What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
29 Comments
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16stop this ***** already. seriously. first of all, "However, don’t take this list as the truth"- because it's INACCURATE. so now you're posting incorrect data with my name on it for articles i didn't bury. as noted- http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_s_Bury_Data_Exposed#c5459347 this data is wrong. i don't go around posting false info about your data, so until you guys get the CORRECT data, quit posting inaccuracies with my name on it.
now you've created enough of a ***** that other media is picking up on it. way to go. get your facts straight before tarnishing other people's names.
and yes, i'm going to repost this same comment in every "bury brigade" related article i see. - blake10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"What is the number of buries before an article is hidden anyway?"
now THAT'S the question isn't it? think for 1 second...if users are cohorting to bury stories, don't you think knowing the exact amount would be the holy grail for them? knowing the exact amount ONLY invites abuse...THINK! - wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Thats no good, because then to bury SPAM you would have to click on it, thus giving the Spammer exactly what they want.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There is a secret algorithm that the site uses to "weight" a story before deciding if it will be promoted to the front page or binned. It takes into account such things as number of diggs, the period of time the diggs were received, the number of buries and the relationship between all those values. There is more to it, but that should give you an idea of how it works. There is no set threshold of diggs or buries that means front page or dumped. That should also explain why you saw stories get the fp with less diggs than some of your submissions had. The ratio of buries to diggs in your submissions was worse to the point they never got promoted.
As for the up-digging cartel, the folks at digg recently added to the above mentioned algorithm to try to prevent just that. Is it working? Time will tell.
As for voting down and burying, they refer to the same thing. There is only one way to "vote down a story" and that is via the bury system. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have some ignorant questions........I'm curious about how Digg works.
If I "bury" a story, is it really buried or does it take a certain number of buries to truly make it go away? Is there a listing in the story somewhere where others can see that it is buried? Can other users unbury a story?
Also, I've submitted many stories that I thought would be interesting to digg users, but they never get more than a few diggs, yet I have seen all sorts of flotsam from some users get high amounts of diggs........on a regular basis. Are they working in cartels with other users to digg their stories up?
Lastly, the article for this story said you could vote against a story......how......aside from burying it?
Thanks - MaLaCoiD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I buried this story because I'm ironic.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6it's worth discussing if you have valid data, but you didn't bother to take the time to validate it. you ran a story with false information that you would have known was false had you taken 5 minutes to look at the articles/comments on the subject around digg.
- numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Just to make it clear - by posting this i wasn't trying to point fingers at any individuals, i just thought it was an interesting point for discussion. If articles are being deliberately bombed then it's worth discussing, i wasn't however taking a POV on who's right/who's wrong etc... And yes, there is a lot of press interest in digg at the moment so perhaps this is a good time to think about whether it's as... robust... as it could be?
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Anna Nicole is a subject, and there are many stories surronding her trial. You can't just ban Anna Nicole stories. They are different.
Now it would be nice if digg could scan a page, and determie is the story is the exact same as one posted before, and then reject it. Maybe if 80% of the words match the copy to another story, it gets kicked as a dupe. - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Since you state this: "...ability of a small number of users to "bury" stories without accountability...", you must have more access to the front page promotion algorithm than anyone else who has questions about this topic. What do you know about the algorithm that allows you to make such a statement. Define "small number of users".
Why is there so much hyperbole required to "prove" this point? Doesn't that set off anyone else's alarm bells? - blake10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4it's a shame you're getting caught in the middle of this. the people kicking up dust are NOT listening to reason and most are from netscape so they have a vested interest in keep this story alive. they'll deny it all day long but it's the truth. these people are zealouts, much the same way extreme left or right wing political nuts are. it's a sexy story and they're frothing at the mouth b/c stories about digg generate traffic.
the fact that it's such a small sample size and people STILL think this is valuable data (along with 75% inaccuracies) really shows their age, maturity, and general lack of understanding - miketrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I am on the list too and it says I buried stories that I actually dugg so it's pretty inaccurate. You can undigg but I've found no way of un-burying and then diggin.
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it refers to the actual story, not to your own personal biases.
- lishnetzy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like having the ability to bury stories simply for disliking their content or stance. Anytime you give the controls of a system over to a group of people you are bound to get abuses, take democracy for instance, it comes with the territory. I just buried an Ann Coulter story, cause she is LAME, and lameness is a choice on the bury menu isn't it? I say bury away, most stories get submitted multiple times anyway, and if you know how to use Digg and all the tools they've been so nice to include, you never have to worry about missing a story or event simply because people like me bury out of disgust.
- numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3good idea - it'll be interesting to see if this article gets out to a wider audience or not.
- rockhauler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This story is beginning to morph into something else. There are legitimate news stories from legitimate news sources that are being ''buried'.
Now think about this for a minute. This is about a business model, and advertiser dollars, BIG BUCKS; something that the big money guys take very seriously. If news stories are being buried because they don't fit a favored demographic, one that is receptive to featured advertisers, then this story has become something far beyond political 'get even with'm[ism]'.
This is something the administrators of digg.com need to control of, right now, before wise guys like me start asking advertisers if their advertising money is being well spent.
(This thread will be buried, if it is not buried already.) - jeffersonpierce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't think calling out people will do anything. However making some kind of catch where the link actually has to be at the very least clicked would be productive. I am not a computer programmer though so I have no idea how feasible that is.
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wasn't suggesting just banning topics I don't like; I can always not read them if I don't want to; I was specifically referring to duplicate stories.
- JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Pure democracy does not work due to abuses of the minority by the majority. Checks and balances are necessary prevent mob rule.
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Git r dun
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's a good idea Wild. I don't know how well it would work, but probably very well if they don't count common words like: the, a, are, is, et cetera.
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There has to be a fairly simple way of dealing with this - the first thing that pops into my mind is to limit the number of buries per account, or tie the number of buries to # of comments posted (so people don't set up dummy accounts just to "agenda bury").
I'm tempted to suggest a "comment karma" system, but then you get karma whoring. But given a choice between karma whoring and agenda burying, I'll take the former. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What is much more needed is a better system to stop the same ***** stories being submitted 15000 times. How many stories were there submitted about anna nicole whatever her face is?
- rockhauler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2For 'Wild"
enter the name of a respected news organization in the search box, upper right.
on the search page select 'url only'
repeat your search
notice the results
now check the box for 'include buried stories'
repeat search
decide for yourself - wild, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Can you give me an example of a legitimate story being buried?
- Missourimama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4
Really, how hard would it be to show who buries articles on Digg?
Why not show who and what people are burying on the persons profile, that way we can judge if that person is biased on the issue or not.
What is the number of buries before an article is hidden anyway?
- Namco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Buried. These diggspiracies are pissing me off. I don't usually bury stories, but this line of ***** deserves it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Probably some anti semitism in this somewhere.
- RadicalRon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Funny how the *free-speechers* have a ***** over opinions that run counter to their worldview and/or Moonbat Theology.
Koslings of the world unite!
Then STFU *and* FOAD. Get it?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is