What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -44/+12I wouldn't be surprised however if digg find some decrease in the amount of new users signing up or people contributing to online discussions about issues and such.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -8/+51You have to agree, that was a great article. Actually I may as well mention this now as any other time, why doesn't digg make the site even more of a social network by letting users send their friends massages provided the two parties have both agreed to be each others friends? That feature is a long time coming, and I think they should add it.
- philwebster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+77Because I sure wouldn't want a massage from a stranger...
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11It worked for Youtube.
- ShiverMeBoner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12If Digg won't provide a list of top users, I'm sure someone else will step up to the plate. Ether by using the Digg API or by crawling the front page and seeing which users' submissions land there more often.
- oblivinated, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20philwebster's comment was a joke. It's spelled message, not massage.
- andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Its better digg outgrowing its top users than its top users outgrowing digg.
- mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37It is a start. Now they should remove the name of who submitted a story so that each and every story stands on its own. Make digg what it should be, ALL about the stories and the people who vote for them and NOT about who submitted it.
- Egotrippin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Rose promises Digg will soon release new features to help users find good content and to honor good users (the twin goals of the Top Diggers list)"
Proposal: How about a "Digger of the Week". Have one digger be recognized for the hard work and the good content he puts in on the site,and also then have one of there stories read on Diggnation. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who scrubbed all of the comments???
- steepdecline, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I heard at bigbignews.net that Digg has plans to honor the top digger for each given week, by crediting them with the title "HDIC" [head digga 'n charge]
- Llanowar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ mcduckov
That will never work.
good point : you'll have a lot less duplicates and people saying dupe and such.
bad point: Still a lot of people want to get "some" credit for the stuff they post and there will be a lot less good posts if they stop getting their credit. - I_Soar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"Make digg what it should be, ALL about the stories and the people who vote for them and NOT about who submitted it."
I must be kind of weird. I've never paid attention to the names of submitters, and I have absolutely no clue who's a "major Digg contributor" and who's not. And, yes, I spend a lot of time here.
I'm sort of astonished to learn that others care enough about that sort of stuff that it's actually become an issue. - schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Didn't read the article yet but i think if there is no top submitter list and each profile maintained their own by frequency of diggs per submitter it'd be a lot more useful. I don't care who the top submitters are and i don't think that people should be driven to post to be on the top submitter list. I think people should post because they found something they would like to share with others. I think that would help the quality of submissions and reduce dupes from people reposting front page stories to be cool. Sorry if any of this was stated in the article or if I'm just being an idiot.
- followme, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░ ╔ ╗░░░░
░░ ╔═══╝ ║░░░░
░░ ║ ╚╗ ║ ░
░░ ║ ■V■ ║ ╫ ░
░╔═╣ ╒═╕ ╠═╝░
░╩ ╚╦══ ═╦╝ ░░
░░ ═╝ ╚═ ░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░ - VANOS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@followme: Just look at it. It's all jacked up!
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow, Kevin actually wants to PROTECT the top users? I can only assume Kevin lives inside some sort of fantasy world considering almost all the top Digg users are part of a technological circlejerk of digging each others sites. Much like the very submitter of this story: http://digg.com/users/scoreboard27/news/submitted < Notice how every one of his articles has at least 15 diggs?
What does gaming mean for you? It means stories are being fraudulently promoted to the front page not on merit, but on how many efriends one person can coerce to digg their sites for them. Digg is as editor driven as slashdot... only here the editors have all chosen themselves.
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26I agree. Digg is bigger than the top 100.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Problem is, Digg is a community site, made up of a bunch of people. People who aren't bigger than their e-peens.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -37/+5Also...
/hijack
http://digg.com/tech_news/Diggsploiting_A_serious_issue
/endhijack - SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15But most of Digg's submissions come from the top users. The other few thousand only contribute a fraction of the stories. I know it might sound unfair but I think the guys who spend their entire lives finding material for Digg ought to get some kind of recognition.
