digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Gaming Digg / New Changes

diggtheblog.blogspot.com — "Over the last (almost) two years we have learned a lot about the user base and how to defend digg from spam, artificial diggs, and digg fraud. It's a battle we will continue to fight and one that we don't take lightly."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Schug, on 10/12/2007, -20/+207Now you can all stop complaining! Believe it or not he's actually doing something.
    • 3monkeys, on 10/12/2007, -49/+208Thanks Kevin. I guess I'll have to continue gaming the system as I have, submitting unique stories with quality content.
    • Vicious, on 10/12/2007, -72/+23Hey Kevin,

      Thanks for somewhat addressing the concernes (re)raised today. But you didn't go quite far enough. Check out this story:

      http://digg.com/tech_news/Working_Digg_another_look_at_the_LATEST_Digg_corruption_scandal

      What do you think of that? What specific steps are going to be taken to prevent such things happening in the future? Will there be retro-active re-ordering of the front page to reflect changes that will be implemented in the future?
    • accidental, on 10/12/2007, -33/+15Hehe. Thanks Kevin. Appreciate you posting something. I don't think there is a quality issue here with people gaming the system but your ideas seem like they will make Digg an even better place to get content so for that, thank you.
    • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -50/+8It's funny how Digg has its own politics now with lousy submitters clamoring for the administration to rework the system so that diggs are redistributed from the top submitters.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -35/+531st: Awesome that digg is responding. Top diggers is great! We need more people digging/burying in the upcoming than submitting.

      2nd: Any secret algorithm is a bum deal. In case you haven't noticed Digg users are pretty pro-open source. Release the algorithm. It will be beaten by spammers, but with every iteration it will get better.

      Otherwise we are left with spammers beating the system anyway, but with powerless users and slow response to spamming tactics.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -45/+16"Thanks Kevin. I guess I'll have to continue gaming the system as I have, submitting unique stories with quality content."

      Don't forget, "and keep auto-digging my select circle of friends".
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Whew! Now I can stop obsessing about Digg and go back to digging. I'm looking forward to the new changes. I think it will result in a higher quality and diversity of content.

      Yay, Digg.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25The other thing that gets me is that, Kevin mentions that we can mark a story as bad, and that helps regulate the system, but it seems like those stories never get pulled off the front page whenever they meet the threshold for bad/inaccurate. They just hang out up there on the front page.

      And this still doesn't prevent people from digging each other's stories up. I guess I'll just have to wait til the new algorithm comes out before I start submitting again.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+60"Don't forget, "and keep auto-digging my select circle of friends"."

      You can digg down my comment if you want, but no one was *ever* accusing these guys of not submitting quality stories. The issue came down to their practice of insta-digging each other's submissions.
    • Kericr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28@Whitey: "2nd: Any secret algorithm is a bum deal. In case you haven't noticed Digg users are pretty pro-open source. Release the algorithm. It will be beaten by spammers, but with every iteration it will get better."

      He tried this once. Remember "25 diggs in 24 hours promotes a story?" That ended up not working out too well.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -34/+62p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, supernova17, tlmac59, 3monkeys, digitalgopher, BloodJunkie, Aidenag, johndi, hemphill81, aaaz, wayjer, Geekforlife, illegalchuck, gwjc

      Stop the digg-circle or someone please ban their asses.
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@headzoo On the contrary. I've seen some pretty lame ass articles from people in the top 20, but more in the top 100. People who submit everything in the hope something makes it.

      @kericr Well. That would be a bad algorithm. Lets try making it more complex (I've got a math minor, I'm OK with pretty hard math). It will get beaten again and again. But it will take longer and longer. The easy exploits will be revealed quickly, instead of lying in wait and being used but undiscovered.
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -31/+110You know what I get tired of? Submitting stories and working my ass off to make digg something cool and getting lumped into a category called "circle jerk". I submit stories that I think are cool. I get up at 5AM PST every morning to do this. I digg stories that I think are cool. The fact that people are on my friends list have dugg the same story, will sometimes influence me to check the story out and digg it for later reading.

      I feel as if I've busted my ass here on digg and all I get is a lousy t-shirt that says "digg circle jerk". Once again, mod me down for having an opinion that differs from yours, but it's the way I feel.

      Peace out..
    • Whitey04, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25@Greg D

      I don't lump you in with the top20 or circle jerks. You can tell that you care because of your comments, and your care that opinons get heard even if disagreed with.

      You've done good work.

      There are others however, that work the system, have too much power, and submit crap (making digg crap) and get off scott free.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"You know what I get tired of? Submitting stories and working my ass off to make digg something cool and getting lumped into a category called "circle jerk"."

      People are going to question things that seem "odd", myself included. But that doesn't mean you should be offended. If you're not doing anything wrong, then don't worry about it.
    • jramos, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6FTA: "This doesn't mean that the story won't be promoted, it just means that a more diverse pool of individuals will be need to deem the story homepage-worthy."

      i.e. spammers just need to setup more "diverse" bots to get stories promoted. Sweet!
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31@whitey04

      I appreciate the sentiment bro. However, dclowd9901 lumped me into the "circle jerk" category in another thread. People will mod my comments down simply because they come from me. Others have admitted to digging any story that I submit down, simply because I'm in the top 30. It goes both ways...frustrations on all levels I'm afraid..
    • UsernameTaken, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6"Now you can all stop complaining! Believe it or not he's actually doing something"

      I see what you mean, but this sounds just like a sugarcoated way of saying: "we're fixing obvious flaws in the algorithm because we can't ignore them anymore". I think that the only reason not to publish the algorithm is because it was not very well thought out in the first place.
      I'm glad they're addressing the problem, but it would be better to see them discovering the flaws in their own code proactively, rather than reacting to an obvious concern raised by the community.
    • ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26Hey GregD, you're cool (I friended you ^_^), don't worry about it.

      Also, I don't believe that there is anything that Kevin can do to change this. Where ever there is a list, there will always be a top and a bottom. Especially a top X (100 in this case) and a bottom rest.

      If Kevin ran the code through trillions of dollars worth of programming and "quality assurance" and Supercomputers, in the end Digg would still be the same. There would still be a top group, although it might be a different group.

      Personally I'm working my ass off trying to get up to the top 100, submitting quality links and news. It's hard, and I'll admit having lots of friends does help. However, I don't think that the Top 100 should have their Diggs or buries worth more, or for that matter, NO ONE should have more power. For Digg to work perfectly everyone needs to be equal. That's not the case. Some people have made lots of friends on Digg or brought lots of friends into Digg, some are friendless (on Digg). Some spend hours a day scouring the Internet for items to submit while others spend 2 minutes a day checking the headlines on Digg.

      Digg is a dynamic system, that's what makes it work and keeps it going. The more "work" you put into it, the more you get back out. True it's not perfect, and some people may be taking advantage of it, although I don't believe it intentional. I know many top 100 users, and they're not here to game some random website. They're good at what they do, and they repay loyalty. You Digg mine, I'll read your submits and digg the ones I like. It's human courtesy. (remember: "you digg mine" assumes that you read my article and liked it, so I'll give YOU a chance and read some of YOUR articles. That's the point of Friends. Back me up Kevin).

      I would also like to Thank the ENTIRE Digg Development team, not just Kevin, for continually putting more time into Digg, and making adjustments where needed, ESPECIALLY as quick as this, right after the complaints lodged and voiced.

      Thanks Digg Team:
      Thanks Amar Nadhir, Thanks Owen Byrne, Thanks Steve Williams, Thanks Nicole Williams, Thanks Eli White, Thanks Timeless, Thanks Daniel Burka, Thanks Kevin Rose, Thanks Ron Gorodetzky, Thanks Brian Link, Thanks Mike Newton, Thanks Dan Huard, Thanks Jay Adelson, Thanks John Moffett, and Thanks Scott Baker. You guys work hard for us, and I appreciate you guys.
    • shanedog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@headzoo "You can digg down my comment if you want, but no one was *ever* accusing these guys of not submitting quality stories. The issue came down to their practice of insta-digging each other's submissions."

      Um, that's exactly what a lot of us are saying. Most of the stuff on the front page is crap, especially the stuff submitted by some of the "notorious" top users. The stuff that doesn't suck is usually a duplicate that has been previously posted by someone else.
    • chad78, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37I'm not a top 30. (I am a top 50, but no one is complaining about me ... yet.) So as an outsider to this little *ahem* "top 30 circle jerk" (I did not make that up) I must say ... Who cares? You know, if 30 or 20 or 50 or 90 people want to digg each other's stories - let them. I digg my friend's stories. I also report my friends as inaccurate when need be. I also ignore some of their stories. Am I more prone to digg stories from my friends? Of course. But I also scan the upcoming stories as well. I think if more of the bitchers would start doing *that* (scan the upcomings) they'd (a) see that the top 30 submit more stories than the vast majority (b) see that the top 30's stories are better - (better quality and better titles/descriptions) - than most other stories and (c) START HAVING MORE CONTROL OF WHAT'S ON THE FRONT PAGE. You don't control what's on the front page by only reading / digging front page stories. You don't control the front page by just doing that and submitting a few stories and then bitching when it doesn't get to the front page. You have to digg non-front-page stories.

      I'm submitting this comment to all the stories about this garbage.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5"Um, that's exactly what a lot of us are saying. Most of the stuff on the front page is crap, especially the stuff submitted by some of the "notorious" top users."

      Right, but the crap gets there because they are insta-digging each other. That doesn't mean they aren't making an honest attempt to submit quality stories.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9GregD:

      Can it with your "poor me" bit. I think I've had about enough.

      First, my problem is not with the club itself, it's with the action of clicking "digg" without actually checking out the article. I pride myself in trying to either read every article I digg, or if I'm not able to (because I'm at work), and the article already has an assload of diggs (2000 or more), digg it and save it later. You guys are bootstrapping yourselves through the system. It's the same "good ol' boys" problem that's plaguing our central government, that we complain about routinely in the comments.

      Secondly, nobody asks you to wake up early and start burning through articles to submit to the homepage. That is your choice, and if that brings you to the top and makes you an easier target for this issue, then that's something you've been risking all along. Frankly, I'd be pretty happy if the lot of you took a damn day off, just to see how it goes.

      Don't kid yourself, and don't kid us. You're not doing this because you're a philanthropist. You're doing this because it gives you power. And I'd say the power to choose what 500,000 registered users will see in a given day is a pretty powerful position to have.
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -11/+34@dclowd9901

      Accusing me of "bootstrapping" with others is not only asinine, it's ***** irresponsible. If you pride yourself on reading every article you digg, how about priding yourself on reading what I've actually dugg before you blindly assume I'm part of some big ***** conspiracy.

      You also blindly assume that I submit stories just to end up in the "top". I've already ***** explained that I get up early to submit stories that I think are interesting. At most I submit perhaps 10 in the morning and maybe that same amount in the evening.

      I don't have a "poor me" attitude. I have a pissed off attitude at people like you who assume that I'm up to something nefarious, simply because I'm in the top 30. I'm also pissed off that you're in here telling me what digg is to me and why I do what I do. Who the ***** are you to do that?
    • NonpopularUser, on 10/12/2007, -27/+9Dearest gregD,

      thank you for getting up so early to cut and paste headlines and summaries from articles that I could have googled myself.

      boy, digg would collapse completely without people like you.

      You act like you submit your stories for the diggers - but you obviously don't even read the articles you post (otherwise you would WRITE a summary).

      I tried to submit a copy and paste article...but for some strange reason it didn't get to the front page?

