digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why The Same Content Again and Again?

pronetadvertising.com — I recently came across a submission on Digg that got over 6,000 Diggs and was one of the most voted on stories of the week. And this is exactly what happened the last time the SAME story was submitted to Digg from the SAME url and by the SAME submitter. Is this a problem?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • M1THR4ND1R, on 10/11/2007, -15/+43Yeah, that's annoying. Same goes with submitting dead old stuff that everyone's already seen a year or two ago.
    • PatrickA, on 10/11/2007, -14/+57The point is that not everyone was a digg user a year ago and not everyone saw it first time round.
      • Ungh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4So where do we draw the line?
        Is it OK to resubmit the same story every month/week/day? Maybe we should resubmit popular stories hourly just in-case a new person signs up, we wouldn't want them to miss out... Instead of repeats, we need to go back to when it was easy to find stories all the way back to the original stories, that eliminates the excuse for double postings.
        How long do we cater to the new people and when do we start taking care of the veterans?
        • shiftt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You're right, it's a pain in the ass for those of us that visit digg all the time. On one hand I see dozens of dupes every week, on the other hand I know some people don't visit Digg as often as I do so they don't realize the same story has already made the front page 3 times this month.

          I've been visiting Digg since November 2005 (that's a lot of procrastination) and it's always been this way, so I doubt it's going to change.
          • Markdoggin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I'm not sure why digg leaves this up to the community to control. It seems like it would be better to remove and revoke duplicates, and only allow the dupe submitter to view the earlier story and not resubmit.
    • SpectralSounds, on 10/11/2007, -24/+18Know what else is annoying? This ***** commenting system. I dont think they are gonna listen to the majority and change it though. Ok, I better get back to fetching.
      • mezer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Give them some time.. it's been live for 1 day.

        And if you have comments about the comment system, post it in the story that was submitted exclusively about the comment system.

        Fawk'n whiners
        • JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1It's much easier to just comment to your comment.
        • cheech_sp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2After you open this many replies to replies, eventually there is more white space and blue bars on the screen than comments.
          Right now, my screen is completely full of 5 short comments.
      • mcl768, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes they are, They are taking in all the feedback and making changes.
    • royall64, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12It's so maddening that over 6000 people dugg this story, and only ONE PERSON noticed that it was by the SAME SUBMITTER. Zaibatsu deserves to be banned. It sucks that he gets to the front page TWICE with the same story and gets away with it, while most people can't even get there once.
      • aldenhg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Digg is a news site, not a competition.
      • ninsei, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9What do you win if you get a submission to the front page?
      • glacius99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10a couple hundred bucks in AdSense revenue from what I hear..
        • nobody554, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Only if it doesn't fall into the digg-effect first.
      • Twelvevolts, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can't see why it matters
    • ColinCampbell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33First person to resubmit this article and get it back on the frontpage wins life.
      • Iffrat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4i was about to say... "didnt i see this on FP like 3 weeks ago??" but colin had it right..

        ps.. this comment system sucks imo
    • feebie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't agree. Though it may be annoying to some people who have already seen it, submitting something old isn't as annoying as submitting a new story multiple times. Not everyone has been on digg for that long, nor has everyone scoured the internet for everything you have. And some of us like to look at stuff from a few years ago that we forgot about or want to see again for old time's sake. There is no need for anyone to act like a pompous ass just because they feel they've seen it all.
      • shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Did anybody RTFA? That's exactly this guy's point:
        "While same or similar stories being promoted multiple times are a minor nuisance for long time users, they give new users a chance to appreciate older content."
    • rejoined, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Anybody has Digg links to the said stories?
    • whistlerpro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4If EVERYBODY had seen it, it wouldn't be so popular!!!!!
    • mentor972, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ironic that this story is just a dupe of this one.... http://digg.com/design/What_is_it_about_DUPE_that_people_don_t_understand
    • slicedoranges, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4What bugs me the most are single funny images that have been floating around the internet since its birth that people insist on submitting a bunch of times.
    • Osjpr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The submitter must be LHAO XD
    • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Who cares? If you have seen it before you can NOT CLICK ON IT! If you haven't, then there's no problem.
  • VijchtiDoodah, on 10/11/2007, -6/+91I'd assume it's either because people simply forget where they heard about a story and Digg it without realizing that Digg is exactly where they first found it or there are many people who visit Digg infrequently, miss good stories, and vote for them the second time around since it's all original to them.

