Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
I Bought Votes on Digg
wired.com — A sneaky web service offers to get you to the front page of the popular news aggregator for $1 per digg. We'll see about that.
MrBabyMan- 4217 diggs
- digg it
- stevesearer, on 10/12/2007, -138/+47Interesting experiment, but thanks to savvy Digg users the story was buried. Maybe now people will understand why the bury button is important and helpful.
- nunbot, on 10/12/2007, -78/+26you're right. it does work :)
- charbarred, on 10/12/2007, -95/+12So anybody taking bets on how soon this one will get buried?
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+576"So anybody taking bets on how soon this one will get buried?"
If you're interested in burying this story, I'll sell you my "bury" vote for $0.50 . . . we're having a half off sale. - Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -50/+3edited: wrong topic.....o_o
- gamasutra, on 10/12/2007, -7/+90Crowds are fascinating. Why study a person when you can study a crowd?
- arof, on 10/12/2007, -4/+117The digg that the author bought diggs for: http://www.digg.com/design/Why_are_people_fascinated_by_photographs_of_crowds
- randf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+80so now will we see "buy this digg" tags at the bottom of future news stories?
- Sarevok9, on 10/12/2007, -43/+5in essence he is studying a crowd right now. how will people react to a story that may well be fabricated in its entirety. just look at the user / submit site he links to in the article... looks more like a 5$ go daddy domain and a quick dreamweaver layout... im not into thinking that that is real.
- sungam3D, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Why not just submit a decent story that WILL get dugg?
- Frebis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+92Why not add Ubuntu to the title? And top it off with a little bit of Steve Jobs in the description?
- roomforpanic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59@sarevok9
Just curious, what do GoDaddy domains "look" like? You know, in case I need to identify one in the wild. - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11It's kind of a bogus experiment in that it was a mildly interesting story, she seems to underestimate the appeal of things that are utterly boring; Most of us find trainspotters interesting for the same reason. It's success is also partly due to the fact that it's obviously not spam, she should have used a site that looks like it had a commercial motivation. Yes, it's sad that the paid seeder diggs likely got it moving, but she could have accomplished the same by getting her friends to digg it. The story was unlikely to be buried early because it was not offensive in any way. What's disturbing is that her article mostly just serves to shill for a spam company, if she'd hired mail spammers or 419 scammers, would she be promoting them with a link and an endorsement?
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -9/+87"When we identify a (Digg user) who is part of a scam, we don't remove their account so they don't realize they've been identified. Then we let them continue voting, but their votes may count a lot less. Then the scam doesn't work."
-what if the algorithm is wrong and an innocent person has been identified as a scammer incorrectly? What then? Said person just roams around in ignorance? This is a ***** up policy. - cdahlkvist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19It's nice to see that Digg is broken again.
Of course it would be too obvious to do upgrades/maintenance in the middle of the night (U.S. since that is where the majority of Digg users are located) as opposed to the high traffic times. - Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38I find it funny people talk about a "bury brigade". Hi, nice to meet you, *I* am the bury brigade. I regularly bury stories, and rarely digg stories. Some of the crud that gets to the front page is just plain ridiculous, and it warms my heart to finally hear the SEO whiners complaining about it.
There should not be a crowd mentality where if something hits the front page it goes higher and higher, instead, front page stories should be HIGHLY scrutinized. - tom6a, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19"Ultimately, however, my story did get buried. If you search for it on Digg, you won't find it unless you check the box that says "also search for buried stories." This didn't happen because the Digg operators have brilliant algorithms, however -- it happened because many people in the Digg community recognized that my blog was stupid. Despite the fact that it was rapidly becoming popular, many commenters questioned my story's legitimacy. Digg's system works only so long as the crowds on Digg can be trusted."
It happened because people recognized that your blog was stupid AND because of digg's algorithms. - pakke, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Time to go "touché".
- COMPACTION, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3For more buried stories search digg under 911, Bush or Cheney.
