Talk:Digg/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Has anyone ever even seen someone say "YADD" on digg before? I sure haven't.--Tobey 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the move suggestion. I'm not familiar with digg; I found the

Wikipedia:Bad links, cleaned it up and suggested the move because it didn't seem to justify its own article. If it's not a notable part of digg, I'll go ahead and suggest YADD for deletion.--Muchness

06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Lurker 12:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't see anything in YADD worth keeping. Rather than merging, I'm going to add it to AfD. I will add the issue of dupes to the Criticisms section of this article, but I can't see anything in YADD worth moving over here. Lurker 12:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have never heard the term and I spend a lot of time on Digg. I think someone just wants this term to catch on so they posted to Wiki. I could be wrong though. I don't think it should have its own article though. I suggest YADD be deleted. (Raymondangel 05:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

• I'm in the top 5 on Digg, (snipehack) and have never seen that term used before. I think YADD should be deleted all together.

• I've never heard anyone use YADD before ... I've seen "dupe" and "duplicate" in many comments.

• Since it looks like the YADD article is goign to be deleted, should the merging notice be removed, or do we have to wait until YADD is deleted? Lurker 12:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no use in keeping it up for a VfD-ed article. I went ahead and removed the tag. --crumb 17:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed in the history section there are two different spellings of this name; Jerimiah and Jeremiah Udy. Which one is correct?

"Jeremiah", is the correct spelling. --Tobey 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This article was restored after a successful Vote for undeletion (available here). For a previous discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digg (2nd nomination). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I created a WikiTalk:Babel for digg, for use on all your user pages!

Enjoy, if you make this look more diggish let me know! --larsinio 15:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Kev585

I have also created a category called "Digg users". On your user pages, add yourself to this category

To see the Archive of old discussion: Talk:Digg/archive

New version at {{User:UBX/Digg}}! Here's what it looks like: --DCrazy talk/contrib 05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking about doing this but including the Digg logo in the little picture box. Does anyone know if it would be a copyrighten image for when I upload it?

I've just finished my digg userbox...all you have to do is change your username in the one URL. Enjoy! :: ehmjay 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot appear to be able to get it to work. I'm new to this whole thing. Its in my sandbox right now so once I've mastered everything I'll bring it over. :: ehmjay 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning of the article a "technical limitations" tag on the article's title was put in place by user Flydpnkrtn. Assuming this is correct, why do I still see digg with a capitalized "D" all around the article? Is "digg" really "Digg?" --crumb 03:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, the site calls itself "digg". The article should be changed for consistency. Rhobite 04:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the warning about the technical limitations regarding "Digg" vs "digg." The lowercase d in digg in the logo is clearly stylistic in nature only. "Digg" is actually correct seeing that it's a proper noun. I'm also changing the instances of "digg" to "Digg." Kevin Rose and the designer also refer to the site as "Digg" on their blogs. If you have any disagreements please post them here, or on my talk page. --Hoovernj 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In the http://digg.com/faq (Digg FAQ), they never capitalize "digg" except at the beginning of the sentence. That's what I based my statement on. However on the main page there is a box labeled "What's Digg?" suggesting that the word is capitalized. In the absence of an official statement or a consistent style, I'd say we should capitalize the word. Rhobite 19:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just emailed [email protected] asking about the correct capitalization. maybe we'll find something out. Goodolclint 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is under vandalism or something...sections being removed without any sort of explanation, i'm trying to save the page at the moment. EDIT: Now the entire article is gone, no history to work from either...what is going on??? Psykus 03:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember

lowercase}} template, but through the article we use Digg. Finally, remember that sending an email to a company is considered original research, and the statements given in their reply are not binding. -- ReyBrujo

17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The orginal Digg article was removed for various reasons. I won't discuss why the orginal was removed, but this new article in my opinion was worse than the orginal. Guardian653 06:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The original Digg article was removed because, at the time, Digg was not considered a noteworthy site. It appears (from what I read in the vud and other sections) that the website is now considered noteworthy. I don't believe the deleition had to do with the quality of the article. --Jmccorm 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. This article was speedy deleted earlier today; I undeleted it as 1) it was not a speedy delete! and 2) it shouldn't be deleted in any case IMO. Thue | talk 06:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC) You're right. I left a message for the admin who deleted it explaining that it didn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Rhobite 06:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC) What about brenneman(t)(c) 06:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC) It's not substantially identical to the text of the previous article, so that criterion doesn't apply. Also, it would be nice if people could take a step back and notice that Digg is quickly becoming more and more notable. Rhobite 06:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC) I'd like to see an article recreated for this page. I mean take a look at Fark.com here on wikipedia and Slashdot these pages should serve as a sort of guide for the creation of a new Digg page. I realize that digg is not quite as popular as Fark, but depending on where you check it is comparable to Slashdot. Yet digg has qualities of its own that distinguish it from these other sites in the fact that there is little overall admin control, and all links that make the front page are there because of end users and not by mod promotion. I know WP isn't a directory of websites, but i feel this site is deserving of it's own article. Malo 06:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC) It's easy to say it's not a re-creation, but that carries the same weight as saying it is. None. Thus the appropiate place for this is brenneman(t)(c) 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC) I don't understand. It's easy to prove that the current version does not resemble any deleted revision. Any admin can look through the deleted revisions and see this. If you're not an admin, I can e-mail you the old versions of the article so you can see for yourself. And the only thing that looks ridiculous is for us to have a good article for a number of weeks, only to have it abruptly replaced by a deleted page warning. Rhobite 07:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC) Which is exactly why you should have taken this to VfU. If it is not a re-creation, it's all sorted out and the article plops happily back into it's spot. Instead we have yet another brenneman(t)(c) 07:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Actually, Zoe should have taken this to VfD but let's not get caught up in mindless wikilawyering. The fact remains that Digg is a notable site and it should be covered on Wikipedia. It looks silly for us not to have an article on the site. Come on, we even have an article about their webcast diggnation. Do you still want me to e-mail you some old deleted revisions to compare? Rhobite 07:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the offer, but that's not actually what I'm interested in here. What I am concerned about is Zoe deletes page as "recreated content". Zoe gets a rebuke on "process" and the page gets undeleted. Could we agree, in retrospect, that this could have been handled better? brenneman(t)(c) 15:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Yes, this could have been handled better: Zoe shouldn't have violated the deletion policy. Rhobite 18:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC) And you made things better exactly how again? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC) By restoring an article after Lifeisunfair 01:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Everyone should start acting less childish, and more like the brenneman(t)(c) 00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC) You mean we should endlessly pass resolutions in lieu of doing actual work? No thanks. Rhobite 03:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC) I was going to write almost exactly the same reply, but I chickened out. :) — Lifeisunfair 03:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC) There is a lot of activity on the Deletion Log for Digg. I would say this should get a new chance at staying around. The number of users of digg.com is presently about 27998 (oops, now 28011), much much smaller than Slashdot, but it seems to be growing rapidly. See Page 934 of the top digg users page, or later pages if the number has increased. -- 07:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC). So it doesn't matter that the votes for deletion and the votes to keep deleted were all because the subject was non-notable? So if an article I write gets deleted because the subject is non-notable, all I have to do is rewrite it in other words and we have to go through the process all over again, over, and over, and over again, ad infinitum? Zoe 22:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC) I've undeleted the older versions so that any useful content can be salvaged by the process of normal editing. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC) How completely inappropriate. The logic there seems to be: A reproduced page is speedy But this page isn't that, so we'll keep it, so Let's get the old page and reproduce it. I'd ask what's the hurry? Why must this page be done today, with unilateral actions like undeleting the older versions ? What's wrong with a nice slow conversation, where we all agree in the end what should be done. Unless some parties would prefer to avoid that discussion? brenneman(t)(c) 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC) No, I'm just not interested in the politicking. We've got a notable website and people who are itching to edit the article one it. Let's just remove any and all encumberances and let them get on with it. Remember we're here to write an encyclopedia, not hold discussions, pass resolutions, etc. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC) This attempts to present the case that an editor who removes is not here to write an encyclopedia, and is an brenneman(t)(c) 04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC) What Tony is apparently interested in doing is the unilateral undermining of VfU. See his decision, despite universal votes to keep deleted, to undelete Francesca Easthope. Zoe 04:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC) Zoe, I don't know what VfU you're reading, but the one about this article strongly supports keeping it. Rhobite 06:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC) The above comment refers to his unilateral action on Francesca Easthope. Zoe 07:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC) "What Tony is apparently interested in doing is the unilateral undermining of VfU." . . . said the person who responded by disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point . And of course, the present Lifeisunfair 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC) The point that I am apparently failing to make is this: If Zoe was wrong, would it have killed someone to put a note on xir talk, providing evidence of the mistake and let Zoe fix it xirself? The circus could have been halted by either party letting the version they didn't like remain while they talked. You'll notice that most admins have identical powers. Thus any contest between them is not only pointless, but is very poor form. It amounts, in the absence of discussion, to a test of who'll push the button more. I'd like to point out that while brenneman(t)(c) 04:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC) "If Zoe was wrong, would it have killed someone to put a note on xir talk, providing evidence of the mistake and let Zoe fix it xirself?" 1. As Tony noted above, this is an encyclopedia. The expedient restoration of legitimate content was more important than being extra-special-super-duper nice to the admin who repeatedly violated policy (and compromised the encyclopedia's quality) by deleting it out-of-process. 2. Zoe refuses to acknowledge that the deletion of the new Digg article was improper, and apparently believes that any and all articles by that title should be deleted in perpetuity (no questions asked). "The circus could have been halted by either party letting the version they didn't like remain while they talked." Huh? Zoe left no version of the article. "You'll notice that most admins have identical powers. Thus any contest between them is not only pointless, but is very poor form." Are you suggesting that all administrative decisions (including the flagrantly bad ones) should be respected and upheld as a courtesy among colleagues? Zoe screwed up. Others fixed the mistake. End of story (or chapter, at least). "It amounts, in the absence of discussion, to a test of who'll push the button more." In this instance, one specific button-pusher was unequivocally wrong. "I'd like to point out that while WP:BOLD says to be bold in editing articles," Does it say to be bold in deleting them? "WP:ADMIN urges you to use caution." How much caution did Zoe use when deleting the article on a whim? Are you and I even discussing the same situation? (I'm not so sure.) — Lifeisunfair 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Thank you for the litany of personal attacks. Zoe 23:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC) What personal attacks? — Lifeisunfair 01:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) I'd refer you to WP:DICK . All of your arguments pre-suppose that Zoe was, um, unequivocally wrong when deleting the article on a whim in a flagrantly bad way that repeatedly violated policy. This could be correct. But it might not be. Clearly Zoe thought she was correct, just as the other button pushers thought they were correct. In a disagreement of this nature, neither one nor the other person should presume that their button pushing counts for more in some way. The cheerleading of, "Yeah, we were right, nha-nha" is asinine. Even if you're right. brenneman(t)(c) 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC) "I'd refer you to WP:CIV " I maintain that I haven't personally attacked Zoe; I've criticized her undeniable violation of the speedy deletion policy and related behavior. Even if I'd wanted to see the article in question deleted, I would have adopted the same stance. My biggest objection is not to the deletions themselves, but to Zoe's refusal to apologize or even acknowledge that they were remotely inappropriate. Instead, she's directed numerous rude remarks toward those who have attempted to explain the clear disparity between the actual speedy deletion policy and the nonexistent version that she attempted to enforce (and cited when accusing Thue of "improperly undelet[ing]" the article). "and WP:DICK ." Are you calling me a "dick"? That certainly seems like a personal attack. "All of your arguments pre-suppose that Zoe was, um, unequivocally wrong" She was. Read the policy (which you previously cited as justification for Zoe's deletions), and explain to me how there can be any doubt. Wikipedia is chock full of gray area, but not in this case. "when deleting the article on a whim" Can you direct my attention to one piece of evidence that Zoe made any effort to examine the new article's status before deleting it? "in a flagrantly bad way" It's my opinion that unilaterally deleting a legitimate article is flagrantly bad. You're welcome to disagree. "that repeatedly violated policy." Again, I invite you to read the policy in question, and explain how Zoe's deletion was anything other than a violation. "This could be correct. But it might not be." I assert that it is (and eagerly await your rebuttal). Should I be posting someone else's opinion? "Clearly Zoe thought she was correct, just as the other button pushers thought they were correct." That's because Zoe was wrong, and other admins were right. This isn't a theory; it's a fact. Read the speedy deletion policy. "In a disagreement of this nature, neither one nor the other person should presume that their button pushing counts for more in some way." I'm of the strong belief that existent policies count for more than nonexistent policies. "The cheerleading of, 'Yeah, we were right, nha-nha' is asinine." 1. Who's doing that? 2. Why is it okay for you to refer to someone's behavior as "asinine," but not okay for me to refer to someone's behavior as "flagrantly bad"? "Even if you're right." Are you under the impression that I was directly involved in the article's undeletion? — Lifeisunfair 03:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Asinine You're correct, it was uncivil to say that. I apologize without reservation. I also apologise for characterising your contribution to this discussion as "cheerleading", that was also uncivil, and I again apologise. This point-for-point is fairly tedious, and I don't think any real communication is taking place. Although, and I mean to say this sooner, good use of colour. You seem to be trying to convince me further as to the correctness of the initial deletion. Please note that I'm not arguing that. If we leave aside your reiteration of previous comments and pointing out my incivility, we're left with WP:DICK . Which I again refer you to, noting only that by definition using it as a reference make me one. brenneman(t)(c) 04:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I came across this in the change log... "Psykus (Removed the bit about non-tech news...the site has categories for other nontech news)". I think this is debatable. It does have a "movies" and a "links" category, but that is as far as it goes. On the story submission page, Digg clearly asks, "Quality Technology Content: Is your story technology related?" I think this is the same argument that goes round and round with everybody. Is this a technology site, or can I share this funny flash game and also this video of a granny being yanked through the air by her dog? Jmccorm 04:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry for removing the section without more of an explanation, but for one I felt that it wasn't written very well. You're right in saying it's debatable, there's no clear cut policy that says "you can only submit technology related news". it's quite confusing really, even for regular digg users. it claims to be a technology news website, but as you can see, it has categories built in for subjects not specifically technology related. deals (although the deals could be for technology), links (i don't think anyone really knows what this category is specifically for, it seems to be used mainly for the "funny flash game" and "video of granny" links you mentioned, and since not enough digg users object by reporting the stories, it seems to stick), music, design, and movies. the confusion stems from the fact that digg is completely user run and maintained as far as the story submission and reporting goes. hope i cleared this issue up a little bit. Psykus 04:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Update, from Kevin Rose on 07/14. http://digg.com/links/Digg_Censorship__(146_Diggs_and_57_Comments_in_6_hrs)_Removed_from_Homepage Scroll Down for Comment] (regarding stories being removed from the homepage) "Just to give you an idea of what's going on, digg is currently receiving right around 500 new story submissions per day. Of that, 10-15% are non-tech related stories. Thanks to user reports we are seeing a new story reported (and removed) every 10-15 mins.