      I guess the story just sucked, right? after all there is no way my story...
      http://digg.com/hardware/Scan_300_WiFi_Networks_At_Once
      ...could possibly compare to your front page story....
      http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Do_Not_Eat_Pringles_Fat_Free_Potato_Chips_They_Will_Grease_Your_Ass

      your story was OBVIOUSLY way more digg-worthy
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27And as for your power comment. I don't come here for the power. Since your ability to research anything that you accuse people of is limited, I'll remind you of something.

      Back in November of 2005, I started a site called diggfan.com. I didn't have any advertising on it and merely started it as a place for diggers to meet up and talk about digg or anything else. This was prior to the commenting system we have now and during the "koolaidguy" saga if you remember that. It was out of my site that I befriended a guy named Ash. He made this awesome firefox extension where you could block users, block stories by keywords, etc., all on digg. I thought it worked wonderfully and certainly increased the functionality (at that time) of digg tremendously. A LOT of people downloaded it and used it and thought it worked great. It was my contribution to the digg "community" such that it is.

      Why am I telling you this? Because I am truly here as a digger. I have yet to see this "power" that you speak of.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7***WHEW*** OK, can I un-clutch my rosary, my heart pills, and my parachute ripcord now? /sarcasm

      Gah, that's all Digg's been about all day: Digg Digg Digg. Somebody even spammed it to reddit. OK, Kevin, it's your site, do what you want with it. But I think we just saw a new cabal successfully oust an old cabal. Why do you think we heard all this fuss, while people like me who said "So what?" got modded down? There's other ways to game a site, like playing head games on the site's owner.

      Anyway, can we just see news again, now?
    • capn_caveman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I think digg has to be very careful about the way they implement this algorithm change. If you read a lot of the comments on this page and on many of the related submissions, well there are a lot of people around here that seem to resent the top submitters of digg for having an undue amount of influence on the website. I've read several comments in several threads about people saying that they mark every submission from top submitters as "lame" or whatever. So it is logical that people purposely NOT digg an article just because it was submitted from P9, digitalgopher, gwjc, etc. Implementing an algorithm to force story promotion by diversified digging may actually penalize these users because many people have a tendency to not digg them in the first place. I'm all for diversified digging, but digg has to be careful to try to keep a level playing field and not actually exclude top users from making the front page.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What I think they shoud do is break their algorithms down into a series of factors and let each digg user decide whether a factor is a consideration positive, negative or neutral for them.
    • madpie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14I just love the tension between this line:

      "we don't disclose exactly how story promotion works"

      and this line

      "In the end digg is yours to control."

      Uh, no. It's *yours* to control. Yes, there's a little group of masochists who like to waste all their time submitting stories that they think will game the system, but there's never any question about who is ultimately in charge. I have no problem with that, by the way, but I think the rhetoric about democracy is thoroughly bogus. The system is not transparent, by design. That's not democratic, and it never has been.
    • gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27@diggywiggit:

      Dude, you've never even submitted anything and you've only been registered for about two weeks; maybe hang around for a while and get a feel for how this place works then you can start telling everyone how to run it. I don't understand why you think any of us should be banned; We aren't putting penis enlargement or discount viagra ads on the frontpage; We're investing a lot of time, for free, digging good content up, because we like digg. Anyway dude, I've complained about aspects of digg many times in the past and I won't hold your gripes against you, welcome aboard!

      Good name by the way!
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@nonpopularuser

      Wow, you've surmised all of that after being registered for about a week huh? You've submitted 3 stories in that week. Good on ya. Keep going. Don't let the fact that the 3 stories that you've submitted haven't front paged. Keep submitting quality stuff and you will make it to the front page (although this isn't what it's about to me) eventually.

      That being said, that submission of mine that you've pointed to was a humorous submission....wholly different than your tech submission. I did read it and submitted because it made me chuckle. It apparently made a few others chuckle because they dugg it. So comparing these 2 submissions together really doesn't work because one is in "offbeat news" and the other is in "hardware".

      That being said, your sarcastic tone isn't lost on me but because you're new here, I'll let it go.

      Peace out..
    • b7illsmith, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Gaming the system?!?! No one ever games the system. Just take a look at digg spy:
      http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n245/b7illsmith/autocourtesy.jpg
      This was going on for a few minutes before the screen shot. johndi was digging at a rate of 1.5 diggs/sec.
      LOL!!!!
    • chadell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This is a game with a reality twist. Game on!
    • tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The issue of "networking" articles to the frontpage and the digg elite has been brewing for a while now. It is definitely an issue. Almost every article you see on the front page these days is by one of these "top 30 users." That is pretty much a fact. And I don't think that is what this site intended.

      However, what I see today is that enough articles were posted and that enough attention was finally brought to bear on the whole debate - that the digg staff recognized this, responded, and is making some major changes in the way their site is run. How much more democratic and responsive can you get? That should put to rest all those other articles where every comment is "...well, this just got buried. Digg staff is editorializing anti-digg posts...etc..etc"

      With that said, my take on the digg elite is this: yes, it is almost impossible to get an article to the front page without having those regular diggers in your friends list. I don't care what anyone says about "good content from anyone will get promoted". That is pure BS.

      There are some nuances, though. First of all, and I think this was mentioned many times already by some of the top diggers today in various posts - and I agree with it: the fact that these members are very active members of this community. Submitting, digging, commenting, participating. Their senior role evolved naturally. If you want your article promoted to the front page - you need to bring it to the attention of the people on the site that use it hyper-regularly. It may not be the fairest system - but, it makes logical sense. Whether or not it is getting out of control and needs adjusted is up to the digg staff. They designed the system that way. If it needs tweaked, they will do it. These guys obviously care about their site and the community and for the most part seem responsive to it.