    Honestly, I don't mind. It's easy to ignore and isn't such a big problem that I'm tearing my hair out wondering when it'll stop.
    • sarazen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9You are right, repeated content over longer spans of time is no problem. Repeated content within the same 24 hours still is. It divides the user comments and creates a signal to noise problem that makes it harder to find new good content on any given day.
      • hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1for nontech stories i often find the 2in24hr threads have two completely different characters and theres a better variety of opinion..dunno why

        doesnt apply to tech stories..theres usually just one good set of comments worth reading
    • staffrocket, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They need a system where if you digg something that you've already dugg it makes a message saying "You've already dugg this previously, are you sure you want to digg it?"
    • proghead, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1yeah its not that big a problem when ur too busy tearing your hair out over the new comment system...
    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5No no, you're missing the author's point. He's not saying that OTHERS are re-posting stuff because they missed it, but the SAME author submit the same URL. That is, not only does this, but ignores the warning Digg will then show that the story has already been posted (as long as the URL is the same, that warning will definitely appear). Now -- is that a problem?
    • mesmeriffic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3What I would really love is if someone submits the rehash blog of this by next week.
      I love irony far more than I hate duplicate stories.
  • crazymotorc, on 10/11/2007, -47/+0The digg alliance is working for a more user friendly digg. To join send an email to diggalliance@gmail.com
    • mesmeriffic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The Digg Horde owns you in PVP.
    • Jonh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Diggers don't like to email folks they don't know. You should submit an URL of your project. Just saying.
  • alittletoohigh, on 10/11/2007, -23/+21I don't see the problem. If the same article gets to the front page twice then OBVIOUSLY diggers want to see it on the front page twice!!
    • ok4you, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Amen
    • mentor972, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Or the submitter is being a douche and submitting anyway, and the other people who haven't seen it digg it up instead of burring it.
    • michaelsynclare, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes. The act of a story getting to the front page instantly justifies it being there. There are always going to be new diggers coming in, thus always a need for good content (recycled or not).

      Why cry dupe about something, just because you had the privilege of reading it before? It's a waste of your time (and mine for having to read the same stupid "buried-as-dupe" comment a dozen times...it doesn't contribute to anything.) That's what the bury icon is for, no?

      Just move on to one of the thousands of other great stories coming down the pipe and let others enjoy the stuff that's NEW to them.
  • PacoDEmu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+122Yeah, during the early years of digg duplicate stories were frowned upon and a good portion of users were adamant about keeping them to a minimum.
    Now, if you politely mention that a story is a duplicate you get flamed as a dupe nazi and everybody hates you.

    With the proliferation of digg and the sheer number of new users, duplicate stories are going to happen and its just something we have to deal with. (Just like people posting digg stories to their personal blogs...)
    • unsurmountable, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I don't see a problem with posting to a personal blog (although I've never done it) many users don't know of any other way to submit their own content, it just get annoying when they submit every post they make - and even then some one has to digg it to make the front page.
      • PacoDEmu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree that there isn't really any other way to express your opinion on a specific topic than to digg your own blog. It's just a pet peeve of mine since it has the potential to get out of hand or be used for personal gain.
    • iherbivore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Just like re-runs on TV: Perhaps a bit disappointing to those who saw it the first time around, but appreciated by those who missed it.
    • Jowitz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6No, what's annoying is when people post other people's content on their blogs to rack in viewers. There is absolutely no reason to post something from a blog if there is the original source out there, unless the blogger has something VERY important and useful to say on the topic.
    • xtmno3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Where I have a problem is when something gets duped that is still on the front page or damn near it and people get pissed if you point out it is a dupe. I understand that if the community wants something on the front page, it will get there, but some people are trying to do a service by posting links to original submissions so you can get the discussion and credit where it is due.
    • Dupenazi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Did someone need something?
    • Jfave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I see no problem submitting your personal blog, but it needs to be worthwhile. There are LOTS of people who put out quality content. Mine on the other hand is nearly dead in use and both of my readers are more then likely getting lost when they stop by ;)
  • BrokenWind, on 10/11/2007, -10/+54I was going to dupe this story, just to be a smart-ass, then realized i didn't care anymore. Gad, this new format is sucking the life right out of me.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I really enjoyed the simplicity of Digg's commenting system and disappointed with the new format. I had always been against mult-threaded comments. I saw it as something that would take away from the simplicity and ease of use found in digg's commenting.
  • Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5"...and dugg by the exact same 6000 people!"
  • Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6"...and dugg by the exact same 6000 people!"
    • rstarr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8You're not so good with this new comment system, huh?
    • sheridan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Why The Same Comment Again and Again?
  • rhinocero, on 10/11/2007, -12/+11Jesus, I hate this so much. There will be 3 or 4 identical stories and they all make front page and it just pisses me off.
    • JohnFive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Why get pissed off? not everyone comes to this site everyday. So when something makes the front page that means its important enough that people should see it. Including the people that don't come here everyday.
  • 7of7, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Just as in any other democracy.
  • totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I agree its a problem. Unless its that hot archery chick who shoots an arrow with her feet. That can be Dugg every week.
    • nonsequitor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Seconded, please resubmit. I'll digg it!
  • azAZ09, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28In Usenet they used to call it "Eternal September", now they call it Web 2.0.
    • NicksVideo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4At least on Usenet things are reposted for a reason. Not everyone wants to pay for 100 day retention.
    • oddroot, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1that's what dejanews/google groups is for....
  • Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8i swear, Mr. Rose better be working on this comment system...
  • rholiday, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3***** lazy people.
  • fuckingusername, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6I'm just amazed on how some of the lamest stories make it to the front page.