Q: But my tech story was tech related!!?! A: Well, then there is a good chance it was a duplicate (from a previous post), or just considered SPAM (was it from a personal blog?)."

I'm reading from Kevin's statement that non-technology stories aren't welcome. --Jmccorm 04:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know...Kevin said that despite the fact that digg was supposed to be tech-focused, he said that having all sorts of different things on digg was in his own words, "cool like that". --Bash 22:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Although the http://www.digg.com/faq ('About digg') part of the site is unchanged, Kevin has said on Diggnation and to aquantences that Technology is a jump of point. If it is in the Tech or "Geek" culture then it is relevent to digg. --Me, JHoldaway 03:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely true JHoldaway... if you completely disregard the "Sports", "Entertainment", and "Video" sections of the website :P 24.192.108.168 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no citations in the criticism section - much of it appears to be unsourced POV. Has anyone actually accused bloggers of of plagiarizing Digg's links, for example? If not, this criticism should be removed. Plagiarism is a strong word. If there are no references added to the criticism section in a couple days, I'm going to remove it. Rhobite 06:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

THe user abuse section are things people are aware of...there was frontpage digg post about this, i forge tthe exact title im trying to find it..so hold off on removing anythign

Are you talking about http://digg.com/links/Help_Define_Classes_and_Patterns_of_abuse_in_Digg_ (this)? You appear to have posted that story yourself, as a "call for help" in editing this article. I think you should keep in mind Wikipedia:No original research. Rhobite 18:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree...the "Criticisms" section seems to be in quite a mess. Just so you know, i'm not actually the person that wrote those paragraphs, but I renamed it to "Criticisms" since "Digg Problems" didn't really sound right. They probably do need to go, since they are essentially POV from Wikipedia editors. I'm afraid this article has seen an influx of anonymous editors, most likely from the Digg site itself, that don't clearly understand the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Psykus 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added several of the main criticisms, along with the sources.

I kind of get what the person is trying to say, but it is a very akward read. Anyone want to take a stab at rewriting those paragraphs?

• • I submitted the original...it was modified and the grammar became about 300% worse. I fixed the wording, spelling, and grammar. People should learn how to write. [[user:larsinio|larsinio] 0:45, 17 August 2005

Also, perhaps a paragraph about user comment moderation abuse? Effectively "silencing your critics" with the ability to rate any comment with any rating you want, allowing you to bury an unwanted comment below the default threshold? jmccorm 04:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see somebody updating the article with a new member count almost everyday now. Could anybody tell me where these numbers are coming from and try to persuade me not to revert the article to an older edit? --crumb 16:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Found it myself. Thanks for the help... http://digg.com/topusers/page1232 --crumb 04:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should remove the Diggnation section from this article and make it its own article. I don't believe Diggnation has any official affiliation with Digg.com, they just report the popular stoires. Before any changes are made, what are your opinions? --Cybersavior 10:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A separate "Dignation" article was merged into this article, and that was entirely appropriate. "Dignation" is Digg's official podcast (hence the participation of Digg co-founder Kevin Rose). —

Lifeisunfair

12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This issue is Diggnation is (c) Revision 3 where as Digg is a seperate company. Yes Digg's co-founder (kevin rose) is a presenter but the question is that enough distiction to seperate the articles. Personally I aggree with the previous comment, it's the official pod/vid-cast. Martin Porcheron 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How does this compare to the voting on the submission queue at Kuro5hin?

The sites are similar in concept. But I think Digg has taken off for many reasons.

1. Kevin Rose is a celebrity in the tech world, giving the site a leg up on the rest from the start.

2. Digg is a perfect name for the site, kuro5hin is not a good name and its a bitch to type.

3. User Interface: People don't realize just how HUGE having a good user interface can be. The two sights are not similar in that regard.

4. Technology: Digg uses AJAX which makes for a better user interface.

5. Timing: I think the internet was due for a nice fresh news site to rival slashdot (although I dont think its a direct rival, but its takes some of my time away from slashdot so it sorta is)

But I will also say, I think digg's novelty will wear off. But I dont think its going to go anywhere (assuming it stays in the original owners hands) and will continue to be a very popular site. The sites owners will not let it slip and will change it if need be.--Hergio 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

From the article: roughly 25 or more within a certain time period, it is posted to Slashdot's front page, and: the story may only get reposted on Slashdot once.

I didn't think digg and Slashdot were related. MxAesir 06:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That part seemed to be an insult on how Slashdot and Digg make a big echo chamber. Stuff that gets posted to Slashdot is later submitted on Digg by many users. It works the other way on occasion and rarely in the manner of some kind of feedback loop.

I don't think it's especially notable, because it seems to happen with a lot of technology news sites. --waffle iron 07:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The site http://diggvsdot.com/ (link diggvsdot) keeps track of which site posts a story first and at the time of posting it is even Shinynew

You don't know how many times an article gets submitted to slashdot when a huge news event takes place. Thanks to the editors of slashdot, you don't see that. But on digg, you obviously are going to see that. Its the nature of the mechanism that digg is providing...on purpose. Its up to the users to filter that. --Hergio 00:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you say it "works the other way on occassion"? Almost every "big" story (read: not a book review, question to readers, etc) I've read lately on slashdot has been on digg for hours with hundreds of diggs already. News breaks first on Digg before Slashdot's editors can get around to putting it on the homepage. Thats the beauty of Digg.--Hergio 00:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think digg and slashdot are somewhat related. They compete, but not directly. They carry some of the same news stories, which is fine. ABC news and my local news stations both carry news, but aren't competing. But digg now takes some of my time when I am reading news on the internet. I still enjoy reading news on slashdot and I will continue to do so, but I spend less time there. Because I can get alot of news from Digg now.--Hergio 00:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Digg has more stories than Slashdot. Slashdot is more filtered (I know that I won't miss something big if I only read Slashdot, not Digg), and the comments are of higher quality. OTOH, Digg is great for its openess, and the interface is way better. --barrett9h 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Digg is heavily biased toward Apple. The entire Digg article here is just really "spam" for a commercial website

You could also say its biased towards Linux and anything Anti-Microsoft. The digg article is what its supposed to be, background information for something current. Stop trolling and sign your comment. DeathscytheH64 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is only biased because the people on digg tend to digg more linux and apple stories its not the site it is the people. Miles32

Miles32 is completely correct. Most people who are heavily into technology (as in the current user base of Digg) have a strong tendency towards Linux and Apple, as well as OSS in general, as well as often being anti-Microsoft. Its just the nature of the site and the user base that this comes through. Do you actually have an issue with the article about Digg? Complaining about the users of the site isn't going to get you anywhere, so maybe you shold consider what you what changes you might realisitically want/get. (Ciaocibai 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

This may be true, but its the userbase of Digg that is biased, if you wish to help un-bias it, join digg, and start digging for pro-Microsoft and anti-Apple stories. People have this thing in their mind that they can't do anything. This is the same reason why so few people in America vote, but thats another gripe of mine. I am a hardcore Windows user, but I love macs, and the only thing keeping me off OSX is the mac hardware, I want both on my own, custom machine. I Digg for stories I believe should be promoted. That is the point of Digg. ~~-Ali (digg username - superAL1394)

What is with people removing Diggall.com from the links section? Is it not related to Digg? -24.19.161.152 08:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just a subsection of Digg, so we link to it indirectly already. The diggall.com domain seems to be meant as a convenience for Digg users, and is not valuable for Wikipedia readers wanting more information about Digg. Haakon 09:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be like a "helpful link"? It's valuable for Wikipedia readers who want to get to the diggall section (an obviously important section of digg) -24.19.161.152 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the same as going to the main site and clicking 'digg for stories'. Looking at unpromoted stories is primarily useful for registered users. The shortcut would otherwise confuse casual readers. --waffle iron 05:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Diggall.com is not related to digg. The URL is Digg.com/diggall however the above does apply, it is only a sub-section of digg. --Me, JHoldaway 12:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms section can potentially include a lot of material. Perhaps it should be moved to its own article,

Criticisms section should remain, but it needs to be countered by a section that includes praises. Or each issue in the cirticisms section needs to have the other side presented as well to remain netural. If this is to be a NPOV article any issue needs to be presented from both sides. This article is lacking in information about the good things that Digg has and the good impacts on society and the internet. A recent link to a burried by OPs story was added to support the fact that ops can remove stories in a totally user controlled envrionment. I say that any envrionement needs to be policed in some way, they remove spam stories and nobody says that is a criticism. --Mattarata 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just gone and changed the capitilisation of a number of the titles in the Criticisms section but i recon that some of the titles are too long/complex. For example i have changed Breeding ground for libel--------->Potential Libel Issues

I feel that most of the others could do with changing but cant think of any good ones to replace them with right now, any sugestions Someguyonearth 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A poll was posted on Digg a while ago asking Digg users' age, occupation, etc. (Not surprisingly, most were young, male teenagers) If someone can find this I'd like to use it as a basis for a Demographics section.

I'm fairly new to Digg; am used to Slashdot. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned in the criticisms section anything about the effectiveness of substantive quality of this sort of organic moderation. A lot of stories strike me as overly-sensational, shallow, missing the point, or containing inaccuracies (I think I submitted bad reports for about half the front page stories that I saw in the first day, and then I grew tired of doing that). Slashdot often has the same problems, with stories that have misleading titles or synopses that draw a lot of "RTFA" in the comments, but this problem is so much worse on Digg. A lot of the comments also strike me as lacking in true understanding of the issue, and the quality of collection moderation is only as good as the intelligence of said collective; I guess I know now what it would be like if the people who post comments on /. were given moderation powers. Anyway, I have a desire to Wikipedia-ify this criticism and to add it, but I first want to see how many people share this or if I'm just the lone outcast. --Code65536 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but how do you objectively state what you are saying? As I see it, you mean something along the lines of: "the democratic system of digg allows all users to contribute and moderate equally, which often leads to incorrect(?) or bad quality articles or comments going inadequately moderated for long periods of time."

You can't really say that the typical digg user is not intelligent because it is subjective and possibly untrue. But I agree that unintelligent people often have free reign on digg - the stories that get dugg to the front page are usually unprofessional, immature, or just plain wrong.

Digg is great because you can go through all the articles that have been submitted (there are a large number), and find interesting stuff you would never find anywhere else. It's a great starting point to look for interesting and very fresh news. A little known part of digg is "digg cloud" http://digg.com/diggall/cloud/. I am amazed there is no mention of it in the article because it is a very convinient way to look through a large number of submissions. 70.93.249.46 08:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the criticism section. A lot of the old stuff either didn't make sense or sounded like trolling (no offense to anyone who thought otherwise). I modeled it after the bullet-point style on the Slashdot article. I think this is cleaner and simpler. Also, I added the tag cloud and Digg spy to the features section. --Vector4F 03:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked your changes, but it looks like they were reverted right away. Perhaps you should re-add them or integrate them back into the article. I agree the crit section right now is a bit weak, which I think is a POV from digg users who don't like to think that the front page stories may be of poor quality sometimes.

Rm999

15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like ad copy. -

Looking at the recent article history, I see justifications for changes like:

Cleaned up page. Most problems mentioned under “Criticisms” will be fixed in the upcomming digg version 3.0, so they were removed

The problem with this justification should be obvious. Another example, this time a diff between edits I made and a revert, found here [1]. Again, the problem should be obvious just by reading the two versions and the justification for the revert. --Vector4F 14:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article has taken a turn for the worse recently. Much of the "criticism" section is unsourced, it seems to be the opinion of whoever happened to edit this article. Phrases like "Sensationalism is prevalent on Digg" are not encyclopedic. Same for "any story submitted with a description applauding Digg, Firefox or Apple is quickly promoted to the front page", scare quotes in "Many "news" posted on Digg", claiming Digg users committed "illegal acts" in the PriceRitePhoto dispute, etc. The firefoxmyths/comcast thing is based on the personal experience of User:Digg - it is original research, and it's inappropriate for this article. Please don't add it again.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research before editing this article. Rhobite 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, that is pretty bad. Even though I agree with many of them I do not see that they are verifiable in the sense that we are looking for. I was tempted to remove almost all of that section, but I will leave it for a few more days to see if sources can be found. kotepho 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I say we just delete the entire section. It's caused nothing but problems, and I don't see why we need it. --Tobey 05:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good section, We should keep it. The Psycho 09:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think removal is the answer, but we do need to find sources for these criticisms, and remove the ones which are not cited. Rhobite 02:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we need sources for them. It would be great if we had some even if they aren't

WP:RS, but I believe most of them fall under acceptable original research. kotepho

02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Digg 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, More cleanup required

• Yes, This article is just Too Damn Neutral.

