This Story is Archived
Is Digg Closer To Extinction Than We Realise? »
Posted by: winstons-myth 1 year, 11 months agoDigg is currently sitting at 87 in the Alexa rankings, it has been valued at millions or even billions of dollars in some lunatic quarters and it is one of the first places that people go to find out what news other people think they should read... So why would I make such a bold claim as to suggest that it may not survive for very much longer?!
Read Full Story at starttherevolution.org »
Submitted By:
winstons-myth
Creator of www.starttherevolution.org - Dedicated to revealing the truth behind every media and government lie.
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 42
-
TheAttacks
Nov. 9, 2006, 4:01 p.m.I can't help but point out that the power of the bury button is being abused over at Digg, but that does not mean that it will be extincted in a short time because of the small amount of abuse.
The author seems to want something done about it because the "bury" feature was used against his own submissions. Fact of the matter is, and being a long time Digg user, the bury feature is used most often as a tool to keep what many feel is bad content from being on the front page.
Heck, I've even had stories rise all the way to the top, get on the frontpage, receive 200-300 votes, then be buried because a mass of people dislike the content. It's an everyday occurance and the author has the power to vote against what he wants, just like everyone else.
-
GregD
Nov. 9, 2006, 11:43 p.m.It was always a little disconcerting that stories could be buried/marked as inaccurate, with as little as 10% of the people that dugg it up. So if 300 people dugg a story, it seemed to only take about 30 to bury it. This is a very unofficial analysis done by yours truly. Yes, I actually sat in digg spy and watched/counted one of my stories as it happened to be getting buried. Which means that the bury button weighs more than the digg button.
-
titlesaysitall
Nov. 10, 2006, 12:51 a.m.I've had a story recently about a future Mac Mini upgrade with proof from Apple (though it wasn't obvious I pointed it out) on the page. It was buried at 14 Diggs.
-
wysiwyg79
Nov. 10, 2006, 3:42 p.m.IMO, the "bury" button is the largest source of abuse on Digg. I recently submitted an entry to digg about my discovery of Google allocating 15GB of storage in my GMail account, and guess what? It was buried and ignored in favor of a "popular" user and website, which BOTH linked BACK to my original blog entry (which was the source of much discussion in the blogosphere).
Just yesterday, I blogged about Google launching UI enhancements to GMail. Guess what happened? Same as above.
In September, I interviewed Kevin Rose. That in itself was a circus and gave birth to a popular article I wrote on Newsvine about the whole mess.
Members of the digg community are giving the site a bad image. And you know what? They couldn't care less, because it's highly apparent that there are self-serving interests and pure immaturity running rampant throughout.
It would be nice if things were "fair and balanced" like Newsvine.
-
-
winstons-myth
Nov. 9, 2006, 4:11 p.m.Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I cannot help but think that you have missed the point a little. My problem is that the article posted was not in any way spam, innaccurate or any of the other possible choices for why you bury something...
Therefore, the act of burying it should be buried and not the article itself.
burying without accountability or moderation is simply undemocratic whether it is my article, your article or anybody elses article.
-
esmLIVE
Nov. 10, 2006, 7:38 a.m.Even democracy has an electoral college. Maybe that is what makes Netscape a little better in concept (I just wish they change the design a little).
-
JonRBecker
Nov. 10, 2006, 3:34 p.m.Agreed, no one should have the power to bury someone else's article. If it survives or dies it should do so based on it's merits, or lack thereof, or be bannished due to innaccuracy.
Although I am not a DIGG user I did take a look at the site and the articles posted there. What is most sad is the fact that the majority of articles I looked at (brief as it may have been) are aimed at the terminally stupid which begs the question "How is it that people decide what they need to read"?
-
-
Neophile
Nov. 9, 2006, 4:31 p.m.This is one place where I think Netscape has an edge over Digg. You can only vote on submissions positively on Netscape. You can report them for the same reasons you can on Digg (spam, inaccurate, etc.) but the decision to remove a story on Netscape is ultimately in the hands of a real person (eg. the Anchors).
I think this results in a generally more positive and less elitist environment.
-
-
ind06
Nov. 10, 2006, 6:37 a.m.However, you can individually bury any comment you dislike by giving it a SINGLE negative vote.
I'd rather read everything, even the comments I disagree with. I never use the bad comment button anymore.
(Though I notice three people hated Neophile's "edge over Digg" comment so much they felt the need to "dissapear" it)!
-
-
cristian-mezei
Nov. 9, 2006, 4:35 p.m.I hope this news bit end up THE MOST READ STORY ON THE WEB.
Digg has killed my whole Digg experience with that button.
-
-
Ousama
Nov. 9, 2006, 5:09 p.m.well reddit's down vote is no different. personally i think it is one of the worst features of reddit. since many people who arent interested in the topic just down vote and never give a chance to people who might be interested in it to ever see the article.