      I also saw mentioned by one of the "top 30 users" in the comments of another post that this "digg elite" is *not* a closed membership. That they are welcoming of new diggers that add them to their friends list and will add them and digg their articles, respond to their comments, and so on. I think that this is very true. The top diggers extend their friends list pretty readily from what I have seen.

      I am not the wishy-washy type at all, but, I really do see both sides to this issue. It's a hard one to solve. I hope the digg staff can find a nice balance with their new algos and new features. I am very much looking forward to seeing the changes.
    • sanfordsweet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I've been on here for about a month and have witnessed only acceptance from the top diggers. I've tried to make sure my content is worthy and at the same time have tried to push out as much as possible because I think it is important offer up as much newsworthy information as possible. And in a huge way, the reaction of top diggers has helped me to become a much better "submitter" in terms of content and approach. And I also see how much work it takes to be good at submitting quality content.

      I also understand the natural progression of the site as Tomboy mentioned. But it was natural. With this type of system that is bound to happen because some people naturally use it much more often than others - and in my mind, have a right to sit atop a the top diggers list and influence others. As long as they are welcoming to new folks (which I believe they are) they become the natural filters of the content of the site. They have spent the most time and understand the most about how it works. They should look out for what is coming in and coming out in my mind. Rather them than people behind the scenes because again, its natural and they are and have been directly involved with the community.

      And now Digg has lost its top user. Sucks.
    • skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4that's all well and good but what about the "reply" abuse.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Accusing me of "bootstrapping" with others is not only asinine, it's ***** irresponsible. If you pride yourself on reading every article you digg, how about priding yourself on reading what I've actually dugg before you blindly assume I'm part of some big ***** conspiracy.

      You also blindly assume that I submit stories just to end up in the "top". I've already ***** explained that I get up early to submit stories that I think are interesting. At most I submit perhaps 10 in the morning and maybe that same amount in the evening.

      I don't have a "poor me" attitude. I have a pissed off attitude at people like you who assume that I'm up to something nefarious, simply because I'm in the top 30. I'm also pissed off that you're in here telling me what digg is to me and why I do what I do. Who the ***** are you to do that?"

      In response to your first graph, I can only say that the reason I believe you don't read articles is because you're part of the system. You're guilty by association, and that's your demon. Like I said: There's not a lot of targets when you start hitting the top 30, and you're bound to become one.

      In re: 2nd graph: Yes, I do think you submit stories to be at the top, because you ARE at the top. To be at the top of the digg pile takes a lot of work, as you've pointed out, but you've broken through the barrier, and now just about anything you submit is going to be dugg. What *I'm* saying is that if I submitted "Put that in your mousetrap: mice don't like cheese!," you can bet your ass I wouldn't get anything *close* to 150 some-odd diggs. THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT. A story's a story. It shouldn't matter who the hell submitted it.

      Who the ***** am I? Who the ***** are you? Are we to assume that just because you're gregd, longtime top30 digger that we KNOW you? I don't know you, and I'm willing to bet 99% of the people on your friends list don't know you. Why should we trust you to tell us *any* amount of truth. You want to prove to us that you're not doing anything nefarious? You and the others don't submit anything anymore. If you do this, then we'll know you have no qualms with relinquishing your position. If you do have a problem relinquishing your position, then there must be something up. We should never trust those that desire power.
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ubuntu users should have zero promotion weight.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Kevin mentions that we can mark a story as bad, and that helps regulate the system"

      This is a somewhat worrying feature which can be abused. We've already pointed out the fanboy/partisan/extremist cabals that bury stories they disagree with. For weeks we've had every story critical of Bush being marked inaccurate and comments modded down blindly.

      Digg needs to emphase positive voting and promotion, rather than burying stories. This way stories will not be removed or hidden and popular stories will still get more exposure.

      And how about more recognition for those who find the really good stories? Digg doesn't reward quality, it rewards quantity.
  • Rub3X, on 10/12/2007, -64/+35http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_blog_Explaining_the_recent_controversy_over_digg_fraud Dupe..
    Bad kevin.
    • misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -7/+86Oh the irony. Everyone is digging Kevin's submission and not the other one.
    • Rub3X, on 10/12/2007, -27/+75Indeed what a prime example of how Digg is *****. Digg me down and deffend him all you guys want but it needs work. If this right here isn't proof enough, what is?
    • misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -28/+14No, digg's not *****. Since you don't get it...the irony is that all the people that were just complaining about some users getting their stories dugg are now the ones ones digging Kevin's story when there was a perfectly good other submission they could have dugg. The same thing happens to the stories of p9, digitalgopher, etc...people digg their stories because they have them marked as friends and trust their stories because of following their history. That's the proof that digg is the way it is because the people make it that way.
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47People always digg down dupe comments...

      Nobody gives a crap. They just digg the one they see.
    • gweedo767, on 10/12/2007, -8/+54I find the real irony/oddness to be that Kevin's entry is a TRUE dupe. The URL's in the two stories are spot on the same and the other guys is 2 minutes older. I guess being the king lets you get around your systems build in dupe checking :)
    • lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33the submissions are TWO minutes apart. and one is by the chief architect of the website. articles with more relevant submitters are not a bad thing to promote. and good story titles are easier to digg, too.
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Even the summary is the same.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Leave P9 out of this. He his different from all the other top submitters. He actually added me as a friend on Google talk he's that awesome. Also, relating to people just digging the top submitters. I hardly digg stories based on the fact that my friends submit them. I think that just ruins digg. I think the point of the friends list is so that you can see what people who have similar intrest or who you agree with are digging. That said I don't waqnt people who are my friends to digg my stories if they suck. The sign of the real friend on digg is not the one that diggs all your stories but one who you actually agree with.
    • forteller, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17But normaly you're not allowed to submit an URL that has been submitted before. Even though Kevin is one of the masterminds behind Digg, the same rules should apply to him as everyone else!
    • mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7About damn time, thank you Kev. The Digg staff needs to keep up this type of communication to prevent this sort of squabbling.

