What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
119 Comments
- alphaone, on 10/12/2007, -12/+142As long as the articles are digg-worthy, does it really matter people?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+129I think its pretty obvious what would happen, and here's a hint: it wouldnt be bad
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -11/+89"they make it sound like the world will end"
Seriously!
These "Top posters" are starting to become a bunch of arrogant dictators. So what if they stop posting. Others will find the same stories, and they will get posted. - scarz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+85If they stopped they would be replaced. It's that simple.
- Sagags, on 10/12/2007, -7/+75they make it sound like the world will end
- PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+61Most people in a position of power don't easily give it up.
- Cannon13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Nothing would happen. The digg cabal gangs up and burries duplicate stories, so those stories would be the ones on the front page instead of theirs.
- DubbleA, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50What would happen? More people will be heard. Those new people will go on every-other person's friend list, and the process will be repeated.
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Simple solution.... Remove credit for who submitted the article. Still caculate the digg "rank", but just don't say "Submitted by _____". Remove that, and now you have no idea who submitted the story based on user.
Your friends still see that you dugg something, but don't know right away that it was you that submitted it.
This whole "Give the user the credit they deserve" line is a total waste of time. It wasn't the digg user that wrote the article... If it was, such as a blog post, then put your name on your website, and there's your credit!
"Ooooo, he's good... He can look at an RSS feed, and submit a link.... Give this guy a gold medal" - mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41The popel who posted a story before the top diggers, only to have their story buried and the top diggers post the same story and make the front page with it.
Let me break this down for you.
You submit a story.
Top digger submits the very same story soon after.
Your story gets buried by a top digger, his many alt accounts and his cronies.
The story the top digger copied from you makes the front page.
How do you think people feel when that happens to them? ***** over, at the very least. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I guess some people don't like the truth. We are easy to replace. Look at what happened after the Netscape Navigators left. Instead of Blood Junkie we have Aidenag for the political stuff. 3monkeys is now the programming and linux guy instead of Schestowitz (though he has more interests than just that). Parislemon, Hemphill81, giantApplecore, OBKenobi, Aaaz, and others are all stepping up to fill their shoes.
Fortunately Jay has stepped in to clear up the misunderstanding, so I doubt it is going to happen. - raj3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I think that the importance of specific submitters is being over emphasized. The strength is in the community as a whole. For one thing, the community that promotes stories is just as important. Without them you might as well be reading some random guys delicious page. Besides, regular submitters usually just have the everyday news (unless they submit off another social bookmarking site...), it's often other users who catch that awesome site you only stumble onto every once in a while (and these are the ones that make digg so much fun imo). So despite what the guys at Netscape want you to believe, digg is more than just a link dump for 20 people.
The regular submitters just monitor several sites and mass submit off them. For example, dirtyfratboy got his stories almost exclusively from reddit (a rival digg-like site). If they were writing original content I could understand why they would be valued but in reality they are just monitoring RSS feeds.
This does NOT mean I don't appreciate all that work they put in to help keep digg running, just saying that what they do is not rocket science. - timmyallen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21be honest with yourself, you know what would happen, there would be new 'top diggers'
and believe it or not, life would go on :) - acespades, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Nothing would happen. Is not like they write the articles themselves. Other people would digg the stuff. Simple as that.
- NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@Jaymoon, thats a really good idea!
the few things i've actually posted here, have always been burryied... and then 10 minutes later, one of the more popular people here posts a dup of it, and almost even steals my article description too!!!
drives me nuts... - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I think the writer of this article needs to revise statistics - first he admits that there is lots of variation between days of the week, so he then goes on to compare between thursdays, despite the fact that there is just as much variation there. There's even an obvious decrease in stories leading up to the seventh - before these diggers quit.
For this to be of any statistical significance, you would have to atleast compare the week before the month before they quit to the month after, and even that would be effected by the number of news in those months.
In lab conditions, I would consider ten data points enough to draw conclusions about a trend that shows obvious relationships between to variables. This uses just 14 data points to draw conclusions about a complex social community with thousands of users based around news on a global scale measured by an uncountable number of factors. This is madness.
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.' - Benjamin Disraeli. - jcidiotashram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10ok, let them quit. then we will see stories from different users hit the front page (instead of those select few). it is not like those top list is going to be vacant. it will be filled by the next in line.
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I've changed my comments filter to show all.. because people seem to just dig down anything they disagree with.. it's easier to make your own mind up and block really abusive users completely.
- akiraeternal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Its not the quantity of stories that matters, its the quality.
If the top posters were bothered about submitting stories, rather than caring about their high status, then they wouldn't be scathed by this event. But since they want to keep their fame, they are spitting their dummies out. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9And to summmarize most of the erudite comments above:
"We Don't need no stinking dictators!"
Case closed.
Where do you thnk the so-called 'top' users came from in the first place?
There are plenty more users, and growing every day.
I like the idea that stories are submitted anonymously.
Let's focus on value of content, rather than the stupid egotism and pride of people who didn't even write all those stories they submit!
Let the babies get over their delusions of specialness!
After all, P9 is just a boulevard in Montreal, eh? :-)
It's the equality of opportunity that makes digg so awesome, after all. - netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14The real question is, how many of these articles are going to be submitted. Seriously it seems like there is one on every page of the upcoming section.
There is no shortage of people posting the same articles over and over, its just the freind network that allows the top people to become from page faster than the other people who post the same thing but have no freinds. Digg is getting so large that even if a LARGE number of people left, there would still be plenty of stories submitted from newer members. - Shakermaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9...the world would stop turning and we would all be thrown into space.