- mobilitatis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@Akaji
that´s is true!! - ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Doesn't mean it should have been taken away. Think about it, if you had put hundreds of hours of work into moving up it and then all the sudden, without warning, it was just taken away, you would be VERY pissed.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Agreed... too big for a top 100. What this article fails mention is that all of these sites (yahoo, amazon, google, etc) all have a top contributer in their own way. Amazon.com for example has top reviewers.
- mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20If my own experience is any guide then people don't bother to submit BECAUSE of the friends/top users system. They know that if you're not part of that "inner circle" then you have about 0 chance of being promoted. In a way, it has become as bad as slashdot in terms of a pretty small group determining what got to the frontpage. What appealed to me about this site originally was "wow, the users pick stories democratically". Then the friends system came online, the weighting system, the top users system and it became a very small group that actually determined what pages got promoted.
I'll echo what I just wrote above. What is wrong with not even attaching a name to a submitted story and getting rid of the "weighting" system. Let the story stand on its own and each digg be of equal value (with aggressive monitoring for dummy accounts). Raise the bar to a minimum of 250 diggs to get to the front page and turn real democratic selection loose.
Is there a site that does that already? I'm ready to switch. - NickDouglas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're right apotropaic, and I suppose that's why Digg eventually will honor commenters, but like Amazon, it'll be more about top quality than quantity. (Of course, I expect several users are on both lists.)
- bmwboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I mean, they may submit the most stories, but those stories amount to nothing without people to digg them.
Digg-Dugg - tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@SkeletaLlama
"But most of Digg's submissions come from the top users. The other few thousand only contribute a fraction of the stories."
If you look at it the other way, every story is submitted multiple times, and "not submitted" at least as many times by people who saw it was a dupe. Even if 9/10 of those submissions come from top users, that story would still get submitted by a non-top user.
Speaking for myself, I am just a reader and commenter. However, I have tried to submit stories about half a dozen times, and each time I gave up because I saw that the story had multiple dupes. Digg is like drug smuggling. Cocaine smuggling may be monopolized by a handful of cartels, but even if you removed those cartels, someone would be trafficking those drugs because the demand is still there. As long as people are visiting and reading and digging Digg articles, these articles will still be submitted. If you banned all 100 top users, it wouldn't change a thing.
- MadocNicely, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think it was necessary to structure the site around a few top users early on but after a certain point it becomes kind of arbitrary. There is probably tons of great stuff not getting dugg already because its pushed through the system so quickly. This is the classic web 2.0 problem of network intelligence trumping the tastes of an elite few. Digg is about disaggregation by a highly aware class of nerds as much as it is just a link dump.
- sicc, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Ever hear of a "top Yahoo user" or a "top Google contributor"?
Digg is supposed to be different than those sites, it's a social site. It only sucks because we had it, now it's gone. Going from poor to rich is easy, going from rich to poor is hard. This is like going from rich to poor, and it sucks.- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nobody was going from "poor to rich" I never moved from the 187-192 range for well over a year.
- ryland2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@ chriskzoo
Think about the people who tried hard to move up it.... It's fine if you didn't use it but taking it away just isn't right.
- utcursch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31"Ever hear of a top Yahoo user or a top Google contributor?"
Yahoo! Answers Leaderboard:
http://answers.yahoo.com/rank_total
Google Image Labeler All-time Top Contributors (right sidebar):
http://images.google.com/imagelabeler/
If it's a community-driven website that runs on user-generated content, the users have to be recognized. The sites like Yahoo! Answers or Digg make profit thanks to the user-generated content, so giving credit to their most loyal users is the least they can do -- it motivates users and expans user base. I won't bother to label a Google image, if I don't get "points" for it (never mind that these points don't mean anything -- I can't encash them).
"Ever wanted to meet the top Amazon buyer or most active NYTimes.com reader?"
