Digg

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

Open Letter to Kevin Rose

themulife.com — This is an open letter to Kevin Rose. The intention of the letter is in no way to bash Digg, the Digg team, the Digg community, or Kevin Rose. Rather this is a plea to return Digg to the site we all contributed to and learned to love, as well as an expression of our genuine concern.

Bury

Aidenag 1 year 305 days ago, made popular 1 year 305 days ago

225 diggs
digg it

Pudwhack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48Why should someone who submits more stories than others or diggs more than others get their pages to the front page quicker than others? Digg has no "reporters" or "anchors" like traditional news services. So no one submitter should be more important than another. This isn't suppose to be a race or challenge.
- aaaz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34In my opinion, new algorithm punishes diggers with friends, hence top-diggers fall into that group by default, in new system if people like what you submit, you are punished for that.
  
  Basically it works like this, say you post a story, and 20 friends digg you, under new system (algo) digg requires 80 (20 X 4 ) non-friendly diggs, essentially your friends digg is equal to (-4) diggs or you require four additional diggs because a friend of yours dugg your story, so its harmful to have friends in new algo, on Digg.
  
  And more popular you become at submitting good stories, your chances of getting to front page become less over the time, since more friends are digging you. And this applies to new users as well, as they will acquire new friends, especially if they post a good story. This algo assumes that new diggers will be joining digg everyday and will post great stuff, and hurts old diggers by scrutinizing their posting at digg. This is poor assumption. Due to the fact certain diggers (old or new) post quality stuff most of the time.
  
  Digg has great management and I am sure it will continue to take good steps in improving quality of the site, for benefit of all.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6aaaz said "new algorithm punishes diggers with friends".
  
  Or rather: not rewarded as well.
  
  Diggs from friends still count, but diggs from strangers count most.
  
  The dilemma is that a story is more likely to be seen across networks of friends. So having lots of friends increases the chance of getting dugg. I've looked at submissions for those who have no friends, and they seem to average around one or two diggs per submission--though a popular post might shoot up to the mid twenties.
  
  A user with a lot of friends will still have better chance of being seen by non-friends, but you need those diggs from non-friends just as those with no friends do.
- IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Bottom line for me is that having friends is still better than not having any at all.
- sych0, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6why is this giant ego trip news?
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If your waiting for a digg blog post on this give them about a week just look what happened last time, it was 5 days before their was response form digg. When stuff like this happen you have to make sure you give the proper response so you don't create more controversy.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12...based on aaaz's numbers...everytime I digg a friend's story, I am crippling them and contributing to their long wait in the upcoming queue, and vice versa.
  
  I'm feeling like 1/4 of a person on digg now. The solution? Remove all friend's and start from scratch as a clean one-vote? I don't think so. Wading through dupes, spam and crap all day in newly-submitted to find good stories sounds like frustrating hours of fun, fun, fun. I think I am just going to be surfing digg casually from now on like I used to back when I first signed up. The staff seems to be discouraging full participation and the best social aspects of the site now. So be it.
- Deputy_Doodah, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Piss off Aaaz.
  You're one of the problems that the new algorithm addresses.
  You have your own set of fanboys who push your thinkprogress.org links to the front page several times every frickin' day that rolls.
  
  I'm sick of you. I hate thinkprogress and its lies. You probably own the damned thing.
  
  Anything algorithm that keeps your ***** from being every other story on the front page is a good thing.
- Deputy_Doodah, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4....oops. That's "any" algorithm.
  
  .....damned short-winded edit feature. Kind of takes the bluster out of an otherwise solid insult.
rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18If the top submitters leave, nothing will change. You can tell by the enormous amount of dupes. Sooner or later the story will reach digg weather or not a top user submits it or a newbie.
rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14"By creating an algorithm that punishes top users, and rewards new users you are creating several problems for Digg."

Im pretty sure that the algorithm treats everyone the same, as it SHOULD.

It seems the only reason anyone would give a ***** about this algorythm change would be those who game the system to get their stories to the front page faster.

Bottom line is.. If your submission is good it WILL make front page.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I agree that the top users are not identified as such. That is, I don't think anyone is penalized simply because they've had a lot of posts. So, you're right.
  