- alteratti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+65$1, huh
I'd rather join a construction company who'd pay me more for digging.. - dreamlayers, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2It's interesting how when I got to the story it still had 172 diggs. I thought it should have been buried by now... or does burying not decrement that number.
- bradbaxter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8But all DIGG has to do now is have someone sign-up as a "clicker" to see all the articles submitted to this service... and then give each submitter (for those articles) the Scarlet D.
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33If you do not *regularly* bury a large number of stories from the front page, you're not contributing to this site in any meaningful way.
In general, there is a lot more worthless crap on the front page than there is stuff you'd digg, and a lot of it does not elicit an indifferent reaction that would make people simply ignore the story. No no, on the contrary, many of these submissions are just AWFUL, as in "why-the-hell-did-anyone-ever-digg-this" awful. If you choose to then just ignore such a story and not bury it, that's a complete waste right there.
Please, please bury more stories. And bury more bad comments as well. There are a lot of gems on Digg, a lot of great submissions and a lot of great commenters that just get swallowed up by the masses. This is why plenty of outside communities (specifically Reddit, but to a lesser degree also Slashdot and Fark) routinely make fun of Digg -- and their mockery is JUSTIFIED primary because garbage is seldom ever buried here, and it just stays up and stinks up the whole place, making everything else look worse than it really is. - iloveroundtable, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2***** you Wired.
- nothing7899, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@btipling
"-what if the algorithm is wrong and an innocent person has been identified as a scammer incorrectly? What then? Said person just roams around in ignorance? This is a ***** up policy."
well... unless your entire life revolves around digg, then it isn't the end of the world. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep at night just because my vote only counts as half a vote.
- Vizin, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10Though I don't like the idea of actually giving money to these guys, it's interesting to know that even although these services work, so does the Digg community.
- crossmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Not exactly. He's already shown how people will go along with the crowd. What if his idea wasn't boneheaded? What if it was really cleverly designed spam that might not get dugg on its own? Or some random uninteresting product that wouldn't get dugg, but isn't necessarily all that lame?
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Annalee Newitz (the Wired writer) is a woman. Not a guy.
- COMPACTION, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Formore buried stories search Digg for Bush Cheney or 911.
- twistymcgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yeah but the point is that 172 people from the digg community dugg the story. So what does that say about the community.
- mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Let each vote count the same. If Digg tries to keep up with every scam, by weighting various users, they will consistently get owned. If the voting system was simple and transparent then Digg could throw up their hands any say "it is up to YOU".
250 digs to get to the frontpage and then you get buried if your negative votes reach 1/2 your positive votes. This would allow a story to go on, and off, the frontpage as the voters battle it out.
There comes a point when you are micromanaging so much that it is no longer "crowd based" but rather based on what the algorithm designers want to see promoted. - jownz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Bury as inaccurate.
- crossmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Not exactly. He's already shown how people will go along with the crowd. What if his idea wasn't boneheaded? What if it was really cleverly designed spam that might not get dugg on its own? Or some random uninteresting product that wouldn't get dugg, but isn't necessarily all that lame?
- undergrace, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Man, and I've been wasting all this time looking for stories that might actually interest people!
It's good to see the "buy your friends" college fraternity mentality can be overtaken by the legitimate Digg community. Otherwise, nothing I submit would *ever* be dugg... I don't have that kind of disposable income!- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5There's another level here that isn't fixed. It's the power users who are on a thousand peoples friends lists. Theres a reason they have like 80% promotion percentages. But that's another thing all together.
- OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19"legitimate Digg community."
HA. Digg is gamed, top to bottom every day! - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I was initially of the opinion that the complaining about digg abuse was just sour grapes whiners. Now, though, I have to admit that the I think there is gaming going on but not of the bury brigade variety. Just the opposite, actually.