No, but if NYTimes was run by user-submitted stories, you see a "Top submitters" section.
Yes, it's true (like it or not) that the stories submitted by the "top" Digg users generally get more diggs (may be because they've more friends?). I've also observed that sometimes, duplicates submitted by the top users get to front page, while original stories submitted few hours or even days earlier are not noticed. This problem needs to be addressed, but not giving users the due recognition is unfair.
P.S. I'm not one of the top users -- only one of my 80-odd stories has made it to front-page.- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -8/+131) Amazon is not a "user generated" content site but... There is some user generated content in the form of lists and product reviews and YES, you can find out who the top people are in that regard.
2) NTY the top reporters get PAID for their news stories. No one rewards people for being the top reader of their website. You may see an occasional contest for readers but that is it.
Digg is FOR PROFIT and by taking way the only reward system in place they are punishing the faithful who submit quality content to Digg. Top diggers do not control what is on Digg, it is the exact opposite: diggers decide who the top diggers are by digging up their submissions!
With no reward for submitting quality content you WILL see more spam appearing on Digg. - radicaldementia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15As a "top 100", I personally lost interest in my rank when I got into the top 100. I think rank really matters more to people who aren't highly ranked and have a goal to work towards. But seriously, once you get there, its really not that big of a deal. I'm gonna keep submitting stories no matter what my rank is.
- KoderOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>>If it's a community-driven website that runs on user-generated content
nonsense, digg-users do not create the content, they submit it on digg. - Juano11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Radical...
Nice, thanks for condescending to the rest of us while reminding us that you've had your two inches added to your ween by reaching the "Top 100"
***** off... - mobilitatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Paste From HMTKSteve
1) Amazon is not a "user generated" content site but... There is some user generated content in the form of lists and product reviews and YES, you can find out who the top people are in that regard.
2) NTY the top reporters get PAID for their news stories. No one rewards people for being the top reader of their website. You may see an occasional contest for readers but that is it.
Digg is FOR PROFIT and by taking way the only reward system in place they are punishing the faithful who submit quality content to Digg. Top diggers do not control what is on Digg, it is the exact opposite: diggers decide who the top diggers are by digging up their submissions!
With no reward for submitting quality content you WILL see more spam appearing on Digg. - utcursch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@KoderOne: the "user-generated content" in this context is not the stories. Only the link and a small description to the story is submitted. The user-generated content consists of the comments.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -8/+131) Amazon is not a "user generated" content site but... There is some user generated content in the form of lists and product reviews and YES, you can find out who the top people are in that regard.
- Dragan0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"It's about all of them."
"All of them?" or "None of them"? - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What would stop someone else from creating a script to monitor digg and generate a top-user list? Although I do understand and support Kevin's initiative to reduce digg gaming, I am not sure if it will help much.
- catdriver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Indeed. FTA:
"Besides, the real glory hogs can still point to the top Digger list run by an outside blogger (who works for Digg competitor Netscape but says he did this on his own time)."
http://www.efinke.com/digg/topusers.html
- catdriver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Indeed. FTA:
- TRUEPATRIOT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2i think the bigger goal and award for people to submit something will always be being on the front page.at least thats the goal for me when i submit something.and yet i haven't made it =(
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Digg, as a business, is about money, thinking anything else is obscene mental masturbation.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Digg as a website is about finding articles that the people want to read.
- jsdratm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Digg as a website is about finding articles that the people want to read."
and making money while doing it, hence the advertisements - canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4and getting toasted....... nicely toasted
- PR0NW4R, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4digg pwnd the "community website turn into corporate cycle" that most good websites undergo. This is not how human nature works? Make something profitable if your at the top and if someone complains censor them?
Digg is just fighting this ,otherwise there would be a vew top users controlling and that wouldn't be very democratic would it?
