This Story is Archived
Digg Rigged? A Closer Look at Digg's Democratic Model »
Posted by: Neophile 1 year, 11 months agoThe #2 user on Digg has had 10 of the last 40 most popular stories. After further study, this user and several of the other top users on Digg regularly are among the first people to Digg each others' stories. What does this mean for Digg? You may find these stats interesting
Read Full Story at jesusphreak.infogami.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 28
-
-
-
Neophile
Sept. 6, 2006, 2:09 p.m.hemphill81 posted a great response here:
http://hemphill81.blogspot.com/2006/09/response-digg-rigged-closer-look-at.html
-
wayjer
Sept. 6, 2006, 5:09 p.m.Great response Chris in your blog, it just sucks that we are constantly having to justify why we are freaks of nature that like news so much more than others and in much better ways:)
just edited this comment because I can now.
-
Dygital
Sept. 6, 2006, 5:55 p.m.Well, I got my own hunches on how the Netscape "Top Contributors" is ranked. Why are these sites gamed against the users so much? I mean, Digg is supposedly superior to Netscape, so they (meaning Kevin Rose) should act like it.
-
happyscrappy
Sept. 6, 2006, 6:36 p.m.for the love of GOD...
leave your petty fan boy p1ssing match outta netscape.
damn geeks
-
mantari
Sept. 6, 2006, 8:36 p.m.I actually like Netscape a bit better than Digg, just there isn't the critical mass here, and this site seems to be more "news" stories, which I'd rather have more "interesting" (read: Digg type) stories.
-
1-2-Oscar
Sept. 6, 2006, 9:54 p.m.Is anyone here actually surprised?
What the author accuses some Digg users of (improperly?) doing is EXACTLY what the "Netscape Navigators," (who include at least three of those mentioned in the Digg article) were HIRED to do. When Neophile (a "Navigator") submits a story, it is immediately voted up by Ousama, msaleem, waymer, and any other "Navigators" or "Anchors" who happen to be on-line. This quickly gives the submission the "velocity" needed to reach the front page.
Of course, since "Netscape" is much smaller than "Digg." it is much easier to manipulate. This was Jason Calacanis' purpose from the inception of this new forum, and it is also the reason so much pure crap reaches the front page.
-
1-2-Oscar
Sept. 6, 2006, 9:59 p.m.I do have a modest suggestion, though. In addition to letting us ordinary users vote a story "up," why can't he also allow us to vote a submission "down," so that we can get some of the propaganda pieces and obvious trolls off the front page.
I'm sure he has the technical ability to do it. But I don't think he wants to. He'd find out real quickly how his "Navigators" and "Anchors" choices are regarded.
-
wayjer
Sept. 7, 2006, 12:48 a.m.@1-2 Oscar
Very good point you bring up about downvoting,1-2 oscar, but at the same time, don't you think that can be gamed as well. You made a point of emphasising what will happen if you were to have a downvote. Ultimately what gets lost here is the content that is being submitted. Not everyone is going to be happy with every story, but one thing we have learned as submitters is what makes the majority happy. If you read the blog post that Neophile provided a link for in the third comment at the top, you will get a bit of a glipse into our daily routines as "submitters". You will find that there is much more effort placed on contributing to the various sites than the casual user is willing to give up there time for.
-
1-2-Oscar
Sept. 7, 2006, 1:44 a.m.wayjer,
Here's the way it really works. msaleem gets up in the morning, brushes his teeth, has a cup of coffeee, then submits everything that is on the guardian.uk website. The other "Navigators" don't read and evaluate his submissions, but vote them up anyway. They are too busy plundering their own favorite websites for submissions. So we get the same old, same old from you guys everyday.
Jason Calacanis asked why the "intellectuals don't post here. But he failed to observe the anti-intellectual nature of his own creation, and he failed to note that he did not choose his "Navigators" or "Anchors" for their perception and/or knowledge, but rather because they could produce volume.
Here's a clue, wayjer, "Volume is different from quality."
-
1-2-Oscar
Sept. 7, 2006, 1:47 a.m.I looked at a heavily-commented on article yesterday, and discovered that 70 of the 130 comments there were from the same four people. It was "yadda-yadda-yadda" from beginning to end. The votes which elevated the submission to prominence came from the Netscape staffers, not from the "popular" voice of the people.
So let me ask you this, wayjer--what are YOU doing to attract the intellectual participant Jason says he wants?
Or are you both hypocrites?
-
1-2-Oscar
Sept. 7, 2006, 1:48 a.m.Incidentally, wayjer, while "downvoting" COULD be gamed, I don't think Jason is going to pay anyone to do the gaming.
-
Krazymk
Sept. 7, 2006, 8:18 a.m.1-2 Oscar, Very good point about the actual quality of the articles on the site. That explains the 'same old, same old' feel of the "news" on this site. It also explains why you never see an article on the main page submitted by anyone but a small number of folks.
I reitorate that Netscape made a big mistake in changing their format from a news gateway to a 'user' submitted propoganda site. What IS their obsession with Digg?
-
Krazymk
Sept. 7, 2006, 8:23 a.m.Oh, and you were not kidding about the quality of comments... or articles for that matter.
-
JonnyTest
Sept. 7, 2006, 9:52 a.m.You guys have WAY too much time on your hands to worry about the inevitable portal rigging. Unemployed "progressives" will always dominate item ranking, simply because they're unemployed, accounting for the liberal slant that is readily apparent on Netscape. Is glory really achieved by having one's story float on top of the mud? If you think so, might I suggest a day job? Starbucks is always hiring and the benes are good.
-
happyscrappy
Sept. 7, 2006, 9:55 a.m.great comments 1-2 oscar, pretty much my conclusion as well. instead of worrying about some other site, let's focus on this one. navigators vote each other to the top.
netscape is rigged.
-
Krazymk
Sept. 7, 2006, 10:04 a.m.Now then Jonny... let's not make this one political (though the truth IS evident)
-
-
mahesh67
Sept. 7, 2006, 10:36 a.m.Why does the Celebrities entry in the box in the main page never update? This thing is rigged.
We want Democracy at Netscape. Or something.
-
mahesh67
Sept. 7, 2006, 10:52 a.m.If talking about Digg becomes the number one story...than what does that say about us loyal NutScrapers?
-
hemphill81
Sept. 7, 2006, 11:21 a.m.I agree that the Digg talk should go away. Coming from it I really want no part of the hoopla anymore. I also would like to suggest everyone vote on stories. That is why this is on the front page right now people are voting for stories like this. Look through find new stories you like and vote for them. That will only improve this site.
-
1-2-Oscar
Sept. 7, 2006, 11:31 a.m.I will vote on quality submissions. I will ignore the rest. If you want my vote, give me something entertaining or informative. Make my visits here worthwhile.
Otherwise, you can write me (and every thinking person) off, and continue to operate a site which is designed by and for the uninformed and immature.
-
hemphill81
Sept. 7, 2006, 11:42 a.m.I agree vote on what you like. I don't think anyone should vote on an article they don't enjoy.
The first 24 comments are shown. Show all 28 comments »
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Also submitted:
