What is Digg?73 Comments
- DrDigg, on 10/13/2008, -3/+52I like many other diggers think that the website is better for banning those who were abusing the system and taking over the frontpage. Let me refute these points from this article.
"Consistency: ...“hammer down” in such a very haphazard manner, the moderators of Digg have lost a considerable amount of credibility with the public at large"
Most diggers noticed that the website was being taken over by a select few who developed tools to abuse the system. Other than the small number of users who were banned most digg users didn't notice a thing when these people were kicked.
"Reliable: ...Digg is not entirely automated, there is obvious favoritism in some of the sites that do hit the front page"
The formula does not favor websites. There are sites which are known to draw in diggs. They are favored by the system only in the way that they draw in multiple non-friended diggers which can get you to the front page faster. These websites include huffingtonpost, cracked, xkcd, and zeropunctation (i'm sure there are others).
"Community First:..."
As i mentioned before the community of digg is best served by having more than 20 people provide all the frontpage stories, especially because they were gaming the system to do so.
So in summary - this article is sour grapes, so you were banned, move on everyone else has. - temujin2012, on 10/13/2008, -0/+27I have to agree with the author of the article, in that there -are- multiple alternatives, but I find myself coming back to Digg mostly because of the design, honestly.
The other sites that the author mentions (never have heard of Mixx before...found it interesting there were a lot of anti-Digg articles in the tech section) just don't seem as clean, I guess?
if I want to read articles, I just click the damn article title, in whatever category, not some picture, and not in some subset that I'm not sure where the article is. - Speed, on 10/13/2008, -1/+28Sorry, but I have no sympathy for those gaming the system.
- TexasShiv, on 10/13/2008, -1/+22The damn people who got banned violated the Terms of Use Agreement. Digg is better without them, and we need to move on.
And Jesus Christ, it's Digg. You cannot take this ***** seriously.. - Swivelstick, on 10/13/2008, -3/+16Why is it necessary to degrade a site as this spam does. Trying to get people to use another site with this method is not a good long term or short term strategy nor is all the anti-digg sentiment on "mixx" if a site is worthy it will succeed on its merits.
- sundamole, on 10/13/2008, -5/+17Interesting article, especially with the recent bans on digg.
- kanojo1969, on 10/13/2008, -2/+12What these blogtards fail to grasp is that Digg was never conceived as a means for them to make money. it's about interesting and topical information being made available to people. 90% of the crap that these people and their friends produce is just blogspam trying to insert themselves between us and the actual stuff we want to read.
it's incredible that all these morons can state so much utter ***** as if it's fact without a single citation or source to back themselves up.
Digg as a site has improved 100% in the last few weeks. Long may the bans continue. - PaulOwen, on 10/13/2008, -0/+10"In the case of Digg’s fopaux, you can use Mixx, Stumble, Reddit, Delicious or a variety of other web sites."
What is a fopaux?
I know it's not a fauxpas, so I had to wonder ... - yournightmare, on 10/13/2008, -0/+9Why disclose the submitter's name at all? Who really gives a ***** who submitted an article?
- Tarantulus, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11Buried for poor grammar and "end of the world" prophecies, DIGG is far from dead.
- MooseJawMan, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10Newbie digger here, as well as a MetaCafe wannabe...hehehehh
I wish MetaCafe would read this article. They could really learn something. - mahadiga, on 10/13/2008, -0/+7Digg should not disclose the submitter name till his article has become popular in order to prevent collusion with voters.
- iamnotrich, on 10/13/2008, -4/+10ban the baby
- subgeniusd, on 10/13/2008, -6/+121. Nothing and no one is "perfect".
2. Kevin Rose is a visionary and also very cool.
3. Digg is and will remain the top social networking site.
4. If you don't like it leave. You will not be missed. - gospe1337, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6http://digg.com/business_finance/Digg_White_and_Bl ...
I really can't insult digg too much. It gives more tangible sense of participation than voting in some U.S. states (like mine, IL). - quii, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6I for one have not noticed any difference in quality since the mass bans.
Sour grapes.
"My guess is, they are about to loose that distinction."
Oh god.. - inactive, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7You mean "Obama is jesus" stories every single hour?
- gdungan, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6Oh and don't forget ron paul in the reliable section...ron paul was 90% of this site up until he lost the primary.
granted Obama is ridiculously favoured now on the top pages...doesn't bother me as much though seeing as I am a crazy red hippy democrat :-/ - NoozeHound, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6You miss the point. The bannings were because people were being arse-holes by using scripts to screw Digg and us.