How hard would it be, if you were a typical SEO, to create or attend a forum (or create an IM group etc, you get the idea) where you and other like minded SEO types would simply up-digg anything that other participants requested, regardless of content of the submission. Similar to "blog rings" I guess. If you felt strongly enough about the value of a digg fp placement, it seems trivial to band together and make this happen.
This is an interesting submission that seems to be discussing how to get around the potential pitfalls of such an arrangement:
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/How_to_Game_Digg_Via_Email_Instant_Messenger
The article on the blog initially shared the title of the digg submission but it was changed after submission. Basically, it was tips on how to get "friends" to digg your story and possible ways that the participants could get caught and how to mitigate them.
There is a problem here but it isn't bad buries. - elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@OriginalLucid
and you're stupid enough to keep coming back? - aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This doesn't really have anything to do with the story, just your comment.
I'm not in a fraternity, but I know a lot of people who are. Honestly, they don't buy their friends. It's a bunch of people who don't know anybody who are looking to meet a bunch of people. At my school, living in the dorms, most people still go hang out with their friends from high school. Fraternities draw people who are looking to meet a lot of new people. Also, you can't really say they "buy their friends." Fraternities typically charge about $50 a month membership dues (if you're not living in the house, if you live in the house it will be much more expensive obviously), but that $50 a month gets you meals at the house, parties, and most houses usually do a few philanthropies too.
It just annoys me when people say they "buy their friends." It's just a bunch of people who are looking to meet a whole bunch of new people, and are usually pretty open about meeting new people.
- ajaydsouza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+77Considering that the story landed up on the front page, it clearly shows how Digg could be manipulated.
It is good though that the Digg community ensured it didn't last for long, but where was the bury brigade when it was needed the most?- Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -19/+17Bury Brigade reporting Sir! They call me El Bury-ito.
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4The article didn't mention anything about Muslims, Ron Paul, or anything political.
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5ROFL
Lixie, that was such an off-the-wall remark, you just gained a friend. - kelek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd buy that for a dollar!
- gncboard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yes dude, u're right!
http://www.gncboard.com/
- strictly, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17reddit, huh? I wonder if the censor the truth like Digg does.
- daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5censor the truth? how so? do they replace the word grassy knoll with ****** *****? could you provide me with examples of some content that has proved its truthfulness that has nevertheless been blocked from Digg?
- charbarred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you manage to get the Digg search to work, search for the word "digg" and include buried stories...that would be one example.
- bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It is not digg that censors you it is the digg users that bury your story. If you dont like the fact that people can bury you for posting lame stupid stories or spam on digg then leave
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3Yes Quomen, you ARE a loner. But the photographs sucked regardless.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22The fact they sucked was kind of the point
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5No crap. I was replying to the quote from Digg towards the end of the article.
- chadtatro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10not surprising at all.
- commandos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5So now all what digg have to do is join the site , and each time they receive a notification of "digg this site" the post creator would be banned (o'.'o) How cool
- lox500, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6The services do work, but it is pointless. Why drive digg traffic to your site? It is highly unlikely that a digg user will click on an ad. So unless you are selling an actual product that would benefit users, you are are wasting your money.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Limited "studies", or at least analysis of traffic, have also shown that Digg traffic is a lot less sticky then traffic from Slashdot or techcrunch or other sites with users who have less of an ADD issue.
- arnar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3"it is pointless" -- you kinda shot yourself in the foot on that one with "unless you are selling an actual product"
- qwirkyqt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4There are lots of reasons why people want traffic. Its not always about money.
- aeproberts, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4That just shows how sad, bored, and starved for attention some people must be. I use Digg every day and I love the site, but you have issues if you are paying hard earned money to try and get a story you submit to the front page.
Get a life!- lala, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Getting to the front page can earn you alot of money, you know..
- arnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Uhh.. if getting to the frontpage helps you sell $1000 worth of some product, spending $100 dollars doesn't sound that desperate.
- Huitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6yuh, 100$ investment and quite a bit of ad revenue if your site can handle the onslaught.
- arnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+70Dugg.. for $0.5
- exoendo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Crowds are fascinating. Why study a person when you can study a crowd? - - haha, I love that quote. :)
- elvenseven, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1What's special about that quote?
- ferggo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Aaaand... it's on the TOP of the front page right now.
- kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10here's a link directly to the website:
http://www.usersubmitter.com/
Let's digg-effect it. - thejokker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10this isint the story that was paid for. If you read the article, the writer explains how he manipulated digg and submitted a story a few days ago.
- kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10here's a link directly to the website:
- unabomber, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1They pay me 10$ to dig this story!!!!!! lolz!!!!!!!!!!
- 4Ajax, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6One major piece of news was left out. How many Hits? What was the conversion rate? I bet many diggers have AdBlock installed, that wipes out AdSense. Then they probably don't spend much anyway. Digg makes a hit when big media finds a story from Digg, In that case the story needs staying power which apparently this one did not. I say Digg worked just fine.
- neotype, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Lurkers do a big part in burying a horrible story. A very good commentator can sway everyones opinion though.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24What's that? Money can sway public opinion? Wow, better not tell any of the presidential candidates that, or there will certainly be trouble.
- Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The Chevy Vega was Motor Trends Car of the Year. Like buying awards and your way onto front pages never happens.
- Scyth3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3TechCrunch...?
Oh, someone had to say it. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"I put down $450 for 430 diggs"
If you're willing to put down that kind of cash to make your story popular, you have a problem that only an intervention and subsequent rehab will solve. It only takes 30-40 diggs in a relatively short amount of time to hit the front page. - wizbor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+47Whats even more interesting is the Wired story that DID get buried, "Hunting Down Digg's Bury Brigade" http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,72835-0.html
If the article is correct I risk losing my account here just posting this. We shall see.- frozenpleasure, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Good call. I'm surprised you haven’t been buried.
...like this comment will. - Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7OMG it's a conspiracy!1!!!! It's only a matter of time before someone blames "the liberals" and/or the muslims.
- frozenpleasure, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Good call. I'm surprised you haven’t been buried.
- Huitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am curious if this explains at least part of the cacophony of hate speech we have seen make it to the front page and continue to get tons of diggs though they have zero positive comments.
- t-readyroc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29A blog about crowd photos that's an under-handed scheme to manipulate crowds? The ironing is delicious.
- Huitz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21"ironing"??
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16If by "delicious" you mean "tastes like burning", then absolutely.
- haasim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Before anyone else corrects "t-readyroc" for saying "ironing" instead of "irony", he was merely making a reference to The Simpsons.
- hersito, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4How is this news? everyone knows this happens for a while. Otherwise how would Nintendo Wii, ds and apple SPAM always gets to the front page and also all ps3 bashing news. Also all engadget and gizmondo articles gets to the front page no matter how stupid the article is.
- pero69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4yeah... because it's definitely worth it to PAY to deliver "ps3 bashing news" to digg's front page.
- hersito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4if you are part of one of the other companys it is.
- Sartori, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It'd probably be worth something to Microsoft, and to a lesser extent Nintendo...
- hokkos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I didn't the the crowd blog because it was buried, but Am I the only one who found the crowd blog interesting ?
- barbieh11, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5This wouldn't surprise me in the least. I was pretty excited about digg until this week when I noticed them burying article after article regarding wtc 7 and the bbc announcing a collapse 23 minutes before it occurred.
- Zzyw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18That may have had to do with the fact that 75% of Americans _aren't_ completely retarded. A small, fanatical group of diggers will occasionally get crummy conspiracy stories to the front page, where they get buried en masse by people with brains who are sick of that crap. It's spam, it's old, it's inaccurate and so lame I'll gladly bury every single one of them, free of charge.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The mind is originally empty, and only when it remains empty, without grasping or rejecting, can it respond to natural things, without prejudice. It should be like a river gorge with a swan flying overhead; the river has no desire to retain the swan, yet the swan's passage is traced by its shadow, without omission.