      Your silence in the past has only exacerbated this debate about gaming the system. This isn't the first time this subject has been in the spotlight.

      Excellent use of the Diggblog.
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"The URL's in the two stories are spot on the same and the other guys is 2 minutes older. I guess being the king lets you get around your systems build in dupe checking."

      getting around dupe URL's isn't remotely hard, it's done daily.

      also, i think people underestimate a good "story headline".
  • penguinix, on 10/12/2007, -21/+14Here comes the damage control....
    • penguinix, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5I'm going to call it right now: Digg is going to "go down for maitenance" within the next 3 hours as a way for the developers to silence user outrage.
  • collintheweak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think this "Digg Diversity" sounds great.
    • MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+58Now if we could only get a "Top Commentors" tab, where the most prolific and popular commentors are given credit and exposure. It's the comments and discussion that keep people coming to Digg, not the stories.
    • bonked, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Here Here!
    • forteller, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3There There!
    • ergo98, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7>It's the comments and discussion that keep people coming to Digg, not the stories.

      Pardon me but....HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh man...HA HA HA AHA HAHAHAHAHA!

      Do you really, truly believe that?

      When people talk about Digg, 99% of the time they follow up any positive comments with the disclaimer that the comments are useless.
  • Evroccck, on 10/12/2007, -45/+7Ha! I'm on the phone with Kevin and Jay now.

    You are all jealous! :)
  • tlmac59, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Bravo!
  • BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Actions speak louder than words. I'll believe it when I see it.
  • fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56The top digger in my mind - http://digg.com/users/infonote/dugg
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42Geez.. I feel bad for that guy. All the stories he's submitted, and not a single promotion.
    • fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Ya we should all digg one of his stories up. To make him feel better.
    • soccerboi00, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Find an article of his thats good, and lets all digg it up. I think he should get some credit for all of the work he's done.
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5i say everyone go in and digg up his last 2 or 3 submissions. if he hasn't read this thread he won't know what hit him. :)

      that .. and we'll make a legit digger's day.
    • fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4How about this one.

      http://digg.com/television/The_Times_cites_lefty_blogs_Dick_Clark_to_save_Clinton_Bill_from_TV_movi
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Great! We smashed the old dictatorship! Now what? I know, let's build a new one!

      A whole thread of users wanting to Digg somebody up just because of *who* he is instead of what he submitted - exactly what we just got through saying the problem was last time! We're just picking a new cabal.

      I'm going to invite some of my political-science wonk friends to watch this. It's becoming a real popcorn-muncher!
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4hosiah:
      did you take drama in highschool?
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@oOLiquidNightOo

      Did you take high school?

      PS That wasn't drama, that was humor at the irony of the moment.
      Something you learn in those fancy "book" things.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Hey, perhaps you're right: screw humor, let's try some drama to get the point across:

      Here, we have toppled an old clique of top 15/20 Diggers who monopolized stories on Digg. The complaint was that they were gaming Digg by modding each other's stories up, based on friendship/cronyism whatever. Now that the clique is broken, immediately one of you says "let's all band together and mod up this guy's story!" And a bunch of you others go "Good idea!" and off you all go like lemmings to start your own clique. Because the stories are particularly good? No, because - quote: "to make him feel better."

      Well, I didn't care about the old clique and I'm sure I won't care about this one. But I reserve the right to point out - in a matter-of-fact fashion, that you're all a BUNCH OF HYPOCRYTES who had no moral gripe with the old system, but just didn't like it because someone else had the power to abuse instead of YOU. +42 Diggs my ass!

      Please do mod me down. But I'll sleep well tonight, regardless! And I'm damn proud to always be on the dirty end of it, because at least people know I'm for real and not playing a bunch of stupid games on a website to try to feel big in life.
    • fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Whats your problem? All I am saying is this guy is a legit digger and that he has yet to have one story to the front page even though he sumbitted nearly 3000.
    • PhoenixHeat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was going to Digg some of his stories to help him out, but after three pages of trying to find something that actually looked interesting, I gave up. His titles and stories are both unappealing. It isn't shocking why he has yet to get a top story...
  • vcleniuk, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0w00t! Sharp.
  • buzzbeebara, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Hey, at least Kevin uses his own site. Do you think Murdoch uses MySpace the same way the teenie boppers do? Kudos to Kevin for continuing to refine Digg and keeping it useful/fun for the rest of us.
    • ArmyOfFun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Agreed. There are problems with digg, but at least Kevin is responding to user input. Most websites deal with complaints in a few limited ways:
      - Ignore them.
      - Acknowledge them but do nothing about them.
      - Ban anyone who brings them up, remove any trace of the complaints.

      Kevin's response is a breath of fresh air, at least in this instance. I'm sure there will still be complaints that get ignored or aren't addressed, but you can't please everyone.
    • detonate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.myspace.com/murdoch_rupert
    • soug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yea here's a quote from his myspace:

      "I just bought MySpace.com, soon I will own the rest of the internet.

      I aspire to become the most powerful man in the world. I promote the efforts and conjunction between right wing conservatism and government. I encourage my television and radio stations to become Republican soapboxes.

