
Gadgets & Tech – If we consider the numbers, this shows that between the top 8 submitters a total of 23,953 stories have been submitted, of which only 2442 stories have reached the front page of digg. This translates to a 10% success rate, or to look at it another way 9 article out of every 10 that were not interesting enough to make the front page.
A negative digg article is likely to get buried at digg and promoted up at Netscape, so while the technical ansewr to your question is "Yes", the practical answer is "No". I think, I've outlined why the Netscape model may ultimately be better than the digg model. Though, many have tried to make similar arguments in the past. , I don't know any thing anyway :)
This story has amazingly NOT been buried on digg http://digg.com/tech_news/Observations_on_Diggs_Qu however, I've noticed the same behaviour on Netscape, the difference being that the mass submits do not seem to reach the front page. Is there anyone willing to talk to me regatding a similar situation at Netscape?
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/cheapdrugs/
generic viagra cialis levitra
Generic Tabs
Generic Pills
Soft Tabs
Soft Pills
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/cheapdrugs/
Viagra Tabs
Viagra Pills
Viagra Generic
Viagra Generic Tabs
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/cheapdrugs/
Viagra Generic Pills
Viagra Soft
Viagra Soft Tabs
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Strangely enough, this has gained positive traction on digg. I seems as the majority of diggers seem to think that these observations are dead on. The question now is a Netscape type paid moderation model the actual (or optimal) answer?