  What people seem to be confused about is that part of the algorithm that is intended to deal with cliquishness. We don't really know how this works (since it's a secret). But, a Digg from a friend would not carry as much weight as a Digg from a friend of a friend or a stranger.
  
  Since the top users have a lot of friends, this would affect them more. But, that doesn't mean that having fewer friends is good. What I hope is that having a diversity friends works best.
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I don't like the implications of "diversity" being more important than sticking to circle of friends. I know digg is trying to combat "gaming" so they have to watch for patterns, but why should people be penalized from having a group they like and following that group? I also don't like that (allegedly) some diggers count more than others or that the requirements for some stories are more than others. As has been said by others, one digg should equal one digg, regardless of story or submitter.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The point about diversity is not about ranking individuals or their groups, but about how news travels.
  
  There seem to be two aspects about the news on the front page.
  1) how good an article is
  2) how applicable the article is to the target audience
  
  For the front page, the target audience is everyone. From the perspective of the field of Information Retrieval, an item that traverses many groups has a wider range of interest than one that only travels within a single small group. The Small world phenomenon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_world_phenomenon ) doesn't work if different groups aren't connected.
  
  There's nothing personal or judgmental about this. This is simply a matter of what is of interest to the widest audience.
  
  And, there's nothing wrong with keeping to your own group. But, if you want to be heard outside your group, then you have put your posts out where they'll be heard.
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13GnuTzu, what's the point in "SOCIAL" bookmarking if you punish those being the most SOCIAL?
  
  It doesn't make sense.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5TheAttacks, I agree that being social should not be punished.
  
  But, if people are in fact being punished, then I have been wrong in my assertions. What I believe is that diggs from immediate friends are rewarded less positively--as opposed to being counted more negatively.
  
  So, I think that there is still an advantage to having friends, and I think it counts more if your posts are propagating beyond your immediate circle of friends.
Evari, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31I dont know about everyone else but over the past few days ive noticed that a lot less stories than usual are making the front page. my morning routine used to be coffee and digg, but now by the time ive had 3 sips ive read all the new stories.
- koregaonpark, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Everyone has noticed. And we don't like it either.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Uhhh... I like it. Try visiting the "upcoming stories" for a change. Sort by most diggs or cloudview... there are some good stories there waiting to get submitted to the front page.
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I think its great.
  I've started visiting the Upcoming Stories section more often, and am finding stories interesting to me that I'd never have seen if I just stuck to the front page all the time like I used to.
  Its a good change and WILL make digg a better place.
GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Most of the commentaries I've seen recently don't have the best statistics to work with. For instance, none of these critiques seem to have taken into account changes in the number of over-all submissions. Not that I want to say the people haven't been bringing up valid points, but I don't see a baseline against which to interpret the data.

We have to accept that as the community grows it will become thicker and denser than it was before. That alone could make the algorithms seem less meaningful--even the old ones.

The future growth of Digg will depend upon its scalability. Will the current system, structure, and algorithm handle ten times as many members? How about a hundred times? Personally, I see a future with more news categories and separate front pages for the individual categories. Think of it as smaller ponds where more people can have a sense of making meaningful contributions. There is no avoiding the fact that with more submissions the main front page will either be harder to reach or overloaded with too many posts.

I've also made a comment elsewhere about ranking in terms of traversing multiple groups of friends. The idea is that the more widely a post is accepted the more it belongs on the front page (as something that is of a wider range of interest). That is, a post that never ranges outside of a single group of friends, is only of interest to that group of friends. (For the computer scientist, this takes a bit of graph theory.) Hopefully, this kind of thing would encourage various groups of friends to interconnect a little better. Try to diversify your friends and take an interest in a variety of topics. Don't get cliquish.

I don't know how well this diversity concept is understood by Digg users, but I have noticed that some of the top users do seem to follow a fair variety of friends. If the current algorithm is successfully taking that into account, they'll still float towards the top. The difference is, they'll act as a distribution point for lesser users to spread their posts. I hope that all of the top users understand their role in this--as some do seem to understand.

For myself, I'm satisfied to watch the inner workings of the Digg community. I haven't made it to the front page; and though I'm sure that I'll have an appropriate ego rush when I get there, I try not to be too concerned with that. Still, I make submissions when I come across something that I think is important and valid news. Mostly though, I'm just digging and commenting on the stories that I think are real news and important to the community.
rdixon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15There is one thing about this change that seems to be getting overlooked.
The powers that be @ digg have stated that users "with a pattern" of "gaming" will be punished by this change.
While this is just an educated guess by me; I think that means users who log in, go straight to their friend's submitted page and digg them all at a rate of one per second or as fast as their internet connection allows AND spend no time digging any one else's submissions will have their votes negated or voided.
Whether or not this activity is gaming or not could be debated forever without a clear answer.
Although I am a relative newbie here, from what I have observed in 2 months of being a digger, the top users are NOT gaming because the articles they have been submitting are not spam,
And when you have 300+ friends of which 30 or 40 or so are heavy submitters of non-spam, should it really make a difference if they take the time to read the submissions before they digg them?
It seems to me that the ones who are calling this type of activity gaming are the ones who want to do the same thing but do not have enough friends yet to achieve that.
It would probably be helpful to all digg users if management would simply post what is and what is not considered by them to be gaming.
Then everyone knows what the rules are and it is fair to all users.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4How much time does anyone spend on 'Upcoming Stories"? Who would read all of the thousands of upcoming posts--let alone all of the linked stories?
  
  I get most of my new posts by watching what friends digg (both by RSS feed and the Google home page tool). Friends are an important and encouraged feature, so I don't think that anyone is penalized for just having lots of friends.
  
  Gaming seems to incorporate several behaviors that place an undue emphasis on immediate friends. I suspect that detecting this requires an active moderator--a real person and not just the algorithm. If you wanted to be detected as a gamer (as an experiment or for whatever foolish reason), what you would do is this: create a bunch of accounts, make them all friends of each other, and only digg posts (not diggs or comments) from those friends. If that doesn't get you punished, then the system is broke.
  
  Again, I think that having plenty of friends is encouraged, and then reading and digging the posts of their friends and non-friends is also encouraged. I don't think that there is much point of having friends if you're not willing to read what they digg (regardless of who posts). You still need to digg the posts of your friends--when they're newsworthy, so that your friends will get to see those posts--thus propagating the posts through the networks of friends. So, diggs from friends are needed to get a post seen, and diggs from non-friends are needed for a post to gain rank.
SweetyCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Get over it peoples. They are providing this service for free. We don't have to pay a subscription fee. They can run Dig what ever way they want. We have homeless people, we have starving people, we have people fleeing war and oppression, and on, and on... - So I humbly suggest that "they" put things in perspective - This is not an earth shattering issue! I enjoy Digg too, the day I stop enjoying it, I'll be free to leave. So are "they". Digg is Free - Please have the respect to leave it that way and not try to coerce or otherwise pressure Digg and it's personnel. We are not Digg owners, Digg owners can do with their web site and associated business as they see fit. If some of us do not like it, they can "use the door" and leave.
misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22It's impossible to really enjoy digg without Friends. The Upcoming Stories section is so cluttered and full of dupes and spam, that without a good 'network' or 'community' of Friends, you won't find the best stories.

Once you develop a group of Friends who seem to have the same preferences in types of stories as you, then you can find the more relevant stories to your tastes. As Digg has grown, I have added and deleted Friends, finding ones that I wanted to see what they dugg/submit/commented and removing ones that I no longer had an interest in.

Digg needs to do more to promote the Friends aspect and less in worrying about the algorithm and trying to tweak it to see whatever they're trying to get the frontpage to look like. That way the "peripheral" users won't feel like they are slighted. Everyone has to understand that the Friends mechanism is what gets stories promoted. I don't digg every single story that my Friends submit, but most of what I digg comes from them, simply because it's too hard to find good stories otherwise.

I applaud the top diggers for this--at least the ones who are my Friends--because they put the time and effort into making digg great--at least for me--because I get to read and comment on all the good stuff they submit.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3And, when Digg is used in this way, new stories circulate between interconnected groups.
  
  The busiest users do need to be applauded for following newer users and passing stories on to a wider community. The top users really do cover a lot of material (beyond their own), and I don't think that it's right to think of them as being self serving.
  