SlashDot 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There are still a tone of citeneeded tags in the criticism section. Rhobite 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil

• and what is an ambushed url already? Kotepho 05:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Like a url that says "Click Here To Download Free Games", but the url actully points to
  Last Measure. SlashDot
  07:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• That is what I figured but I have never heard of this phrase before http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ambushed+url%22+OR+%22url+ambushing%22 (and apparently no one else uses it.) Kotepho 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me this poll is bunk and both User:Digg and User:SlashDot are the same person.

Why are the more legitimate, cited, and important criticisms getting deleted while POV nonsense gets left? The site's users are a mob. The section used to say that in an NPOV way, including several sources. Their users keep coming in and reading that there are some problems with their community, and rather than stopping to think they remove it or sabotage it (removing sources, leading to removal). Or they slap the 15th neutrality dispute this month on the section. "Blasphemy!" they chant, "we are perfect! Digg is perfect!" They must not realize that in doing it they're proving the very material they're deleting right.

Wikipedia isn't a courtroom. It is not this article's place to say whether it's illegal to repeatedly request a website. I've changed that paragraph back to its old wording. Rhobite 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed (actually commented out) a LOT of the Criticisms section. Yes it was

One of them (the last one) is completely unfounded and since the current arguments raging on Digg is clearly another attack at the integrity of the website, I have since warned the user via their talk page of political or personal opinions. Martin Porcheron 22:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is so much crap comented out of the Criticisms section the actual content is hard to read to do edits. You dont see any of this on the slashdot article. Aren't many of the criticisms the same for both sites anyway? You don't see a revert way going on over on that page and just as many items are as unsourced as on this artcle. --Mattarata 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

feel free to add criticisms to Slashdot article. NigariaKingo 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't add stuff that's too POV. Add a section called Criticisms that explains common complaints about /.--otherwise the article will end up like this one. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw a criticism of Digg saying it was a frequent target of

I find the accusation that the GNAA trolls Digg a biased statement meant to promote Slashdot's "superiority". As in typical pro-Slashdot arguments, it's an overexaggerated claim smuggled onto the Web under the thin veil of truth. It's one thing to criticize Digg, but it's another to throw wild accusations around. The fact that Slashdot even went so far as to publish a story outlining Digg's shortcomings merely reinforces the extreme bias that the Slashdot reporters have against other news web sites. Ironically, many comments on Slashdot's web site showing examples of moderator and editor abuse – well-written, calm arguments deserving of a +5 – were flagged as "-1 Troll".

Hopefully someone on Slashdot will read this so they can finally stop deluding themselves into thinking they're unbiased. But then again, they'll probably try to mod this comment down. When they find out that they're not on Slashdot, they'll attack Wikipedia by accusing

Chill out. No, seriously. Kotepho 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

0

I sumbited a spam story to Digg once, the story url points to Last Measure but i hid it using TinyURL. It took the Digg staff an hour to remove it. And no, i'm not a slashdot fan. NigariaKingo 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Hopefully no digg user will make the mistake of over exxagerating slashdot's errors.

Why is it not a good idea to link to http://shii.org/tech/digg page with comprehensive list of a digg clones (in External links section)? I did it put the edit was reverted one minute later. --lauri 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an article about Digg not about its clones. If any of the clones are notable enough they will have their own article or you can create it. --Thorpe | talk 15:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in Wikipedia there are a lot of articles with name like "List of ... clones" (for example: List of Sinclair QL clones, List of ZX Spectrum clones, etc). So the question is: if I create an article with title "List of Digg clones" (which could have the same content as the referred page has and a link to http://shii.org/tech/digg (this page)) then is it alloved (on main Digg article) to add a link to this new Wikipedia page? (Btw, I thought that it is a pretty common conception here to reference to "List of..." things. In fact I like it very much when I find such a list on some subject in which I'm currently interested. Humans have associative memory and it broadens the understanding of subject if you can easily find content related to main info. But its just my opinion.) --lauri 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Today There were several stories, one with 2000 diggs that had a link to Stephen Colbert's video from the bush event... and it was buried... many other stories were buried too. 67.34.33.185 23:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Heres a screenshot to proove the point: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=137823232&size=o

That's the very nature of digg. People report stories to remove them. Many, like me, would report such a thing knowing Colbert isn't even funny. Not to mention after one story about Colbert was posted all others not providing new information and duplicates.

Just a note to those who are obsessed with digg and think it's a hotbed of conspiracies (particularly anti-Stephen Colbert conspiracies...) - please, for the love of god, get interested in something worthwhile. Don't like digg, spend your time on another website and let the people who enjoy it enjoy it. Also, stop trying to destroy this article. Please.

The criticism section was ballooning up to a point where it was bigger than the rest of the article. It also went over the same points multiple times and lacked citations for the majority of it's claims. It's been consolidated into four paragraphs that address the major concerns and provides the necessary sources - just because it's not as long or as scathing as you'd like it to be does not warrant a revert. Does this really have to be brought to Wikipedia moderators? --72.224.153.104 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit removes too much properly sourced information. Dynomites 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Digg articles are not proper sources, because anybody can submit one anytime. If a digg article gained enough notariety, find a proper source that reports on it and cite that. If my edit removed something you feel is extremely vital, by all means give it a shot. But the version you are reverting to is out of control, with every other paragraph boasting a 'citation needed' notice. Please be rational here. --72.224.153.104 05:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of your versions lack citations. To label criticisms as criticisms, you really need to have a source that criticizes -- and right now (as before), only the criticism from Forever Geek is cited. Without sources that criticize, any editor can delete as much of the section as he or she wants per

WP:OR. bcasterline t

11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I've now mixed the two versions of 'Criticisms' - removing the small paragraphs that were insignificant and lacked citations, but merging their basic points with more relevent paragraphs. Also, tons of sources have been added, and I think the section now accurately reflects the problems people have with Digg that have been sufficiently documented by credible sources. Eh? --relaxathon 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work. The section could still use a source that criticizes the "mob mentality" rather than merely documenting it -- but, still, best version yet. bcasterline t 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I added back the part about intervention by admins on stories. I don't why you removed this 72.224.153.104, but nice try. You need a good reason to remove something like that because there was so much proof that it was happening, and is an entirely legit criticism. The cited criticism from forever geek is enough to keep it in IMO.