    1. man cuts penis off to get back at girlfriend.=== who gives oh phuck
    2 . scientist say playing Xbox while eating cheetoes is bad for your health ==== who give oh phuck

    • Gee1004, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23. PC fanboys finds picture of 3 guys etched in the Microsoft Window's CD-ROM...who gives a *****
  • FKnight, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Whether it's a problem or not depends.
    1. Is Digg a social bookmarking site this week? or
    2. Is it a news site this week?
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1to be or not to be
      that is the question
  • dougyfresh, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3I had to make a digg account just to reply to this article. The person that submitted this to digg apparently didn't even read it since the question he asks in the title is answered in the article. IMO that is much more annoying than people submitting something twice, because I can ignore the second posting if the submitter uses a proper title.
    • Zipko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I'd suggest not getting into journalism then. When your editor asks for catchier titles to help sell papers are you going to reply with 'why would anyone read my article? They can find out everything they need to know from the headline.'?
  • clemsontigers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5It's really not complicated...a few people will find a story interesting/funny, and automatically dig it up. It's not hard to see that people are so mindless that they will dig up a story just because it already has a lot of digs
  • peterkay, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Digg doesn't let you submit the exact same URL,
    • Nick22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1its simple to get around

      for instance, if somebody already submitted "google.com" all you have to do is pit "google.com#w3143245"
  • 3monkeys, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9A small piece I wrote about this some time ago http://3monkeyweb.com/3monkeys/2007/01/09/digg-duplicates-a-fundamental-flaw/
    • shawnz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3which, ironically, sort of makes this a dupe
  • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I hear Bush is the lowest he's even been in the polls ;)

    ...again....and again...and again...

    Yes, I know, he constantly hits new lows. At some point, it's not 'news'.
  • avoidance, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/10/02/digg
  • lensman00, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Digg could use a "Best of Digg" section.

    1. Stories could be marked "Dupe - Already a Best of Digg", making it so these stories don't hit the front page over and over
    2. It would make for fun browsing for new Digg users (and experienced users, occasionally)
    3. It might make a more meaningful "My #1" type of vote
    • keithmcbride, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3view the most popular stories of the day, week, year, etc

      youd be surprised what interesting stories you happened to miss
    • xtmno3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2lensman00, I have to say that sounds like a promising idea to me. Having a best of digg would be a great way to let newer users see some of the stuff that made waves in the community. It would also let people know what type of content is highly appreciated in the community, so they can contribute more effectively. On the same token, having a best comments of digg would be pretty cool as well.
    • Jfave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Cool idea!
  • CarolynMittens, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8ugh when are people going to stop complaining about duplicate stories? if you've read it before, no one is forcing you to read it again. let those of us who didn't happen to catch the original story read the duplicate in peace, please.
    • domr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The issue is that digg is a social news site. (Or at least, it started off that way - I'm not entirely sure what digg is trying to be these days).

      Imagine you see the same story on your TV news 3 days in a row because someone, somewhere thought it was such a great story. Not only is that going to start annoying you after a few days, but news stories become less and less relevant with time.

      digg actively prevents you submitting the same URL twice for this very reason - most duplicates are primarily down to people trying to get their own site to the front page.
      • CarolynMittens, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1well the big difference between TV news and digg news is that here you can pick and choose which stories you read. I don't know, I just think giving people a chance to read something they may have missed last week is more important than not subjecting the people who have read it to perhaps see the story's title somewhere on their screen (cause that's all they're forced to see). you raise a good point of course; it's just a matter of not being able to please everyone.
  • Cirrius, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Rule #1 of the Digg Mafia...Don't talk about The Digg Mafia
  • Zagger, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1sure, you say it's ok to submit old duplicates....now wait until it get abused. you're thinking of this with a "pie in the sky" idea of how users will do this...once it gets highlighted LIKE IT IS NOW, users will over do it and link to this submitted story as their excuse.

    the bottom line is it doesn't scale so it's best just to say "don't submit duplicates."
  • ihascheezburger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3We need a filter.
    • scotsworth788, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree, some sort of filter system to prevent duplicate URLs from being submitted. The current system only says the story may be a duplicate, but doesn't prevent you from posting it.
  • jeremiah, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1There are times I go to my 'dugg by friends' list and I'll see a 2-5 articles with the exact same content either dugg and/or submitted by the same person within minutes of each other.
    I generally flag the older ones as dupes (when they are the exact same link) but lately it seems that there have been more and more cases of them getting on the front page.
    • jeremiah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2DOH - by older ones I mean newer. yeah.
      Happy hour starts early round these parts. I'm logging out.