Fight the greedy bastard that would take this democracy away and turn it into profit? - fochrist1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I digg everyday, and I've never once looked at the top user/submitter list. All I care about is content, not the ego of someone trying to make a name for themselves. Digg is going to grow as more people become aware of it. I tell someone new about digg every week, and it eventually become a staple of theirs also.
- x00x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10While Digg is a community site made up of a bunch of people, the keyword is "bunch" meaning that no 'one' individual or relatively small 'bunch' of people should hold sway over the public at large. Rose did the only thing he could do to prevent Digg from deterioration.
- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4In the months I have been visiting digg it seems to me that all the articles have "dumbed" down - endless postings of "top 10 list" crap, photos, etc, etc, etc.
It is going from a high-class department store with many select high-quality things to a 99-cent giant warehouse of cheap, shiney, worthless junk.
I know I visit it less and less. - mobilitatis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2For Example if you digg enough my links and i become a top user, then I can deal width the people out side to push their links to the front page and send BIG (HUGE!!!) traffic to then.
My own histories only get 3 or 4 Diggs never out from the upcoming page, and I get on my website always 100 or more visits. Now Digg has the power to send Traffic (potential customers to websites) and many people want just that. Digg moves by Money.
I start a website like these some time ago but was not successful (even width spam, lol) and i think here will be better without topuser or "users constellations" who can (width one digg) push links to the frontage. - jobeats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In a users profile it still shows your overall ranking so hopefully digg will keep that up.
- ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FINALLY .... thanks for that
- garagefighter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Digg sure has changed a lot since I joined. Not that it's good or bad or anything, just an observation.
- bobob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Digg is trying to make itself relevant to everyone - that's where future growth is going to come from, not geeky early adopters.
It'll be interesting to see if they manage it!
- bobob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Digg is trying to make itself relevant to everyone - that's where future growth is going to come from, not geeky early adopters.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The difference is, the direction Digg is driven IS submissions from these new users.
Does google block all search results that lead to RouglyDrafted.com? Nope. Yet here on Digg they are dead in a case of skulldiggery. How many other sites will you never, ever see on Digg again because the shadowy cabal of 100 (who now cannot even be identified) have decided to hit them over the head with a shovel instead of given them a scoop?
Now that you can't "see" there even is a top 100 skewing results so drasitcally, the rules around what does and does not bubble up to the top of Digg is even more irrational.- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You DO have a point there.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2So Digg should go the route of political correctness? What about those of us that set their life goal to achieve Digg top user status? We're going to need therapy now.
- JaneMay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Killing their most public bragging-rights list kills some of the glory of being a top Digger. Can the site afford to risk alienating those users? Well, yes."
Controversial statement. I don't think anyone wants to be kicked out of Digg... - anomalya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4ooo allow freinds to send messages, lame, have u ever heard of stickam, i want live audio video webcam broadcasting to my freinds not just messages. put up some fibre optics digg
- nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'm very happy not having to see the top users on the front page or anything. It's the rest of us who make the site great, not a special few.
- mobilitatis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Clear and simple!
- wobudong, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0It would be a mistake to "anonymize" comments. It doesn't take long to identify posts that contain an ulterior financial or vanity motive. Removing posters' names would make it easier for the cheaters to cheat successfully for longer times.
I rarely comment on posts and when I do my comment is short and useless, probably deserved. However, as a daily lurker -- once over quickly -- I find less of interest to click on. When I do, it's 50-50 that I find the comments more interesting than the post generating the comments. Too many are vanity posts ("Hey, look at what I read in this obscure medium, the NY Times!") indicating that the poster is dopier than he thinks potential readers of the post are.
Given the nature of Digg, I suppose one must take the good with the trash. More value, less trash, please.- ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9one of the popular suggestions is to 'anonymize' the submissions, NOT the comments...
- CarolynMittens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why not just submit the articles anonymously, then reveal the name of the submitter once the article becomes popular?
- xxdesmus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think this whole debate is a huge waste of time.
"oh no, I used to be super popular on a website" ... get a ***** life.
