Media site. Hopefully things will turn around. Looking forward to reading more of your submissions and comments, Harry...
- profvegas, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I see a valid concern. One of the vibes I keep hitting is that Web 2.0 It actually consoladating media traffic on the Internet rather than dispersing it. Is the democracy of content editing a.k.a. 'the digg algorithm' directly tied to the need for high brand recognition and/or cute animals in order to be FP worthy?
- ALyken, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I truly admire your frankness and honesty. I didn't think that anyone of the top diggers would actually say this. Good on you for doing so!
- matx, on 04/10/2008, -0/+8This is dumb. If some one is popular because they are good at finding interesting articles why should we not digg their articles? I don't really care who submitted the article but some of the "power diggers" are good at finding interesting articles with good content. If you find the sites they submit are full of ads and bad quality content then don't digg them.
- Cenobite, on 04/10/2008, -0/+6I don't think the problem is that some users are popular because they consistently submit really good *****, the problem is that many people digg the submitter and not the submission.
- EatingPie, on 04/10/2008, -0/+9Really missed what I see is the biggest problem, and probably the biggest lesson I've learned on digg.
Eliminating the "gatekeeper" does NOT eliminate bias. And I'm not talking about "power users" or "digg's biggest user," I'm talking about the run-of-the-mill digger. The only articles that make it to the front page are what the majority will vote for, and these reflect the bias of the majority.
Group bias is why we end up with *only* good things about Barak Obama, and *only* bad things about Hillary Clinton hitting the front page. Anything anti-Bush also gets top diggs, but we never see anything about the good things he does. Atheistic points-of-view are generally accepted, particularly those by Richard Dawkins. These are "hotbed" issues -- politics and religion -- and tend to illustrate the group bias more blatantly.
The problem is that these don't reflect the *truth* or *accuracy* of the situation. No president, no matter how terrible, does only bad things in his presidency. No candidate, no matter how popular, has only good things in his records. A debate about the existence of God isn't a debate if it *only* contains one side of the story. Etc.
Bias still exists, even when you push it out to a general population. Digg shows that, and it's one of the things that's problematic about the system, particularly in terms of News items.
-Pie - kazzyD, on 04/10/2008, -3/+5Wow. Looks no front page here with 107+ diggs. And to add insult to injury, I just saw an article from Gizmodo hit the front page with 33 diggs. Obviously whatever "diversity" factor is at play on digg doesn't take into account diversification of sources.
- madmariner, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3I have to agree with ivankrasz. The thing about it is that, at least in theory, everybody can put in the time and effort to be a top Digger and therefore BE the gatekeeper. Not everybody can be an editor at Slashdot.
- petsheep, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3It is still mob rule at digg, sometimes you lead the pack, mostly you are crushed by it.
- hollywoodphony, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Sometimes both.
- ALyken, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Off the page: "So, in the end, we’re left in the same situation as we were before, except the gatekeepers aren’t paid employees who must demonstrate competence in their job or risk being fired, but people who are pimping unoriginal, copied content - likely for personal gains. There will always be bias in these “gatekeepers,” but blatant bias can be dealt with in the first model, not as much in the second."
It's the fault of the masses, they are the ones who senselessly digg articles without reading them, just because they've been submitted by power diggers. Sometimes when I click on some of the top articles, I can't find the story because it's encased in too many ads. - hollywoodphony, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I think this is a great article. Maybe there's just no fixing the system? I'm not sure. Yesterday I wrote a story that was obviously pure fiction. By some miracle, it made it to the front page. You may have noticed there isn't a lot of literary fiction up there. Anyway, it was dugg down and buried within an hour due to cries of it being "fake!" Seriously. I'm sure I'll get dugg down for linking to it here, but seriously, if you want to read how far diggers can go into the realm of pure idiocy, please give it a look.
http://hollywoodphony.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/ser ...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by