      There are many important benefits to fascism."

      etc etc etc
  • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -22/+28kevin - what is with the anti-microsoft on digg. there's a category for apple, there's a category for linux/unix....where is the microsoft category? people (me and another of my friends that use digg and other people on here) have been asking for it for a long time now, because we actually like microsoft and feel that microsoft has a superior product.
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20/me stifles laughter
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7what about the downloadable games catagorie
      since usualy there are more then enough freeware/demo/opensource pc games people can talk about
      and what about platform games ie sony microsoft and nintendo
      and wheres a website catagory for all the web2.0 diggs
    • cheekybastard, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4@Jeebugorn are you trolling? I've been fortunate enough to deal with MS products since WFW 3.11 and now I'm having fun with Vista, and even I wouldn't say that. Step outside your OS comfort zone and download a live CD, install a dual boot of some other OS see what else is out there.
    • goat4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3we play games.
    • mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Please cheekybastard. There are those of us out there with heavy exposure to many operating systems that actually like the products that Microsoft puts out there. Some of us actually work with Unix day in and day out and STILL manage to not hate Windows. Oh the horror!

      digg needs a Windows category, if for no other reason than so that you, and others with similar tastes, can more easily block the Windows stories that must haunt you in your sleep.
    • BishopAzrael, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"we feel they have a superior product"

      Thats because you're an id10t
    • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i have tried "whats out there"....with the exception for FreeBSD. i've used linux and it felt like a castrated version of windows. used OS X on my friend's powerbook and didnt like it at all. windows is the best thing out the IMO and vista is going to be great.
    • Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3and if someone who thinks i'm an idiot.....yet calls me an idiot in "l337 speak".....can tell me why thinking that microsoft is the superior product, then feel free to tell me why it is not superior. and don't say its not stable because the only time i turn my PC off is to unplug it and take it to a LAN party. dont say that it gets viruses or spyware, because i haven't had either in over 3 years....mainly because i dont go to pr0n site or open email attachments called final_fasntasy_7_screensaver.exe. and dont say OS X is better because if it was....why would apple create a way to install windows on their own hardware.
  • burgerboy06, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I know i would be trying to suck up as much money ass possible. He is not. Good for him. woot
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I think you had a Freudian slip there...
  • glucoseboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Thanks for the prompt reply Kevin.
  • ddales, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7We will only see what the sponsors and investors want us to see. That is clear. No matter how idealistic a site might start out to be, it will always become corrupted by the wishes of the men behind the money. Nuf Said!
    • UsernameTaken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This was long overdue. I hope next time they can figure out the flaws in the algorithm in a timely manner. It wouldn't sound very professional if they had to rely on whistle-blowers all the time.
  • mousy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Can't wait for this :)
  • kalphegor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Yeah, digg everything and anything, this will solve the problem.
  • mactotoro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Good work Kevin and the Digg team, they have created this great site and are always working to improve it for all of us - even responding positively to all the moaners.
    • UsernameTaken, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8...and to the ass-kissers as well.
  • bluenile, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Kevin, Best of Luck.
  • NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+17"Over the last (almost) two years we have learned a lot about the user base and how to defend digg from spam, artificial diggs, and digg fraud."

    No you havent. If you did then you would hide who submitted an article in the submission queue so popularity of the user didnt have a factor in an articles popularity.
    • NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8Oh, so wait, i'm being dugg down. Are you saying you dont agree? Of course you dont. Because you're ***** sheep. You're the same ***** who digg all of p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 and digitalgopher's *****. You broke the system. You're responsible for how ***** digg is. You ***** suck.
    • giantAppleCore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13If they did that, Kevins articles wouldn't make the front page, and users wouldn't be able to have an rss feed of other users, which, atleast in my opinion, is an awesome feature.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@giantAppleCore

      Thats becuase KR has the digg-potion so he can FP anytime.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@NinjAlt

      Make room on the ***** for me, will you? Seems like one cabal getting together to overthrow another cabal isn't exactly tolerant of criticism.
  • dragongrrl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17
    kevinrose said vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
    a key update is coming soon. This algorithm update will look at the unique digging diversity of the individuals digging the story. Users that follow a gaming pattern will have less promotion weight. This doesn't mean that the story won't be promoted, it just means that a more diverse pool of individuals will be need to deem the story homepage-worthy.

    ...

    This list will also be sorted by how diverse the digger is - meaning if they digg stories from lots of different people and their stories become popular, they'll rank highly.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    i'd like to see some way to work comments into the algorithm to somehow weight a user's ranking based on their comments and the digg score of those comments. if that's in there already, i'd really appreciate a clarification.

    if you take time to comment on stories and your comments are deemed useful, that should count for *something*. maybe more than just clicking on "digg it" links...
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yeah. I've thought about writting a little spider that would just go through and snag all the given comment scores for a person and tally them up... It would be MUCH easier if Digg just did this for you - since they have all the data in a db already.
    • dragongrrl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4
      yah, really. to me, much of the value in this site is in the comments added by the users.

      if you could find some way to surface this value, that's a helluva model.
    • wirelesshnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. Comments are great and a system like this could promote debates instead of flame wars and it would help get rid of stupid asses!
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So you could have a popularity number based on how much your comments got dugg up or down. Then if you pissed someone off, they could go into your profile and digg down all your past comments. Or if there is a story like that one where everyone got dugg down, or when people said you could digg people up multiple times, you could get your comment value skewed so much that it would never come back to normal.

      I would just like separate numbers for how many people dugg a comment vs. how many people buried it.
    • celchu33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4To some degree this would be a good idea, but the same problem would happen. 12 year olds getting dugg up for saying "w00t!" would also get more say than people actually making good points.
    • wirelesshnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ celchu33

      That is a good point too. I still feel that comments are a large part of the stories however and would like to see a good working system for them
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just what we need. Folks, I've seen some hideously ignorant comments get Dugg up, and some stunningly insightful comments get Dugg down.