-
cristian-mezei
Nov. 9, 2006, 5:11 p.m.Reddit has the dumbest users ever. I don't know what those users actually like. What stories they read. If you look at the homepage, you'll be scared.
-
-
-
cristian-mezei
Nov. 9, 2006, 5:57 p.m.Really now. I never understood those users. They seem alienated.
-
charbarred
Nov. 9, 2006, 6 p.m.The reddit bunch are a weird. On the one hand, they bury almost anything, on the other hand, statistically, for stories that don't reach the front page, it produces the most traffic for the story you're submitting.
-
-
not2needy
Nov. 9, 2006, 6:24 p.m.I have gone to reddit a couple of time,(upon request)
I didn't like it.
-
Eagle_Eye
Nov. 9, 2006, 7:16 p.m.I don't think they will go extinct, just lose some users. Regarding an article about Netscape and the user base. Digg is great for tech. stuff, but Netscape is far better for community news.
I also like the fact that there is no bury button here, the community is more in charge of what is being on top Also Netscape communicates well with the community regarding subject, reason why they made a choice, etc.
-
cristian-mezei
Nov. 9, 2006, 7:27 p.m.You have a report thing. But the admins decide if the story needs to be taken off or not I think.
Not like Digg where if 5 stupid trolls push that button, the story is buried.
-
-
stark23x
Nov. 9, 2006, 8:35 p.m.*sigh*
Every time one of these stories makes the front page, it reinforces the "We're number two" attitude around here.
-
neophyteblogger
Nov. 9, 2006, 10:08 p.m.i guess users burying a story is more democratic with power to the people and generally the crowd empathises with one another, of course, miscreants in a democracy are always more difficult to manage than in a regime where power rests with the admin; i say leave it to the community.
-
AllSeeingEye
Nov. 9, 2006, 10:15 p.m.I agree that the decision to flag should belong to the coomunity but I also think that moderating as is done here is essential.
I also agree with the idea of publishing the names of the people that bury the posts so that the same community that you say should have the power to monitor are actually given the power to do exactly that!
-
-
-
-
1-2-Oscar
Nov. 10, 2006, 6:40 a.m.Don't you guys EVER quit whining?
In summation:
"My friends and I formed a cabal to vote our own stories to the top of Digg because it was our RIGHT to do so. It worked and we dominated the front page with our juvenile crap. We were really supercooldudes.
Then a rival cabal began to vote our crap off the front page so it could be replaced with their drivel. That is just so totally NOT FAIR! Our crap is better than their drivel (because I said so). I want Digg to restore me and my friends to power and get rid of those other dudes. Man, this is a bummer!"
-
GregD
Nov. 10, 2006, 9:47 a.m.Why do people still insist on saying there was a cabal? If there was, I was unaware of it. I've NEVER been approached by any other user on digg to vote a story up or down but yet, because I was a top 20 user, I had to be lying.
Did I pay more attention to stories that were submitted by my friends? You bet! Did I always vote for them? No! Go back over to digg and look at the top 20 users, specifically "gregd" and come back and tell me that I was gaming digg. Go on.......I'll wait.
I'll stop "whining" when you can start thinking for yourself and realize that everybody isn't gaming digg...
Peace out...
-
-
adleym
Nov. 10, 2006, 7:01 a.m.I have personally had two articles from my site get to the first page on digg (actually crashed my host's server twice, too). In both cases, the article was not submitted by me, but by one of the regulars, digitalgopher, I think. But each time I have submitted similar articles from the same site, they have NEVER made it to the first page, not even close (I think at the most, one of the articles had 14 diggs, as opposed to over 2,000!) So something fishy is definitely happening over there....
-
1-2-Oscar
Nov. 10, 2006, 9:24 a.m.Your experience is typical. Articles submitted to Digg, Netscape, and other "social bookmarking" sites rarely make the front page simply because they are informative, well-written, and valuable contributions. Instead, they arrive at such prominence through the "social" efforts of groups of regular users who vote each other's submissions to the top.
-
-
Wil
Nov. 10, 2006, 1:30 p.m.Regarding TFA: Alexa is completely useless for any meaningful traffic ranking.
-
JennSierra
July 6, 2007, 3:30 p.m.Another reason Digg might be having problems? Seems the "Diggers" don't have as much authority on Digg as one might think. Update: http://forthardknox.com/?p=236
-
martin_lock
April 26, 2008, 8:24 a.m.If you depend on link or site selling as a form of monetization you will definitely want to increase your http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?url=www.... Alexa rank, because it will increase your bargaining power when it comes to ad pricing.
The first 40 comments are shown. Show all 42 comments »
Got a Story?