  Previous comments from Kevin Rose have addressed this. But, I can see that recent changes have revived old fears. I seriously doubt that the algorithm is designed to punish. Instead, I think everyone can feel the recent changes--not just the top users.
rdixon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Wonder why this has been removed from the upcoming list in the view all catagory?
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Because a lot of people think talking ABOUT digg ON digg is annoying and they report stories like this as lame. Which I also usually do, but sometimes it's hard not to get sucked in. :)
- rdixon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Maybe I should have included that it is still listed in the upcoming section of tech news.
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20mods just removed it from upcoming que, was watching diggspy, and nobody was modding it down. yet off the upcoming que it went..
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13OK, I stand corrected. I hate that mods remove any story unless it is illegal or something. Guess I'm a naive. Or an idealist.
- Rhiannon1214, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3What an incredibly stupid move on someone's part. Hopefully this will help Kevin understand the problem. I'll bet he's watching this discussion.
fatmike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14removed from the queue. same thing happened to elebrio's story.
stories from ppl submitting/commenting on negative consequences regarding the new algo are being censored and buried with no reason. it is beginning to shed light on the fact that something needs to be changed.
at least, some comment from krose or management about this.
- IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Kinda offtopic but what is that "?" avatar, aaaz and you are sporting?
- fatmike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18it's a sign of confusion that we are sporting. we don't understand why all the stories submitted regarding the new algorithm are being censored.
  we just want some sort of response.
- CristianMezei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Removed indeed. Just as this one was:
  
  http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Digg_Algorithm_Unofficial_FAQ
  
  Or just like ANY other article that says anything ELSE then Praise Digg.
alx359, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Digg structure is pyramidal. The top-side (front-page) is narrow compared to the bottom-side (upcoming news). "Friends" feature is by its very meaning a cluster-maker that will tend to clog the top. You can't avoid that without some sort of non-democratic distribution. Any down-top pyramidal flow is inherently undemocratic. If the most clogging clusters are from people of only one or very few demographic groups you will have the others unhappy and an impression of quality-loss for them. Stronger user profiling is a must. May suggest when submitting new stories more intrinsic questions are made and put at work some more per-user data gathering to weight them (e.g. too much use of profanity, void/similar answers, too much caps lock, thumbs +/- ratio, proper grammar, time writing a comment, use of spell-checker, sending duplicates/inaccurate, etc). There are plenty of factors to measure but should be user-centric.
Rhiannon1214, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I agree with the contents of your letter also. I have one additional recommendation: Just as we can see the ID's of those who digg a story, we MUST also be allowed to see ID's of those who BURY them. It appears there are some diggers who cannot comment intelligently on a story, and resort to hiding in a closet and simply burying it anonymously. I'd rather see disagreement and discussion. By identifying those who bury stories, we can eliminate abusers who are simply out for revenge and not continbuting to Digg.
DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18This post alone is proof to me there is a problem.

With about 60 diggs and 30 comments it is obviously something that a lot of people find interesting/important. It has all the classic characteristics of a front page story: It's about Digg and Kevin Rose. Normally that's instant front page stuff -- regardless of who submits.

But from what I understand Aidenag has been needing 160+ diggs before something is promoted. Which means that there is a good chance this story will not reach the masses.

Information wants to be free. That's what Digg is about.
- zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8160+ Diggs, that's just sick. I'm afraid to post any stories, because even with really good content it just won't make it to the front page. Even if it does, it'll show up a day from now when it's old news already.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Thanks for the stat. 160 diggs is enormous.
  
  But, I can only imagine what its like for those who are above Aidenag on the top users list.
  
  Just for curiosity sake, I'm listing out the numbers for those who have befriended top users.
  
  1042 digitalgopher
  460 aaaz
  476 gwic
  636 BloodJunkie
  556 supernova17
  966 dirtyfratboy
  362 Aidenag
  
  To get this I had to go from the top user list to their friends tab and click "People Who Have Befriended This User". This is the number of people who might potentially digg your stories.
  
  What you hope (if I understand the algorithm correctly) is that those who are watching your diggs have friends that are not an immediate friend, because a digg from a non-immediate friend will count more. I might also go so far as to suggest that the algorithm looks at who are mutual friends, but I wouldn't want top users to be discouraged from following others (as that would make them less social).
  
  As for what makes the front page, its hard to determine the threshold for a user, since you can only get the current count. However, digitalgopher had a couple of front page items five days ago that currently have digg counts of 97 and 36. AAAZ has on from three days ago that is currently at 92 diggs.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Over a thousand users follow digitalgopher... to be befriended by that many people--people who are willing to follow and possibly digg stories.
  
