What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
330 Comments
- GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -18/+284Disable the friends feature, then you won't have this.... "editorial gatekeeper" group.
And that is exactly what it is... this website is totally controlled by a few groups of individuals... not the entire community. - terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -13/+238What I seen was a list of 20 people that need a life.
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -11/+217Exactly, I've been saying this for months now. All these guys just sit around and digg each other's stories to the front page constantly. You can look at the digging history of some of these guys and watch as they digg three or four stories by their friends that were all submitted within a few minutes of each other. Further proof lies in their stories that don't make the front page- its mostly their friends that have dugg the story.
- davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -14/+147I've been suspicious that in many cases those 'friends' might just be the same person with different user names.
- GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+119@jmank88
That is a great idea! Have each story be anonymous until it is dugg to the front!
GREAT IDEA! - teckjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -19/+110Normally because they submit the best stories, and people have added them as friends because they make competent comments. We all know dirtyfratboy might as well be an admin. He submits great stories consistently and I've never seen him make a dumb comment.
- GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -20/+98I don't think anyone here believes it is a conspiracy... just a product of the software. If the most active users are friends... (I checked at least 2 didn't have any friends)... or if a large group of the top 20 are friends.. or friends of friends.. they will control most of the stories put up.
Am I right? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -25/+93@flashman
At least my local newspaper answers to it's readers via the editorials. The top 100 digg users answer to noone.
at least we know why the same Ajax, Apple, and Linux fanboy crap makes it to the front page over and over. - jmank88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+58thats exactly my thinking
once you get enough friends then all of a sudden you get automatic diggs for whatever you submit
getting rid of friends wont eliminate the problem though, i feel it would be more effective if stories were submitted anonomously
of course then some peoples motive of popularity goes out the window, and the quality of the stories could go down the drain
-jordan - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -9/+55"whether or not the content is determined by the top 100 users, the content is still pretty interesting. The system works fine."
So does a typewriter for typing forms. Doesn't mean there isnt a much better way to do it. - dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+50Not only is this not a conspiracy, it's a natural occurance in a democratic system.
No democratic system has 100% contribution by it's members 100% of the time. Only a small percentage of the group actually emerge as "policy makers" - or in Digg's case: "contributors." These people determine the direction that the system will move in. For a country, elected officials have the final say about what the laws will be. For a website like DIgg, the top users set the standard for the type of content.
The difference between Digg and a "truely" democratic system is that the members don't get to vote on who the top contributors will be. Right now, we can only vote for "policies" and not our "law makers". That's like trying to tell George Bush you support stem cell research... 3/4 of the democratic members may want it to happen, but as long as that policy maker remains in power it's not bloody likey.
I think GopherGod has it right that there is a problem with the friends feature. Right now it functions like a republican administration that appoints its own members to all positions in the goverment. It could be better. It needs to be better.
One way to improve the democratic functioning of Digg might be to eliminate the friends feature as GopherGod suggests. And replace it with a way to constantly alternate who the top users are. If Digg could introduce a feature that allows us to rank a SUBMITTER as well as digg the stories, then perhaps we would then have a refreshing cycle of new top users every month or so.
Or perhaps, if you digg a story that your friend submitted, the digg does not count towards a jump to the front page. You would only digg your friends stories so that you would have a record of them to look back on.
Those are just a couple thoughts.
But no matter what Digg decides to do in future updates, you will ALWAYS find that a small percentage of overall members will be the main contributors. That's a fact of life and democracy.
So cool it with the conspiracy talk.. it's not Digg's fault that our top users are behaving incestuously. This is a democracy after all. Voice your opinion and maybe you will see your suggestions show up as a feature in the next update. :) - hankbeasley, on 04/22/2009, -4/+46I think it would be cool if other variables could influence your overall digg rating.
- damagemanual, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40This may be a dumb questions but I'm going to ask it...
Just what does it take to have a story make it to the front page? - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41One small feature change that could impact front page results is to have the 'bury story' button right next to the digg button, just like on the comments page. I think people use the digg button way way way more than they do the bury botton. Another small change could be either not needing to give a reason to bury a story or needing to give a reason to digg one.
Just my 2 cents - BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Any website that allows user submited content will be "friend bias'. Newgrounds and deviantart have the same problem.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -33/+65@computerbynar:
that's exactly right - the system DOES work, as shown by Digg's continuing popularity.
If you think that a news source's credibility is damaged by having 50% of the content come from just 100 creators, then I advise you not to pick up your local newspaper any time soon. - GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42I am not trying to knock the users, but more the system. Anyone who uses the friend feature knows how much that can dictate what ends up on the front. If only 30-40 diggs are needed to take it to the front, you only need a few friends to speed up that process.