Rm999

09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a "Terminology" section including words or phrases that were created and adopted by Digg users. Terms for the section could include Diggmobb, Digg Effect, Dugg to death etc... --Mattarata 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. No way that deserves it's own article until a diggmob does something horrible and it's made famous on CNN and Fox. --72.224.153.104 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I've never even heard of a diggmob, and I read and post on Digg. That said, what about today's incident on http://www.specialham.com where the digg users deliberately

DDOSed the site because it was tied to spammers?--ZachPruckowski

23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. 24.188.203.181 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the official title actually "digg"? I've never seen it spelled "Digg" in any of the official pages on the site except where "Digg" is the first word in the sentence. --Tim 19:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digg#Correct_capitalization_of_Digg.2Fdigg.3F

Rm999

22:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of this article seems to deal with the problems of digg. Perhaps a review is in order and perhaps even a warning to it's lack of objectivity.

I wouldn't call it a majority - a quick word check shows ~560 words devoted to criticism, and 1057 to the rest of the article. As a regular user of the site, I think this ratio seems about right. An article can criticize something and still remain objective. In fact, hiding this criticism or trying to change the proportion of it artifically would be non-objective.

Rm999

20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the first passage in question:

Even though Digg is depicted as a user-driven website with non-hierarchical editorial control, there have been recent complaints of intervention by editors to promote certain stories, bypassing the choice of users. The same editors are accused of hiding these facts by censoring stories which mention them and by banning users who have posted them. Slashdot article. Kevin Rose responded by blaming the promotion on users rather than staff. Forevergeek.com responded by pointing out that Kevin Rose dugg the same exact stories in the same exact order as the users, and that he was therefore complicit in the promotion. A statistical analysis of the diggs showed that an average of 7-8 of the users digg each others stories within the first 24 diggs per story that made the front page, and Kevin Rose dugg 28% of these stories within the first 24 diggs. Later Kevin Rose appeared on TWiT 51 and claimed that he was the 17th digger on the stories in question by pure chance.

Two bullet points down, and this:

Conversely, others chide the site for possibly being too moderated. An expose by tech blog Forever Geek [12] uncovered what it felt was obvious intervention by editors to promote or bury certain stories, bypassing the choice of users. [13] It also implicated founder Kevin Rose as participating in an automated process to mass-digg certain articles, some of which were submitted by eventual spammers.[14] The accusations were addressed extensively by Rose in an appearance on This Week in Tech. [15]. On that podcast, as well as on the official Digg blog, he stated that the charges stemmed from a coincidence (two stories that Rose was found to have been the 17th person to "digg" [16]), and that the whole snafu arose after ForeverGeek users were banned for artificially inflating the digg counts of their stories.

Why the redundancy? This problem spans a significant portion of the article, and I felt it should be brought to the community's attention prior to changes being made.

There is a Wikipedia editor who feels very strongly about this article - assuming the best about them, they were so worked up that they thought the info was missing and reinstated this earlier rendition of the fiasco. I've deleted their mistake, hopefully it doesn't pop up again... --72.224.150.233 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was worked up - I didn't see the other criticism. Regardless, i think the other version of the events makes more sense and was better researched. Why does the current one start with "Conversely, others chide the site for possibly being too moderated." This has nothing to do with what happened.

Rm999

01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment that:

"It is apparent that users will often digg a story based solely on the headline or interest of the topic, and in some cases without even reading the article. For example, a recent submission regarding the Pirate Bay raid, with full text of the article in Swedish."

might be true but the example about the Pirate Bay article does not involve this. Digg is made up of an international community and the language the article was written in does not relate to digging a story based on the title. Also a user by the name of fjoggen gave a translation of the article in the comments so that users could read it.

There have been no incidents where users digg stories based on the title alone. It was usually because the article contained inaccurate information,which has already been addressed in the criticisms.

I agree that it is a bad criticism. Jdario

Digg has gone down in anticipation of digg v3 within the past 10 minutes. Watch out for it. This article will likely be needing updating afterward. -- Masamunecyrus^(talk)_(contribs) 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is very exciting! --Thorpe | talk 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm gonna sort out all the new screenshots. *Frantically clicks refresh* --Lorian^T_C 12:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The site must be getting "dugg" itself right now. Can't get on it. My Google module of Digg worked fine though. --Thorpe | talk 13:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was kinda working a minute ago, but it seems to be dead already... --Lorian^T_C 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a lot of Digg users know about this update and are coming onto the site. The new categories I saw in the screenshot such as Videos. These new ones will come in handy. --Thorpe | talk 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so much of the stuff on digg is not tech related now. The new site looks better too. If only we could use it...

I can get on it now (still slow) - take a look at the people who work there. http://digg.com/about -Thorpe | talk 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up a bit there with the GMT time thing. Should have done it better.(195.82.104.122 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Hey, that's a pretty cool pic. --Lorian^T_C 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The list for site features is very incomplete and I plan to make a major edit and I got the stucture for it done. I have a user subpage for this since it's going to very major edit and I would like some feedback/help before I contiue--Scott3 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't seem to be getting any feedback so I'll just add it in for now.--Scott3 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

don't remove think link http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedophilia (Richard Stallman Supports 'Voluntary Pedophilia') Progressivenazism 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It is totally random. --Lorian^T_C 11:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a "Valid Link", of course! Why else? Oh wait, it has nothing to do with the article, and is just an obvious ad hominem squeezed into where it doesn't belong. Damn, if only it wasn't a Valid Link. Capi 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an obvious criticism of Digg. Progressivenazism 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain how before putting it back? --Lorian^T_C 09:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should change the screen shot to one that isn't using an ad blocker, to show Digg how it looks to most users. I too block ads on the site, but it seems like an unfair representation of the site if it isn't displayed in its default state for the article. - seinman 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on that right now. Ihatecrayons 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a new screenshot and put it in the article. Doesn't seem to look as good as the other one though. Tell me what you guys think, and change it back if you like. Ihatecrayons 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"A separate category titled Digg News was reserved for special announcements relating to the site, and could only be used by Digg administrators.[citation needed]"

This category was used prominently in Digg 1.0 and for part of Digg 2.0 for Digg related announcements. If a citation is needed, someone could link to a page on the Way Back Machine or similar showing a page on Digg where this is used. Since then, they've just used the official Digg blog for announcments, so it's fallen out of use.

I checked digg.com couldn't find a category about digg news and I never heard of it so I put the {{fact}} in.---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked back through the old site using Archive.org, but discovered that you can still view the category if you go to the right URL, http://digg.com/digg_news . Like I mentioned above though, it's not really used anymore, but there's a link citing that it was used at one point.