      I don't think it is such a big deal if there have been days in between. If the article has enough interest to make the front page again then, great. Within hours of each other... not so much.
  • shaelen, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Not everyone on Digg reads Digg every day. Sometimes I don't read it but once every 4 or 5 days. Maybe that's how most others are, and they simply didn't see the other article when it was posted the previous day.
    • fortezza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I read Digg maybe 1-2 a week, and about the same number of stories. Life goes by pretty fast...blink and you might just miss it.
  • MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I think I've read this before.
  • MLyzz, on 10/11/2007, -16/+409 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  • cuoops, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I was going to comment on this but I can't find my comments from other threads. I will probably not be able to find this one either.
  • chesbomb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4we tend to use a lot of drugs around here.
  • KeithBarrett, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Yes, repeating stores that have already appeared in Digg is a problem.

    Posting old news (sometimes years old) as if it is a new story is a problem. Some yokel makes a discovery and shares it with the world as if the world hadn't known.

    Posting obvious news is a problem. "Top 5 Source Forge projects". Geesh. That's been available on their home page for over 5 years easily.

    Repeated use of "AMAZING" is a problem.

    • revjustin2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1define "problem" and then, please, define "news".

      This is all about letting other people find cool stuff on the internet so you don't have to, right? Or are people out there actually using Digg as their main source of "news". If that is the case, then that, my friend, is where the problem is.
      • nazadus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why is that a problem?
        It's like Wikipedia -- you know it's possible it's wrong, but you are basically looking for a ball-park on what's going on.
  • stuntant, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1The best way to get your story on the front page of Digg is to complain about Digg.
    http://digg.com/search?s=Digg&submit=Search§ion=news&type=both&area=promoted&sort=new
  • nesibus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Kinda like every link is to a blog.....
  • dotspace, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If you want to read stories before they get on Digg - go to Reddit.
  • xlar54, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Buried. This article is a duplicate...



    Um, why the heck is everyone bashing Digg all of a sudden? It is what it is.
    • nesibus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Have you noticed the new commenting system? That alone is worth a little bashing, if it is what it is...then its going down from that.
    • fortezza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Buried. I've seen this comment before.
  • wonboodoo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1> Is this a problem?
    Certainly is, you should be getting out more ;-)
  • jpregulate, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2tomorrow i'm gonna digg this story again
  • samfernandez, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Isn't this a dupe?
  • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3DUPE!
  • dafragsta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Know what's more annoying than this? Assuming that everyone who wanted to see it, got to see it.

    Articles get submitted AND Dugg up twice by people who didn't see it the first time. If that bothers ANYONE, that generalized collection of people needs to find other outlets for that frustration.
  • GotMex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3How is this Digg's fault, VS. irresponsible diggers who Digg for bookmarking and *****.
  • SirBotchness, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1With so many people submitting its hard to keep up. Though i think if the site had an internal search for URL and Title while the user was submitting the story then it could flag duplicates before they submit went though. Might bog things down, but i'm sure duplicate stories reaching 6000 digs and hundreds of posts would too.
    • akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If you submit one with the same URL and/or title it forwards you to the previous digg and tells you to bugger off. People are bypassing that with blogspam and mucking the URL.
  • crackedplastic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Digg really needs a mechanism to kill blogspam, e.g., "correct source link" per article.

    It will provide users:
    1) Less dupes
    2) Direct access to the source content, instead of some adsense-ridden quick summary.
    3) Availability for source content (usually hosted on major sites), since many blogspam submissions can't handle the traffic.

    We certainly need that more than some slow, obtrusive comment system.
  • scottique, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Stories get Popular, receive thousands of Diggs, and then fall off the Top Ten within a 24-hour span. If I don't read Digg on Tuesday, and Tuesday was the day the referenced "Screw with your neighbors using stolen wi-fi" page got Dugg, Top Tenned, and scrolled off, then I've missed it--and I could have been a Digg user since the site was created, and it wouldn't change that.

    I propose that the number of stories submitted, combined with their rapid-cycle time, is at least as large a contributing factor as the growing number of Digg users.
  • praveens, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1i hope kevin or jay didn't did that twice
  • flink405, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2This is the same comment I have put on every digg....
    :-)
  • sbader, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think the search engine could use some work. I've searched for stories i've wanted to submit before and couldn't find them during the search but then clicked submit on the story and found the dups in the similiar list. blah.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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