      Notice how the first few parent comments tend to get the most Diggs either way for instance? And the least popular comment on the page isn't always the most wrong, trollers excluded. But we're going to base article submission value on past comment popularity?
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5Kevin, you should somehow stop these people digging down comments. They do it for no reason.
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Wa!
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you piss off enough people, they will ignore you. As they will no longer see your comments, they cannot digg them down.
  • postaboy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Can somebody make an extensive list of banned links about digg censorship here just to show you how full of ***** digg is when it comes to criticizing them
  • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I hope the impending changes make a difference. Kevin, will you also consider making the submitters username anonymous while a story sits in the queue, and reveal it only after it's on the FP (and by extension, remove the 'submitted' page in the profile)? I think that simple change would help a lot - probably more than a new algorithm would.
  • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Just for giggles I think we should all mark this article as "Lame" and see what happens! :P
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Good. I hope this is the end of it.
    • mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Nah, they'll just find something else to bitch about.
      "The Invisible Moderators", for example.
  • Easty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Good to see you're trying to stop the digg oligarchy.
  • vagabond0101, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18How come kevinrose has 100% of his submissions dugg to frontpage?
    • Kericr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I was going to say that this still needs to be defeated. KR could submit a story about how the power of corrugated cardboard and it'll get dugg to the front page, and it's not just his submissions, anything he comments on will get dugg up, without exception (that means it includes comments where he notes he's reporting the story).
    • postaboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This one is my favorite:
      http://digg.com/apple/This_is_a_test_-_please_report_me

      fanboys disgust me.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Ban him.
    • tokyoacid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Uh...cause its Kevin Rose....No one can resist his smile
    • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2for a while it was over 100% he had 1 more article dugg to the main page then he submited. must be funn to have free access to digg.com 's data base.
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19word. good to see the system does work. props to jesusfreak for making the big push today that brought this issue to the fore. double for digg staff in addressing it.
    • artemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh, his handle is actually "jesusphreak". Just so ya know.
  • sphinx13, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Is it just me or does it seem like every single story that Kevin Rose submits is dugg to the front page. It's like people see his name and just digg it because of that.
    Half of the stories aren't even that interesting.
  • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4COOL!

    Youtube for example is way too slow to respond to this kind of problem, and the site suffers from it.
  • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9I've come to the conclusion that user-driven content sites suck. digg me down suckas!! :)

    There's a lot to be said about a good editor who knows how to pull together interesting articles to hold the reader's attention and to keep them coming back. It's obviously a form of art.

    But digg has definitely been a good experiment. I suppose it was worth all the hard work.
    • psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That is just it, Digg has been a good experiment. I suppose if they continue working hard at it they will be able to make Digg into something truly awesome. However, I think what will happen is that someone else will come along with a better digg-like site and then someone else and someone else and so on until one day we might get a truly great user-driven website. Like everything else if life, someone invents something but it is someone else that makes it better. I still enjoy Digg tremendously and it was a breath of fresh air when the Internet badly needed one.
    • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0It doesn't seem to be working that great at wikipedia... it's all in the choosing of the admins. Just look at "the other place" and how those losers all get a boner whenever they have mod points.
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I find your comment confusing .. If you were to view the top posters as slightly hamstrung editors, then technically it would have the editors you favor.

      So what part of the experiment is it that you feel has so far failed? The current change?
    • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What has failed is that this site does not pull in the audience with interesting articles, it's more about generating ego. "He who gets the most votes wins!". It's in total disregard of its readers. So if you lose your readers and you only have posters, then the concept was a total failure. I guarantee that 90% of the articles that make it to the homepage weren't even read by the people voting. Do you see the pattern now? If it continues that way, and it sure seems like it will, then they'll be asking for donations in no time.
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I see your meaning. Thanks for explaining.

      I think that is certainly a valid position - and I can see the effects of what you describe.

      But I even still think this place has a value as a forum for discussion as well as bookmarking. Especially if it is willing and able to evolve.
  • taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I glad to see changes are coming. I hope Kevin and crew continue to monitor the submissions. They should have picked up this...
    http://digg.com/software/Is_Digg_being_Rigged_More_data

    ... a long time ago.
  • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a really cool feature, I wish I had thought of that. :D
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+111) I'm extremely glad he responded so quickly.

    2) He never really addressed the issue of how as few as 10 determined people can bury a submission out of the upcoming stories section before it reaches the main page. I'd be interested to know if there was some kind of burying algorithm that takes into account people gaming the system to work together to digg down any story they disagree with.
  • BishopAzrael, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Sadly, this site is about ego. Nothing more.

    Trash the friends feature. Let people digg stories soley on their merits.

    But it won't happen. Heres why:
    http://web.mac.com/spaceagecomputers/iWeb/Bishop%27s%20site/Tech%20Blog/28053E81-403B-4392-B928-F2D7DCFE8680.html
    • japroach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your blog is hard to read and impossible to quote from..

      Please just use a normal font and text like everyone else next time.
    • Weaselboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I read about one sentence and gave up because of that font! What are you thinking?
  • merdiesel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7This is why i love digg!
    No more then a few hours after a very good article was submitted by jesusphreak, covering some very important topics that concern most Digg users, Kevin Rose gets on here and assures us he will be taking care of the problem. This just shows how much he cares about Digg and how much he is on top of things when it comes to taking care of us on here...
    thanks Kevin.
    LONG LIVE DIGG.COM!!

  • MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Everybody digg and bury randomly and uncontrollably!!! We'll show them what happens when you give the Internet control of a website!!!
  • iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The problem with Digg right now is this: It is too few catigories. Many times while submiting stories I had to choose a catigory that isn't even near the story content. So a lot of catigories should be added.

    Second is a design improvement, the catigories should be like tabs on the top of the layout rather than on the left side.