It got rederict to here because it can be coverd here but this article doesn't have any info on it. So I'll put it in. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digg_army&oldid=36664734 ---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 01:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is neither notable, nor verifiable, therefore it doesn't belong here. --Lorian^T_C 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Users and specific URLs, such as FireFoxMyths, can be blacklisted based on user complaints or site administrator's request

It is not necessary to put an example. Forevergeek.com was also blocked, and I believe it is much more important than FireFoxMyths, yet it is not being named in the article. If you want to add the FireFoxMyths bit, find a source to backup your claim. None of the external links supplied at the end of the paragraph state FireFoxMyths links are banned. -- ReyBrujo 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few too many links to other articles in this section. More than half of them basically amount to spam for less popular websites. I propose that the following be cut:Newscloud, Shoutwire, Reddit, Care2, Newsvine, Kuro5hin, Pligg, Internet vigilantism. --Mattarata 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine enough. Maybe replacing most of them with

List of social networking websites, in example? -- ReyBrujo

03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

done--Mattarata 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest removing Blog (Digg is not a blog system, it is mainly a news system), Revision3 (they produce Diggnation, thus it is fine to have them in the See also section of Diggnation, but not needed here), and Web 2.0. (the article does not talk about Web 2.0 at all). -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on removing Blog. I 50% agree on removing Revision3, except that Rev3 pretty much only exists because of the success of Digg much like Diggnation would not exist, at least in the current form, without Digg. I would be against removing Web 2.0. Yes it is not referenced in the article, though I think it needs to be because many journalists are referring to it when citing examples of Web 2.0 sites zdnet, cnet, forbesmsnbc and those are just articles in the last 2 weeks or so. Digg has many characteristics of a Web 2.0 site and is referenced on Web 2.0 --Mattarata 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys should mention some info on the labs and it's content. —The preceding

• I disagree. I think that social networking sites focus much more on interpersonal relationships than Digg does. Yes there is user interaction in moderating and commenting, but for the most part, I doubt that anyone uses Digg to find people with their same intrests and interact with them directly. -seinman 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely not social networking, IMO. Social networking incorporates personal profiles which are customizable to a high degree, and some method of navigating through friend lists. Digg's profiles are no more profound than that of any forum (no real editable areas other than avatar -- the rest of the info is automated), and the "friends" feature is separate, and serves only the individual, by showing them which stories their friends have dugg. There is no method of private messaging on Digg, nor is there a way making connections through mutual friends. I am going to go ahead and remove the
  List of social networking websites from the "See also" on the Digg article again, citing this talk page discussion. Digg does not qualify to be listed there, so I don't see why it should be linked from here. --Czj
  08:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree, I belive Digg is a social bookmarking website (not really networking as such). Digg defines itself as "a user driven social content website". Digg.com/about Martin Porcheron 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember, we need to use reliable third party sources. Digg.com/about is a primary party, and should not be used in this article. If we find a CNN article (in example) where they state Digg is a social networking site, then we can add that information here. By the way, I unlinked the digg.com link here to prevent it from appearing in the Special:Linksearch page. -- ReyBrujo 03:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

when i log into digg, rate comment as good or bad, and refresh, their is no change in that comments dugg count. i do this on popular stories and on stories which have had maybe 2-3 diggs. either way, my vote is ignored. ne1 else have this problem? ne1 else have their vote ignored by digg?

social bookmarking my ass if votes dont count 72.36.251.234 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

a) This sounds like a problem with your browser, Digg uses javascript/cookies etc. Try a different browser.

happen in all my browser. javascript/cookies fine. i think digg conspiracy - digg try 2 silence me. 72.36.251.234 19:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

b) This is a discussion for the Digg __article__. Not a problem on Digg - if you have a problem with Digg, contact them. Martin Porcheron 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"blogs are not good references" wuz the reason given for revertin my addition of [2]. yet blogs r cited all over the place in this article. thomashawk.com, radar.oreilly.com, seomoz.com, sitepoint.com, forevergeek.com, and zippitydoodahonline.com r all blogs. they also mentioned in Digg#References. so why do those count and mine dont? 72.36.251.234 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I support and agree with ReyBrujo's reversion and as far as I am aware, blogs, unless published by estasblished and relilable news sources are not accepted. Please take a look at

WP:V for more information of sources. Martin Porcheron

22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See here: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. There are proved exceptions when a blog can be used, but this is not one. Also, if I understand your link correctly, it is a blog with 4 entries, right? -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

according to [3], theres a very good reason why people dont read stuff they digg: they use diggs as bookmarks, bookmarking things they would like to read later. 207.44.156.80 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

thats like someone saying that a movie they havent seen is good as a way to remember to watch that movie. its stupid. if you think a certain Digger submits good content dont digg it - subscribe to an rss feed of their story submissions 72.36.251.234 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

why is [4] banned? editor says it not factual, reputable source as if the other sources are. unlike other link, this meets WP:Verifiability. do editors get to pick and chose which rules they follow? if yes why is Mattaratas selective application of rules better then wut he suggests are mine??? 72.36.251.234 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, therefore your remark about editors isn't true, because everyone is an editor. On the actual point, Jason Calacanis is a well-known critic of Digg, mainly because he helped set up a competitor. Any opinions expressed by him are POV because is the creater of a competing product. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section in this article borders on psychotic. It begins as if Digg has this enormous influence on the world press, which it might somehow be abusing. Then it goes into a detailed laundry list of citation-less complaints, obviously contributed by disgruntled digg.com users.

Is there any agreement here that this section suffers from a severe case of tunnel-vision? We're dealing with a potentially profitable pile of amusing bookmarks, not the ultimate battle between good and evil. --LeCorrector 07:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

almost every peragraph in that section ends with a citation. many have multiple citation. and digg doesnt need to be center of universe for it to have problems. just because it not ultemate battle doesnt mean it not battle. 72.36.251.234 14:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. Many end with "citations" to blog entries. Not that blog entries can't be sources, but they only really work as primary sources (such as on a fact about a notable incident that might have taken place on a blog.) Here we have the least-valid use of blogs as sources: non-notable blogs used to back up dubious information. Many paragraphs in this section end without a proper citation. --LeCorrector 18:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

people already police this article for bad citations. see the discusion right above this - see Talk:Digg#blogs are not good references?. why do your opinions trump theres???

u say bloggers cant be good source; that ad hominem72.36.251.234 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. You should really, really read the guidelines thoroughly before editing any further. Once again, I have to delete your citations of random, non-notable blog entries (which I suspect are authored by you, not that it matters.) --LeCorrector 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is ad hominem. You should really, really read ad hominem before editing any further. Once again, I have to undo your deletions of relevant blog entries. i can ask an admin to lock this article while we debate.

now, lets look at blogs i cite. they have different domains. nickallain.com source has resume. u think i fake that? digg.com source is comment with 53 diggs. if u think i can fake all 53 diggs then digg has real huge problem. seomoz.org source has 7 employee. you think i maybe find random picture on google images and post there? lol. 3monkeyweb.com source is top 20 digger. i love to fake that.