No amount of digging down would combat that, hence kicking them off. - Protoss, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5The recent bannings were for using SCRIPTS. There's no warning if you read the TOS, which strictly forbids scripts, and then go ahead and use one.
- NoozeHound, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5She says she wasn't banned. Her link to whoami says 'java script'.
I thought it was sour grapes, but then on the back of 'I haven't been banned' I thought: "Must've been yer mate then." - mozert, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5Either you have access to the DIGG FORMULA or you dont. Stop playing around with speculations.
- thespanielator, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6They still need to mop up the last few though
- doom777, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5I am sorry, reddit is too jumbled up and confusing. Why does it now allow me to take down some articles randomly?
- hollywoodphony, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Those grapes must be pretty sour, eh?
- Canadian0207, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4i think google has search engines cornered, wouldn't you say?
- HonoredMule, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Apparently it's the kind of terrible blunder that dramatically improves the quality and desirability of service for the website that made said "blunder." But of course what kind of spin did you expect from a blog labelled "Web Design and Internet Marketing?" The subtle undertone in each mark described against Digg is that of failing to cater to content-spammers' interests.
This article is a thinly-veiled pile of sour grapes. - isntreal, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5I've found that despite the lackluster design, reddit has a much higher level of quality in its articles.
- isntreal, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3fat chance
- chrisb7, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Even more so considering it's gone front page. Seems like a statement by Digg towards this article itself.
- mp3dog, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Retarded point of view, and ridden with grammatical errors. BURIED
- rebrad, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2The web site that is paying for that front page article cares who the submitter is and so does the submitter. How else can they establish payment for services rendered.
- pault107, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2He lost me at:
"My guess is, they are about to loose that distinction." - melward, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Thanks for the comments... The article was not written as bait - it's just my opinion.
I earnestly believe that a site like Digg should exist for the benefit of the community at large. By not making the TOS transparent and by permanently banning those that violated it unknowingly, I think Digg has done a disservice to all. Are their abusers in the system? Absolutely. Should they be banned? Yes. But many of the people who were banned simply did not know better or were victims of a "bait and switch" post.
When customer service is contacted and no response or rude responses are received in turn, then it is obvious that there is a break down in the system. The web is about communication, open communication. Any site or service that wants to succeed in this market needs to be open with its users. - Protoss, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3That's why they call you Dr. Digg!
- peterjmag, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3*faux pas
- inactive, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4sites that are based on democracy (extensive voting without big brotherish 'blog' articles like slashdot) naturally are to extend democracy.
- rebrad, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Those digg gamers that were banned are back under different names. New names but the SOS. I'm sure they had to lower their rates to get an article on Digg but besides that nothing has changed.
- basye, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2For the record, I am *not* the author of this article and had nothing to do with its creation in the least.
- melward, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1corrected
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2It's also not good to let a website be "gamed" and overrun with articles from sites like The Huffington Post, especially when Digg didn't always used to be this way. I would welcome a viable Digg alternative, although I hope that they don't get overrun with HuffPo spam like Digg has been.
- JustinHopewell, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Welcome to Digg!
- krustie, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1While your throwing random numbers about, I'd say over 50% of Digg users couldn't give a rats ass about the US elections.
- spacey, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1"Digg as a site has improved 100% in the last few weeks. Long may the bans continue." That doesn't make up for the twenty times worse it is now than it was 2 years ago.
- str3ama, on 10/13/2008, -0/+15. Pandering to Digg fanboys.
- kickass911, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1hail grammar Nazi
- melward, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2I appreciate your well thought out comments. On some levels I do agree with you. Those that do abuse the system should be banned. In the cases that I am referring to, no such abuses took place. A few people that I know were banned for Digging a site with a photo they enjoyed. Later the photo was replaced with an ad. They were banned for Digging spam, without warning and only getting an explanation after much effort. I do not think that is appropriate behavior for a web site like this.
- DrDigg, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1I know which case you are referring to because other people have submitted that as an example. I agree that if that one picture was the reason that person was banned that was a bit much, but I suspect that person was really banned because they were in the group of people who were blind digging. So the reason that the person was told they were banned may not be the actual reason digg banned them. This person was in the group that dugg over 500 stories a day. These people without any filter did nothing but hurt digg. Good riddance.
- bobara, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1ebay definitely has competition - amazon:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/12/business/ec ... - OfNumbers, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2Tonight is the third time I've been digg-blocked for over-digging. What the *****?
I read the ***** I click. I open dozens of tabs at once and go through them systematically. And I keep getting ***** blocked. Someone tell me the digging algorithm so I can stop getting punished. This is the third time.
And sorry to Bayse for posting this comment in your post. I know it's not directly related. -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is