The friends feature basically eliminates the digging and turns this site into "what my friends like".... and I don't think it is good when a site of this size is being dominated by 20 people. Not if this is truly a social aggregator. - digitalgopher, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39The author of the blog is not looking at the whole picture and is only seeing things one way. I'll use myself as an example: If I have a homepage ratio of 36%, then that means almost 65% of my stories that I've submitted were buried or got no recognition and disappeared into the digg oblivion. that's A LOT of submissions that did not get enough recognition to make the frontpage.
that said, I'm not sure of the 'consipiracy' the author is hinting at.
IMO, top users are in the top because they 1) are heavy submitters and 2) submit good good content that other diggers digg if they like it. If something is lame, people don't digg it and it gets buried. - rk_cr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27And yet the allowed this article to come to the fore! Obviously they are no good at cover-ups.
- dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Come to think of it... stripping the power away from the friends feature just might do it.
We can still add friends, and keep track of their digging histories and such. But if you digg a story that your friend has already dugg, the "front page algorithm" either ignores your digg, or counts it as having less value than if a complete stranger diggs the story.
Yes.. that would probaby be the best way to go about it. Reduce the power of your digg when you digg a friends story. But don't eliminate the friends feature altogether because it's good to know what your friends have been up to. - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24It wasn't like that at all in the beginning.
When I started out a year ago, I was in the same predicament as you are right now. Albertpacino was king and I was mad that everyone dugg whatever he submitted, seemingly regardless of the content. But I decided to start submitting stories, too. I submitted my first story and it was a bust. And then another. Nada. Only after one hundred days did I finally get a frontpage story.
I agree that it's pretty much impossible to get your stories noticed now if you are new to Digg. Back then, there wasn't nearly as many stories to wade through as there are now. Unless the hundreds of thousands of Digg users break the 1% rule and wade into the sea of stories, then the top 100 users will pretty much "control" frontpage content. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25"Normally because they submit the best stories, and people have added them as friends because they make competent comments."
He's not talking about random people. He's talking about a select gang of submitters that sit around and digg everything their friends submit from a breakthrough in chip fabrication to what Jennifer Lopez wore to lunch earlier. - da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27@ GopherGod
I don't know about you but when I think "social bookmarking" I think "what my friends like" wouldn't be very social if you weren't aloud to keep track of what your friends are into - jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I also think that it has to do with people not digging for stories. They just read whats on the front page and leave so some good stories are not seen by many people therefor not dug and not put on the front page
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22personally I'd be interested in how the top diggers get their stories. Do they spend an hour each day exploring the tubes of the internets? or do they just pass on links from blogs?
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -13/+34@ GopherGod-If they submit quality stuff then the users will like it and Digg it, now if they start to submit crap then users won't Digg it, that simple. Even though I have some of the top Diggers as my friends doesn't mean I digg what ever story they submit, only what appeals to me.
- captainmarvel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22whoa, @computerbynar and flashman:
As robbh66 alludes to: What are your criteria for a system that 'works fine'? That's actually a totally reactionary argument, like saying: Sure, the US has problems, but it's still the best country in the world, so shut up you uppity hippie or get out of my country. -- Really, it's in the same vein.
Digg's whole supposed ethos is meritocratic - the best stuff is supposed to rise to the top of its own accord. If this story is true, the implication is saying wait, no, that's NOT what's happening - the main factor in whether stuff rises to the top in a huge number of cases is: was it submitted by someone in this elite group.
So to recap: stuff at top != best, stuff at top = submitted by elite.
Now, if that's true, would you still say the system is "working fine"? - cakefart, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28"They submit the best stories"?
Whatever you're smoking, you know it's rude not to share.
Just try and submit a real science story and see how it does making it to the front page. Now, if it includes words that the average retard here can understand, like Amazing or Top 10, or is an abridged version of a Wired story which is an abridged version of a Discovery Channel story which is an abridged version of a Yahoo! story on a Letter to Nature, then it will get to the front page. - orlandogeek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23I've seen this firsthand on a story I submitted about the whole NSA Telco fiasco. I have a good feeling that if one of these people had submitted the same story, it would have received far more than the 3 diggs it got. It is a bit annoying.
- randfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18In answer to the question about making it to the Digg homepage - the algo isn't entirely public, but the factors include - how many people "Dugg" it over a specific period of time (obviously, the shorter the time frame and more people, the higher priority it gets). I'm also informed (though not 100% sure) that the historical reliability/quality of the submitter and the people who "Digg" it is factored in. Thus, if a bunch of spammers who conitnually post low quality crap Digg something, it's less likely to make it to the homepage than if DirtyFratBoy and digitalgopher Digg/Submit it.
- Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I've seen good contributions never make it to the front page. One reason is the innumerable duplicates in the upcoming section. Good stories don't make it because their diggs are divided among 30 posts.
The select few are able to pass this muster by being special.
I don't think this is a good thing, I think it is a failure of the system (and no, I don't know how to fix it). It is painfully obvious that the front page of Digg is very homogeneous. It would be nice to see differing articles on the front page instead of "how AJAX rocks part XXXI" or "Google changed the look of something." - JeremiahLBurns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17For crying out loud. If people don't like the stories on the front page, digg some other stories to try to push them up there. Submit stories of your own. Bury stories you don't like. There's lots you can do.
And if you aren't enough to make a difference as an individual, bring friends with you. The more users you bring to digg with you, the more power you have. Find people on here who digg stories that you appreciate and make friends with them. This is a social network, after-all.
If you and your friends think that there should be more "Entertainment Container" stories on the front page, then you need to do what it takes to put them there. If you think that "Gaming News" isn't important, bury that ***** and quit bitching about how you think digg is ***** corrupt.
This site is working exactly as intended. More people think that the stories on the main page are interesting than those that are buried. Quit whining.
That's just my two ¢ent$. - mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I have seen several times where one of my friends in RL submits a story and then one of the top 20 submits the same one. Suprise the person in the top 20 gets it to the frontpage even though the other was submitted 3-4 hours earlier.
- Trention, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17That's only true if you ignore all of the diggers. Focusing on the submitters alone misses the point.
- BrandenWill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I knew it was like this. I will submit something and it gets two diggs. Later on in the week someone else submits the same story and it hits the front page. Not a big deal to me at all. I am not here to be one of the cool kids in the lunch room but it would be nice to have just one of my stories hit the front page.
- parlicious, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Everyone who visits this site knows it's true. That's why the same retarded crap keeps making it to the front page. ***** like the "hardest puzzle on the internet" that was just posted again today for the millionth time.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15there's a pretty easy way to explain why these 20 submitters have so many stories on the front page. Just take a look at how many stories they submit and what percentage of them hit the front page. You'll notice that most of them are below 40% homepage rate.
This leads to something I call the "shotgun effect". If you put out story after story after story, you'll eventually hit something and it will get to the front page. Most of the guys on the top 20 list submit at least 20 stories a day, with a diverse range of content. Out of these 20 stories, a few of them will probably hit the front page.
There's no perfect system to do something like this. Patterns will emerge, and some people will have a lot more stories on the front page than others. But, the beauty of Digg is the fact that while some of these people do have an iron grip on the front page, there is still a chance for anybody else to get on that front page, too. That alone still puts Digg miles ahead of nearly every other news website - fireflydigi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13That's no surprise to me, those top 20 people probably spend the entire day on Digg. I'm curious to see how many of the top 20 users digg this story.
- GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@Dawgma & @DigitalGopher
I think you are both right.
From reading all the posts I see some better suggestions then my original.. end the friend feature
1) Make stories anonymous, at least until they are dugg to the front.. this means only the best stories, regardless of how a vote is weighted by an algorithm, will make it to the front
2) Make friends a mutual process... I cannot have someone be my friend unless they want to be my friend too... - cyberghost232, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12What I want to know is,What the hell happened to AlbertPacino? That was a submitting Digging fool.
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I checked, and your stories are "decent" and interesting. I'll be on the lookout when you submit your next stories.
- iFelix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Comes back to the 1% rule.
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_1_Rule - GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13No.. but if 20 people are friends... or even 50 people are.. it is easier to put one of their stories to the front vs... just everyone having to digg stories out through upcomming stories..
You know? - RBotros, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I believe the U.S. is a democracy .. Now there, you dun want ur grandmu to vote for bush just because she read in a magazine that Brad Pitt voted for him.. Democracy means anonymity and not just to protect the voters, but to prevent their influence... Digg should really disable the friends feature.. And if you ask me, I'd say disable the "Submitted By.." property, too. Even this has to stay anonymous.. Diggers are to vote for content! if u want to vote for people either watch a beauty contest or go to www.myspace.com
- computerbynar, on 10/12/2007, -57/+68whether or not the content is determined by the top 100 users, the content is still pretty interesting. The system works fine.
- spin-docta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Digg needs to make digg a community!
If its controlled by few then what makes it different from a bunch of editors. If the top 100 control the site then it really isn't a 'social community'. - TTCross, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's better to have the same 100 users submitting stories than have content provided by one biased news editor.
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Apparently you're new here.
Watch some people's digg/submitt histories. It's amazing, they can read 4-5 articles in a single minute! - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Don't you mean digitalgopher? He's #1, not me.
- jdubya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10i just read the stories, i don't give a ***** who posts them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 330 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is