Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
How People Game Digg To Submit Dupes
themulife.com — "Although most of the time duplicate stories submitted to Digg refer to similar content but written by different people (or from different sources), sometimes, the same story and referring to the exact same url is submitted to Digg over and over again. Here’s how its done..."
titlesaysitall- 105 diggs
- digg it
- koregaonpark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Talking about getting banned for submitting duplicate stories, Kevin Rose, the founder of digg himself has appended a “?” to stories and resubmitted them! Seriously. Take a look at this story:
http://digg.com/software/Video_Songbird_See_how_it_works_and_why_it_beats_iTunes
The URL Kevin Rose submitted is: http://songbirdnest.com/screencast?
See the little question mark at the end?
Now that I’ve made this public, there’s a strong chance that someone at digg might change it. So, just to be safe, I’ve taken a screenshot. :-)- jasnmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I wonder if he did that because the first one submitted only got 7 votes. Since he knew that it was impossible for Digg's algorithm to promote an old story to the front page, he just submitted it himself with the question mark at the end.
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9If it only got 7 votes, then why resubmit it? Clearly people werent interested. Isn't that how Digg works?
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12If Kevin Rose likes it, it's on the front page. That's Rule #1 of Digg, silly.
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I forget sometimes the worship he recieves.
- thetanbark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those not so familiar with web URLs...
You can also add additional / 's to the URL in any correct spot and the site host you're linking to handles it the same on the request, but the digg dupechecker accepts it as a non-dupe.
Unfortunately this ? at the end of a URL will always be a way to get around a dupe because the ? allows GET variables to be passed to the browser. Some sites pass an ID to tell the server which page to bring up, thus ?var=14 and ?var=15 will be treated as different pages. The downside for digg dupes is you can add any variable name/value to a URL and it will not affect the site's display because the browser just simply disregards any variable it does not bring into the page.
Dupe-away! - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can still disallow urls that are identical except for an added suffix. If the get data in the shorter url already submitted led to a page, then what are the chances that extra data (as in another variable, not just extra digits or letters to the last value itself) will be a different valid page?
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jasonmb
I highly doubt he knew of the original story, if he did, I'm sure he would have dugg it. If you look at kevin's dugg history...you'll see that basically any story kevin diggs gets to the homepage, even if it was submitted several days about and wasn't in the upcoming section any longer. Even submissions that are buried in the upcoming section..if kevin diggs them they'll still get enough diggs to get homepage credit, because sooo many people track and digg the content that is in Kevin Rose's dugg history.
- largeora, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12WARNING: The author of the linked blog belongs to digg user, msaleem. Msaleem is a former digg user who recently decided to work for Netscape, a very clear digg competitor. Specifically, msaleem is a PAID Netscape Navigator and is a well-known digg critic. His blog pieces are extremely biased and critical against digg, while he never, or rarely, offers the same critique against the company that gives him a paycheck, Netscape. The point of this comment is to make unaware digg users of his clear (and blind) bias.
Would you read a movie review from a critic who was paid by Universal yet cans every movie produced from Paramount? Not likely. Would you pay any mind to the supporters of such a critic? Again, Not likely. However, this is exactly what is happening. Netscape users are digging these stories to the homepage. However, once they're on the homepage, they're quickly removed. This shows two things: (1) digg users aren't going into the Upcoming section to bury bad stories (enough), and (2) the community doesn't want stories like msaleem's blog, only the agenda-setting Netscape community does.- 2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2(3) Digg moderators removes the stories they dont like.
Anyway i'm with you on this, even because that article dosen't tell me much.. everybody knows that you can change url for the same story and an article can be resubmitted. As long as there is people digging it, that means they haven't seen it before and in my opinion it's not a very big problem..
p.s: That guy really hates digg..! - 2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1what did i told you?
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They only reason some people "hate" Digg is it's potential is being misused and going down the drain mainly because of users like you who are not open to constructive criticism or any intelligent discussion.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Who cares if the guy hates digg or whether he's a netscape paid contributer? The article is a good and valid article. Grow up.
Lol what did I "told" you? - stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Largeora,
Would this story be any more interesting had I written it an posted it on my blog 'Inside Social News'? No. The fact is that this is a topic that needs to be discussed openly. Msaleem, who is paid by Netscape, is still an active digger and understands the dynamics of the site very well. If he were bringing up invalid and false arguments against Digg, there would be a problem, but this is not the case. Critique isn't a bad thing, I don't understand why you are afraid of it from someone as well-informed as msaleem is. - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2IMHO, people *should* be getting paid for finding stories on their own rather than getting offers of money made from outside sources to game the system. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Netscape is doing. It won't work in the long run, but there is certainly nothing wrong with them doing that. If I *know* a Netscape contributor is getting paid, it's not nearly as bad as wondering how many of the digg top 10 are being paid.
- 2tomato, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2(3) Digg moderators removes the stories they dont like.
- donnyburnside, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5We all know there are duplicate stories here. There's no need for you to create a complete random and uninformative article about it. No digg.
- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1that's all he does.... in fact, his entire blog is dedicated towards that
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You might know it, I might know it, but I bet there's a lot of people out there that don't. Obviously there are as this has been dugg 77 times.
- thumbup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought this was pretty well known (adding things to the end of domains).
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think he mistook "Submit a story" for the "Report a Website Bug" button.
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So tempting to bury as duplicate...
- tomkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The "duping" is not a problem. Most people are intelligent enough to not let something so trivial kill their experience.
The real problem is the people that constantly announce a dupe, as if they've added some value to the community. - Bramus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Omg, this guy just keeps writing old/outdated/commonly-known info (like we didn't know we could that!) on a daily basis ...
/j #wnkr - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Along similar lines... http://digg.com/tech_news/A_Response_To_Digg_Listings_in_Google_Results
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by