Lin Ching-hsi - Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I really fail to see how the fact that a BBC and CNN tape depicting the collapse of building 7 before it happened exists makes everybody a "conspiracy theorist". There's no "conspiracy theory" idiot, there's just evidence.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@barbieh11 & krymore
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
>>
If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
>>
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
There were reports all day that the building was "about to go." The firemen, in particular, were warning about it consistently. BBC getting it a bit wrong/early only proves their error.
The whole area was ripped up with huge I-beams that had fallen many hundreds of feet. Some of them were buried so deeply in the ground that they were never removed.
Building 7 was hit by many of those I-beams. For those of you with a little engineering background, do a quick calculation of the forces generated by a 4-ton piece of steel with a 500-foot fall behind it. The collapse was no surprise. Other buildings in the area collapsed and still others almost collapsed.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Dugg because the article contains a link on info on the Bury Brigade.
- CodyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is brilliant.
- tomgallagher, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I am suprised that U/S revealed the secret of their existence. Surely if such a service works and is profitable their business processes should be secret!
- substrom, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Its called doing a 'steve jobs'
He invented this tactic.
Gets lots of his (banal) news on the front page, but still unfortunately for him, little sales......the people are not that stupid.
watch as his paid monkeys bury me :)- pero69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Its called doing a 'steve jobs'
He invented this tactic.
Gets lots of his (banal) news on the front page, but still unfortunately for him, little sales......the people are not that stupid.
watch as his paid monkeys bury me :)"
ooh, nice wordplay. It's a no-lose situation for you! now, you get to watch as the "paid monkeys" bury you.
or they could just bury you because you're an idiot...
- pero69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Its called doing a 'steve jobs'
- itsbecca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Has someone told him 124 diggs is not that many? Sure it can make it to the front page but it won't stay there for long unless the extra notice it will receive from diggers BY being on the front page will get it more diggs because it has entertaining content. If you finish reading he even admits it got buried... (Meaning the attention it got from being on the front page was overwhelmingly negative.) Gosh I'd like to have money to waste on crap like this.
- jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5consider the possibility that you have a valid story, but noone looks at it.
by investing in diggs, you can get it on the frontpage, where it will be seen by many people.
and users usually only bury really stupid stuff. so if your story has at least some value, it will most likely stay on the frontpage. but it didn't get there "on its own".
- jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5consider the possibility that you have a valid story, but noone looks at it.
- RichardDavidLee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"I wound up with a 'popular' story that earned 124 diggs -- more than half of them unpaid."
I take this as proof that people have no taste, these are the sorts of people who actualy think modern art is good. - hansi001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I hope this makes it to Diggnation!!!
- crossmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7companies have a long history of not giving attention to anything that remotely makes them look bad.
- crossmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7companies have a long history of not giving attention to anything that remotely makes them look bad.
- mlvassallo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4FTA- "I used the scientific prank methodology..."
No... you paid for diggs. - jambamkin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Has anyone thought that this may be an advert for the service?
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's in Wired. Think there's a big conspiracy?
- TheAbsintheHare, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Possibly.
Wired's parent company also owns Reddit, which is Digg's rival.
If Wired instills enough insecurity over Digg's mechanics... They're helping Reddit, and most likely making a nice bonus check. - IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Wired's parent company also owns Reddit, which is Digg's rival."
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. - g026r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3YouHaveIssues:
Hope you didn't digg this story, because the info about Reddit is right in the article. - tkinnun0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know, it said so in TFA.
- COMPACTION, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0For more buried stories search Digg for Bush, Cheney or 911.
- supernova17, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13This article is hilarious.
"After four and a half hours, I had 19 diggs." Bwahaha.
Why pay for diggs, be part of community and they will reward you.- blake10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8why were you banned?