Either that or I wouldn't give a rats ass. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The stats seem to ignore the picking up the slack factor, as well as a few other factors I don't know the name of. When one of the top posters posts a story, no one else cam post it. Is "Failed Submissions" an available statistic? I don't see it anywhere in his statistics.
- netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9We arn't going to sit here and cry because he decided to leave. That was his choice.
- digrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Nothing.. people would take their place and the cycle would continue.
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12who the ***** cares, stop posting stupid things like this. nothing would happen if they left. others would step up, the stories would still make it here
marked as lame. all these digg drama stories are lame and pointless. its not news, its not anything - Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why digg this? It is complete statistical crap. There are no obvious trends, the data is poorly analyzed, and as the article states: it is too soon to tell.
This article assumes the digg algorithm has changed (we don't know that) and assumes what the impacts of top diggers are (without any data).
Inaccurate. - Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+848 diggs.....i KNEW supernova dugg this.
- Punisher2K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What the ***** people. Some of you are talking about "positions of power". What the hell is powerful about being a top poster on Digg? Are you getting paid more money? Getting more chicks?
Jesus christ get a handle on yourselves. Get out of your parents basement if you think the number of articles you submit to a website have ANY bearing on your life. You have GOT to be kidding me that this is an issue and that people actually have strong opinions about this.
There is nothing to win here you idiots. - TheChihuahua, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Wow. Who really gives a rats ass?
- netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Personally, I would just like to see a better duplicate filter system, going through the upcomming section is like pulling teeth.
- Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Other people will fill in the void. IF they see good stories not already posted they will post them.
- s14sh3r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14P9 can suck it. Suck it long and suck it hard.
- erniebert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Life would continue better than before I am sure.
- ecwpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5wipe all this top user pages "price" status and the kids will stop crying... for a while
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6and the Digg response that seemed to validate those accusations.
I thought diggs responce was as kind and unaccusitory as it could be. I think p9 is blowing it out of proportion.
he could easily complain after the changes are made and if there are enough complaints, like facebook, things will change.
Because of the loud people that feel left out of digg, kevin would be foolish not to do anything about it. I think his only mistake was he could have choosen a better word than "gaming" when describing p9's actions. He wasnt even saying it was a bad thing. Kevin said he liked the friends feature and was glad people use it(like p9) but was changing the algoirythms so that popular people wouldnt drown out new people.
It is a good feeling when your first story makes it to the front page, and a lot of new poeple feel this is immpossible to do in the current digg atmosphere.
But i think p9 jumped the gun and I am not going to cry just because he is quiting. I actually think less of him for it. - ToddPM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As long as there is a way to know who submitted a particular story and also to maintain a "friends" list, Digg is inherently flawed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Let's drop these frickin stories about the damn 'top diggers'.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There have been numerous times when I go to submit an article and find it already submitted by a "top digger."
So, no big deal, I just Digg theirs. With them gone, I expect I will be able to submit more articles because those guys who always beat me by a few minutes will no longer be submitting! - mrpink.137, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Is anybody else tired of the Digg stories about Digg?
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here's what will happen -- The world will continue on because this little website and its army of self-agrandized, egomaniacal news copiers simply isn't that important.
- muffins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The truth is this: Many people stumble across these same cool articles and want to submit them, but the top diggers beat them to it. Most of the time they don't even bother checking to see if maybe the top diggers didn't get that story. If the top diggers stopped, the rest of the community would take there place. Nothing would happen.
- tom6a, on 10/12/2007, -19/+23Well, here's why the top digger stopped:
http://digg.com/tech_news/p9s50W5k4GUD2c6_1_digger_explains_what_prompted_his_resignation
P9's concern was not with the algorithm change. He agrees, "There are lots of Digg users who feel locked out of the process while the stories of top submitters repeatedly hit the front page. That's a material concern that has to be addressed." His concern was the "asinine conspiracy arguments from the blogs and comments" and the Digg response that seemed to validate those accusations. - nicerobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@jaymoon Good idea but won't work.
First, if people want their 15 minutes, go to youtube. I want links here and don't care to know who suppplied them. Of course, eliminating the "submitted by" will just mean that these egomaniacs, that apparently, desperately need to be seen, will post their names in the descriptions.
A democracy doesn't depend on/require recognition. In fact, anonymity is important to a democracy but on the internets, it's a double-edged sword. There's just no good, easy solution. I like to know if lots of people think something is interesting. But number of diggs can be fixed because anyone can register any number of accounts and automate the diggs. It's partly a consequence of ***** everywhere and it just takes a few to screw it for everyone. Anyway, it just boils down to not being able to restrict everyone to a single account. As long as we're anonymous, you can't trust the society, that those 30 people aren't really just five people, or even one person. Without anonymity, many people wouldn't feel safe to speak freely. - pixelsoup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6gcauthon : Maybe. But, sometimes others have already said it better. No need to say it again. All that's left is digg up or down.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4FUD!!!
If the system depends on existing top users, the the system is flawed.
Those who tweak the algorithm have plenty of resources to make the service work, and work well, for whoever is involved.
Where these top users professional journalists? Are there plenty of ace journalism students out there would love to hone their skills at Digg?
Let change be change, and learn to ride the wave. (Adapt or flounder!)
Ad nauseum, etc. etc. etc. etc. ARE WE DONE WITH THIS YET!!! - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Another set of top diggers would likely pop up because 100% of the people are not willing to spend the time and energy to post all the time. Maybe it will more like 60/40 this time rather than 90/10 but its still the same content. This fame stuff from being top submitter is lame.
- Anonyblessed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4nothing will happen. more will take their place. don't let door hit 'em on the way out
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Let them leave, who cares? Seriously?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is