  To me, that's a solid reputation, and I would expect a diverse one at that. (Though, I wonder how active those users are.)
  
  I'd like to see this stat on the top users page.
zugu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2So what now? Top Apple fanboys are angry because they cannot manipulate the fronpage the way they want anymore? Get over it, IT'S THE NEWS THAT MATTER, not the poster. If it's not you, there will be another.

I think some fellas here got too much into digg. It's a site, folks, it's not as if your landlord evicted you. Maybe you should just READ digg instead.

***** zealots!
- ZeonZumDeikun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shut the ***** up.
  
  A good majority of the top users are not Apple fanboys, but they digg Apple news because Apple is interesting. I honestly hate Apple's simplicity, because it takes a fairly simple device and makes it the standard, over devices with twice the amount of features, but that's besides the point that they are a strong rival to Microsoft.
  
  I hate this algorithm because these guys actually find lots of interesting news. Without their finds, lately it has been just a few crappy blog posts and uninteresting political news.
  
  If you like reading people's blog posts rather than news that doesn't suck, why don't you go to MySpace or something closer to your level?
kryptogrowl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9quality of stories have gone down I see the same story, different post, every day
rdixon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Watch for falling diggs.
I give up.
I'll go back to getting my news fix from yahoo, google, and other sources.
They are faster with breaking news now than the front page here.
I see no reason for me to give this site more page views when I'm getting nothing in return for them.
Inactive user count + 1.
GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3BTW, I am looking forward to a response from Kevin Rose on this.

I understand that he need to keep the details of the algorithm secret, but I do think that he can address some of these questions.
- SweetyCheeks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4It is his web site. He can do whatever he wants with it. I think we all need to enjoy (or not) the freebie he is providing us. Again, he owns it, we don't - A simple observation. He can do with his web site as he sees fit. I would never dream of telling another person what to do with their web site, (especially when the content, participation, interaction, etc. is all free). Why not I ask? Because, that individual could rightly tell me to F off. Same reaction each of us might have if people tell us what we can and cannot do with things we own. If I don't like what a web site is doing I simply leave. In my humble opinion, some of us may look very foolish (publicly) over this trivial issue, allowing the remainder of us to smile or chortle at those who might appear as foolish. Once again, it's very plain he can do with his web site whatever he wishes because.....
  
  He owns it, we don't - A simple observation
JeffBoyaredi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Who's house? Run's house."
charbarred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Yes, it's true, some top users submit spam occasionally (out of hundreds of stories they submit in a month).
Yes, there are also a couple I can pinppoint who seem to actually be getting paid for some of their submissions.
Yes, digg can hire a couple of students to analyze the top 100 diggers' activity and deal with each personally if they think there is a problem with what they're doing.
Yes, digg can introduce a limit on how of your friends' stories you can digg in an hour, thus taking care of gaming.
Yes, they don't seem to be giving a *****, they are just respodning to the backlash from newbies who don't spend a tenth of the time submitting to digg and making it a great cutting edge news site.
Yes, this story is probably buried by now.
Yes, some of the top users have already moved to Netscape.
Yes, http://www.plime.com appreciates your dedication much more (I don't work for them or anything, just an observation).
Yes, you can do your own math, or just move along to another community that will appreciate your dedication. I know I am.
- mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Kev/Jay still haven't learned their lesson and persist in remaining silent.
  
  Head on over to Netscape. More of a community there. "One person, one vote" system is in place.
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hmm that plime looks kinda cool. Much more community features. You using plime charbarred?
- charbarred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I submitted a few stories. I like the fact that you can edit other users' stories if needed (sort of like digg meets wikipedia). People seem quite welcoming...still weigting it against netscape though...I'll be smarter in a week I guess.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I've already taken the bait and signed up; I'm giving Plime a try... not that I'll let it detract too much from my Digging (for now).
  
  (I feel a need to watch each, at their different sized populations, deal with their scalability issues. Note that at Plimes's fairly embryonic size, a lot of the stories look like spill over from Digg and others. But the, we all share don't we.)
MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Stop Whine. The Show must go on.
coxon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How is the popularity contest going guys?
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.

Open Letter to Kevin Rose

Login or register to add a comment