    My 2 buggs, good luck Kev!
  • Godel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1The comments on this page go perfectly from most dugg to least dugg as you scroll down the page, I've never seen anything like this on digg.
    • Godel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Damn it, never mind, I've got them organized by most diggs, I'm an idiot.
  • psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The one big question I have is what is the purpose of having stats at all? Why do we need to see who submitted, digged, and commented the most? What is the point of it? How does it work into the grand scale of things? Have profiles but don't have stats attached to them. Keep stats but keep them private and use them to form a better picture of the user that other users can see if they wish. Keep track of what a user digs and submits, and through keywords I suppose, let others know more or less what that particular user digs and submits the most. Over time, the more a user uses Digg we will begin to see his/her interest and biases but without a number attached to them. If a user is interested in what another user has diged/submitted, simply show them a random sample of what that user has diged/submitted over time. Some new ones, some old ones. I feel something like this will not give more "weight" to any one person over another one.
    • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I agree. All of the "good stories" that the top submitters post would find their way here within hours. It's just that the top guys are bored at work, or whatever.. and make it their task to hunt down the "zero day" stories and submit them for LEET KUDOS!111
      They aren't necessary.
  • absmith1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's refreshing to see such measured, calm response to criticism. I'm not sure I could manage it were positions reversed.

    As with any algorithm-driven system (like Google PageRank) there will be issues, and there will be tweaks in response. I myself find it frustrating that several of my recent submissions were completely ignored, while those submitted by folks with legions of friends were propelled to the top. Mine were probably just derivative or boring ;)

    I'm part of the problem, however because as the site has grown, I have marked several top diggers as friends and I browse through my friends submissions and frequently digg what they have -- just as the feature intended.

    I guess in light of these new features and the new digger behaviors that result from them we are effectively stuffing a pipe of distinctly limited bandwidth (the front page) with the stories submitted by the most popular diggers, and they essentially ride above the rest of us in a self-perpetuating cycle.

    I enjoy a good conspiracy story as much as the next person, but I don't think that's what we have here. Digg is an ecosystem for ideas and changes in the climate of that ecosystem can have effects that are intentional, unintentional, positive or negative.
  • mk32066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I have a problem with the top user in "digging" section, because this might cause some people to just start to randomly digg things like crazy to get to the top.
    • psychotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You are right, that doesn't make sense either. You should only digg something when you find it interesting and informative. At the same time though, not digging a story does not mean it sucks. It just means it is of no interest to you.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yep, I agree too. Do away with ranking altogether, there is no need for user ranking on a system such as this.
  • chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7One of the things that I don't understand is why people reporting dupe stories get buried/modded down. Many of the stories that make the front page are dupes but because the poster has a large number of friends, their post is one that gets promoted. On the other hand, great stuff by people with no Digg friends get 7-8 diggs and die on the vine. Get rid of the friends network and make the stories the priority, not the posters. Get rid of the "top diggers" and all that crap. Report dupe posts and when you see that someone has made a comment reporting a dupe, bury the STORY, not the comment.

    Again, stories, not who posts them, are what should be important. To be objective in getting the best stories on the front page, the LAST thing you want is a list of who else voted for it. It skews the result.
    • nstern2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Again, stories, not who posts them, are what should be important." If that is the case then why do you care so much about dupes? I for one like the top diggers section. It lets me see what the people who find stories that I am interested digg in and check those out too.
    • chrislerch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6nstern, dupes matter because they can hurt a stories chances of getting promoted if votes are split. Also, they discourage average joe posters from even trying to post stories because they figure it's pointless.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4My Valentine for next year:
    "I digg Kevin"
  • spiderland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Changes are good - however, while it might take longer for "Digg groups" to get their stories on the homepage, it says nothing about the average joe submitters. Our submissions still have no possibility of getting to the home page.
    • jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Stories submitted are not weighed differently. You are correct, however, that some people's submissions are watched through friend lists and favored in this way by others. We will do what we can to encourage a more diverse reading of new stories by users, by creating new ways to visualize new, incoming stories to promote diversity, as an alternative to "tailgaiting" specific individuals.
    • Geekforlife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey Jay, what about having Digg Spy on the home page so people can see some of the stories that are being submitted
    • pixelsoup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These guys are 5 of 15 paid "Netscape Navigators":
      capn_caveman msaleem wayjer digitalgopher dirtyfratboy
      - - -
      These guys game the Netscape system (same as digg) and probably want to become paid contributors.
      hemphill81 tlmac59 aaaz 3monkeys
      Names sound familiar?
      - - -
      Digg = Netscape = Digg = Netscape?
  • flag564, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a welcome change. Maybe it will lead to some real reform and stop the spam bots in the Politics and Apple catogories
  • attila, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Excellent and timely article... hopefully our contributions to the comments of those unnamed blog posts and digg stories helped to coax some action sooner rather than later. Happy Digging, folks... and give fair karma ratings to comments. :]
  • jusb1066, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Damage limitation kevin? takes news to get you to comment? http://digg.com/software/Digg_the_rigged_A_closer_look_at_Digg_s_democratic_model

    too little too late, oh and dont forget we notice all the same diggers also digg kevin rose's lame articles - Daily color scheme indeed - pure tripe http://digg.com/design/Daily_Color_Scheme

  • ubergmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's about time, that's one thing that always pissed me off about digg, hopefully this new algorithm will improve the quality of stories that reach the homepage, and make it easier for a new digger to get his submissions on the front page
  • JiMiThInG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Happy to see that Digg is quick to respond to all this crap. Thats the sign that its still a cool place for me to devote my time and effort to. The day stuff like this comes up and the digg crew doesn't respond or let us know its being looked at is the day digg has 'sold out' in my eyes. Keep up the good work Kevin and crew.
    • mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4On the contrary, I feel they too way too long with a response to this. I've only been active since july, but 7/20/06 was the first I heard of the "gaming of digg":
      http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Top_100_Digg_Users_Control_56_of_Digg_s_HomePage_Content

      It's taken almost 2 months for the Digg team to draft a response. During which, the disgruntled users kept stewing and making up all kinds of wild conspiracy theories as to what goes on behind the curtain.

      They really need to respond quicker, via Blog or in the comments. What I've seen in terms of their communication to the users has been positive in the last few days. I hope they continue dispelling most of rumors and myths as they crop up, and not wait until everything boils over like today.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.