- SqlByte, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Uhm.. pay for diggs ?
I think i have a brilliant idea =) - pyrotix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2There are much better ways to make the front page, like... having a blog? Even a mailing list will do.
- philforhumanity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The real question is how much money did this person earn, after spending about $100 for bogus diggs?
- frozenpleasure, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This guy is brilliant! Everyone thinks Digg users are different, maybe a bit more intelligent. Proof they are just mindless supporters of each others insignificant little worlds.
- xXAzraelXx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0This is why occasionally people go on free-lance free-think report-athons. A determined thinker will always clean a paid of stinker. ^^
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"A paid of stinker"? I'm sorry, my Gibberish to English translator is on the blink, could you rephrase that in standard English?
- buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2
here is the "bury brigade" article from wired
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72835-0.html
a Jew defends LGF from accusations of being anti-semitic
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/black-is-not-white/- Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10LGF gets buried for the same reason an article from godhatesfags.com or stormfront.org would get buried. That, and they tell their members to make multiple accounts to digg their stories to the front page. Digg doesn't like people that cheat the system and Digg definitely doesn't like hate cults. There's no "omgomgliberalconspiracy" involved.
- spencer911, on 10/12/2007, -1/+81 $ per digg is a rip off just outsource it via indian call centres and you will get 1 cent per digg :D
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Holy crap, Wired is on a roll with the Digg bashing:
http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/serveFile.aspx?af=6870
That's the RSS feed on my Google-Personalized page.- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a featured story in the current issue, written by the same author of this Wired link, so the whole "Bury Brigade" nonsense came up at a pretty convenient time for them to capitalize on the issue.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's a featured story in the current issue, written by the same author of this Wired link, so the whole "Bury Brigade" nonsense came up at a pretty convenient time for them to capitalize on the issue.
- reb42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1WOW! I know three people in that photo of the hockey crowd - the red-haired kid sorta in the middle, and two more sitting in the same row closer to the bottom! That's the student section in Lynah Rink at Cornell University... weeiird
- EvanRoberts, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Here's an improvement to digg:
instead of allowing everyone to digg a story, once a story is submitted (and seconded by x amount of people) the website would email or through some other means bug say 20 digg users subscribed to that subject and wait 30 minutes for responses. If more than 20% percent of the users find the story interesting, digg does a wider sample (say 40 users) this time requiring a higher percentage of users to approve the story. And so on until the story hits the highest level - the front page. The algorithm would in reality be more sophisticated than this but the given example should give you a rough idea
The system works through the principle that a big enough sample reflects the views of the wider community. Stories would be able to hit the front page quicker than they currently do, and there would be much more assurance that the article is actually interesting to the whole community, rather than a tiny subset. - harryhair5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Here's one of the other stories about someone buying Diggs Annalee mentions in her Wired post:
http://www.schechtertech.com/weblog/PermaLink,guid,869c9bf1-c0fd-4bb0-8d78-16085ece041f.aspx - patience, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Violent Acres
Pronetadvertising
Ron Paul
Dawkins
Digg should automatically quarantine some issues and domains.- toolow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I like Violent Acres.
- toolow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I like Violent Acres.
- superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17imho, digg needs to stop publishing any user rankings, "top users", and kill the "friend" system.
if that is done, people will *actually* read the "Upcoming stories" section and vote on things they find good, and newbies who are good will have a chance to get their stories to the front page. That would create a true democracy and a chance for everyone; I find it hopeless right now to get something to the front page even if I try, because the "Upcoming" section doesn't actually get read much.
If digg becomes a true democracy like the above, the selling-diggs problem may also be rectified because it wouldn't be impossible and necessary for anyone to resort to these techniques to get something to the front page - all they'd need is a good story - not good story AND racked up popularity. - mvandemar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh how kickass! I'm going to add a Gbuy "Buy My Digg Now!" button to my profile!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by