We really could not care less who the top 10 users are anyways. It's not going to get you laid my friend. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The problem wasn't really the top submitters. It's the comment gamers.
Right now there are at least a few individuals who are burying any negative comment about M$ Vista. They claim that those who make the comments are liars, but are supporting every lie that M$ has put out about Vista. And they show up with numbers that are clearly unusually for the comment they made, or any other comment in the post.
This is where they really need to do something about Digg.because it IS a community site and it's success relies on not allowing big money Corporations manipulating that democratic part of the system.- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2WOW! You need to come back to reality. Seriously. Go back to RDM where it is normal to forgo reality and think that Digg is a pro-MS site.
If you really think that Microsoft give a flying ***** about the Digg community then you have outlived your usefulness in this world. Pleae suggest to your parents that they turn themselves into the authorities for child neglect and abuse. Because they have left you woefully unprepared for the real world.
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2WOW! You need to come back to reality. Seriously. Go back to RDM where it is normal to forgo reality and think that Digg is a pro-MS site.
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Based on the fairly substantial drop in page views and reach since November, it doesn't seem like Digg has outrgown anyone or anything.
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"it's not about the top users. It's about all of them."
Communism doesn't work. - bliz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I feel that 'top users' is akin to post counts in online forums. Some people just keep posting rubbish on forums to increase their post count, while some people keep replying/helping others in the forum and their post count increase too. So you'll have two groups of people with high post counts and two totally opposite reasons for it. What the admins do is to ban flagrant spammers or reset their post counts. However, the scale of digg is way bigger than that of most forums...it's not as easy to micro-manage.
Now without the list of 'top users' in digg, it's like an internet forum that does not display post counts. The dynamics of digg is going to change and I hope the result wouldn't be bad. - ricearoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I tend to think that users who were solely concerned with getting their rank up weren't really getting the point of digg anyway. It's a community, so why get pissed that their contribution doesn't make them the king? If they really care about digg, they'll keep submitting anyway.
Further, maybe the quality of stories will get better, with people only submitting their top stuff rather than every article they can find just to get their rank up. Although, of course this also may be negative, as we may miss some gems that people don't bother to submit for the same reason.
Having said all of that, I can't help but think it's kind of sad for people to aspire to be the top anonymous user in a group of people they'll never meet. - shadow289, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"maintain this stretched position for 30-60 seconds while holding a big breath"
in what way is that 12 seconds? - hutectro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1GOOD BY TO BAD TRASH -----Kevin is finally getting smart
- Proximity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh PHEW. I was wondering whether or not ANOTHER post about Digg's top users would get posted today. I was starting to worry that I wouldn't get to read the same thing again for the 50th time, today. Now if we could just get a handful of "NEWSFLASH: The Wii is still hard to find so it's better than every other electrically-powered device on earth + sex combined!!" articles posted, we'd be right back on track.
hehe - rtphokie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Digg category? Can a brother get a Digg category?
- Juano11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2HA, HA, HA...***** all of the little geeks who thought that by being listed as a Digg "Top User" somehow made them cooler...
Now quit your whining and get out there and find me some good articles to read.... - sabret00the, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As an occasional digg user i must've stumbled upon the list once. i don't think i've actually successfully submitted a story. however i do see the merits of the list and the reasons for removing it. A user reward system is always important.
- GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a digg addict (spend FAR too much time here), but minimal commenter/submitter, I have noticed something reading the pending stories: the exact same story will be submitted many, many time, but only the one submitted by a top user (or simply a user with lots of friends who digg it for that reason) makes it to the front page. Yes, the story still makes it to the front page, but so do duplicates, spam and 'lame' reposts because people are digging people, not what they submit.
The move to a semi-anonymous or prefererably a completely anonymous submission system will improve the content on digg, although it may also reduce the total number of submissions.
Which do you and digg want more: tons of crap that's on every link site on the 'net (making digg just another news site), or high quality, unique content?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is