if you think i am all those people your paranoid to extreme.

further, lets look at points i make. first citation doesnt even need to be cited - it follow organically from second citation. if u digg something to read later u do not read it now. the third citation is justifed on link. and fourth citation is common sense. digitalgopher digitalgopher submit almost 2000 story in little over year. that almost 5 submission per day. u think they read everything?

if u disagre with paragraph, explain why. dont just say "u cite blogs!". "u cite blogs" is not argument - it

WP:AGF. i revert now 72.36.251.234

22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixing it again, and I'm posting this on the Wikiquette alerts page. Citing blogs is a perfectly valid justification, when you are citing them in an instance that distinctly runs up against Wikipedia's guidelines. People have even quoted the relevant guidelines for you above. If your "criticisms" of Digg are notable enough to be in this article, find the reputable media source that has reported on them. As it is, Digg's notable flaws are documented here, we're welcome to more being listed, but you need a valid source. Your blog is not a valid source. --LeCorrector 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ok. got it. blogs not good references. i delete all blog references. article now better. they not cite by "reputable media source" so they wrong.

WP:OWN sopposed to have exemtion for u but they forgot. but now i learn my lesson and i police digg article like u! i am wikiquette!!! 72.36.251.234

01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some major trimming and organizing of the 'Criticism' section. Mostly just condensed the major points and nixed some sloppy repetitions, but I found no place for the former last paragraph. It was a complaint about Digg's user comments that had no real source, just a random blog entry entitled "Why Digg is Filled With So Many Assholes" and two sentences marked for weasel words. Feel free to do a re-write with sources and add it back. --LeCorrector 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i do trimming to. u seem to have forgot a few blogs in your crusade aganst them. i help u out!!

also, check out User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs. u may like! 72.36.251.234 03:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will rephrase. The use of blogs as sources is generally discouraged

WP:V#SELF. However, when Digg posts content on their blog, it can be considered a primary source similar to the use of a press release or news conference. The zdnet.com blog can be considered a primary source as Kevin Rose gave the interview directly to the writer of the blog. The deltatangobravo.com blog is written by Daniel Burka

and can be considered a primary source as he is the lead designer for Digg. And while it is not the best source, the oreilly.com reference is also primary as O'Reilly was the subject of the controversy.

People have tried to include links here from Calcanius' blog as reliable primary sources. However, this is generally discouraged because he was a competitor to Digg, and as such, biased.

You should be able to see that most of the cites and references in this article have been well ::vetted.

If you want to keep up this revert war, go ahead. Consensus in the community will eventually overrule you. Should you wish to contribute a new criticism, please provide some verifiable sources for the claim and your edit will be easily kept.

Also - I

Sock Puppet for no one. As with the content you are trying to add, please provide verifiable proof prior to making such claims

.

--Mattarata 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

i post each blog i cite. u tell me why each one not notable.

http://www.nickallain.com/blogging/pivot/entry.php?id=4#comm. this been discussed. paragraph can stand without link but link vets out point. link can however go.

http://www.digg.com/security/HackThisSite_Founder_Convicted#c4241824 is not blog. shows that multiple diggers agree with the sentiment that digg for bookmark stuff u intend to read later. a cnn article will not do this. cnn only document what one reporter see - no provide numbers for people who agree or disagree.

http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1228 seomoz.org is a notable blog. i dont now how u can say otherwise.

http://3monkeyweb.com/3monkeys/2006/12/18/observations-on-diggs-quality/ blog of top 20 digger.

i post all this before but people ignore me. see [5]. i make cogent argument. is the only argument u have against nickallain.com, digg.com, seomoz.org, and 3monkeyweb.com that i - at one point in my life - cite calcanius blog? am i never going to be able to add link ever again because that?

i wont revert now but will if my argument get ignored. i take my time to justify action. u try to establish my link bad by establish your link good? it no work that way. u establish my link bad by establish my link bad.

strawman

not logical correct.

one last point. u say oreilly.com relevant because he subject of controvery. no. tthat make him more bias. saddam hussein is subject of iraq war. that no make him unbias source yet it does for oreilly.com??? 72.36.251.234 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

-The nickallain.com blog post is a piece of crap. It is not an established verifiable source in any way. It is a bunch of hearsay and ranting. Making a claim and then providing no additional information is not journalistic.

he does provide information tho. he posts picture of youtube and of digg. he post evidence. rather than refute the evidence, tho, u what - u personally attack him? it a blog so it "a piece of crap"? that kind of knee-jerk reaction is why sexism exists - "she a girl, so her point is a piece of crap". sexism is wrong and so is your knee jerk reaction to blogs. judge people or posts for their points - not for some superficeal quality.

-I am not sure what you are trying to show with the digg story link. Comments on a discussion board are not verifiable sources for anything. Period.

its not comment that i think is important. it number of diggs comment has gotten. the number of comments show that it popular opinion - that it popular sentiment.

-The seomoz.org site - please see

WP:V#SELF

. As this section explains ...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. seomoz.org appears to be a SEO company, as such I would perhaps accept a blog posting from them as a reference in an article about SEO. Not about Digg.

i think that policy is stupid. if a argument boils down to "im right because i have credentals" then yes, a blog posting from a non-notable blog is not sufficient. if a argument boils down to rules of

WP:UCS

?

-The 3monkeyweb.com site - A blogger saying he doesn't like Digg is not notable. This blog certainly is not notable. There are tons of people that like Digg and tons that don't like Digg. If it is truly notable, then a reputable news source should write a story on the controversy.

he not just blogger - he top 20 digger. see [6].

-As I said, the oreilly.com reference is not the best, and perhaps it should be removed. But if the subject of the article is being discussed in the article, then you can present the viewpoint of the subject as a primary source. You can quote Saddam Hussein's interviews and speeches as his viewpoints when discussing him in his

article

.

--Mattarata 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

how that different from what i do? if i say "calcanus think top diggers take bribe" and cite his blog, i not wrong, but if i say "some people think top diggers take bribe" and cite calcanus, i wrong?

finally, thank u for debate. i may not agree with u yet but i do appreceate u taking time out to at least trying to convence me. 72.36.251.234 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Digg recently undergone a layout change. I have uploaded a screenshot. If anyone can upload a better screenshot please feel free to do so under the same file name. I have also added the information to the timeline and made a reference to Digg the Blog. --Thorpe | talk 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

on 13 December i add note about supernova17 [7]. it then deleted because it not verifable news source. then on 19 December news.com.com come and cover same story [8]. news.com.com not cite source, tho. 13 december sources provide screen shots to prove that event took place and news.com.com not even do that. 19 December addition doesnt enable reader to verify whereas 13 December addition does. but 13 December get removed because it not verifable. as if 19 December addition is.

do u people think mainstream news never wrong?

i propose delete all news.com.com sources 72.36.251.234 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've nominated the Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture.

Discussion is at

— Cirt (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)