wtf?

[p0ss]

Right, so you started something you aren't willing to finish. There are a whole pile of things wrong with Digg, far more than just some stupid algorythm.
Well I signed the petition, I stood up to defend you. and I got burried alive for my troubles.
So you had your little chat with allmighty Kevin, and now you feel all better. so your going back. back to your hordes of adoring fans. And for defending the role of top diggers, for agreeing with what your saying, for my solidarity, what do i get? I get shunned and abused. I can't go back.
I am disgusted that you have caved so easily. None of your concerns got fixed, you got an assurance that they might start listening to you in the future. but what kind of victory is that? And how long after the sale do you think that'll stick?
so this whole thing really was just a hissy fit wasn't it? You really are more concerned with loosing power than the corruption of digg.
I thought this was a battle for democracy.
but i was wrong wasn't I?
This is about maintaining you oligarchy, and I just got played for a fool.

[Gerard Barberi]

"Right, so you started something you aren't willing to finish. There are a whole pile of things wrong with Digg, far more than just some stupid algorythm."

--We are all aware of that. First, we need an open line of communication with Digg. Not everyone has accepted their responses during the Drill Down. For the time being, I am taking them on faith.

"Well I signed the petition, I stood up to defend you. and I got burried alive for my troubles."

--If you mean by the comments you left all over the Digg post. Join the club. I am nowhere near being a top user and if needed I would gladly go down again for defending them.

"So you had your little chat with allmighty Kevin, and now you feel all better. so your going back. back to your hordes of adoring fans."

--Personally, I don't have any adoring fans and Kevin is not almighty. I do apologize for the fact that, yes, I did feel better when Kevin responded to us. It is being ignored that fuels anger.

"And for defending the role of top diggers, for agreeing with what your saying, for my solidarity, what do i get? I get shunned and abused. I can't go back."

--Yes, you can. Diggers will have long forgotten any comments you have made in defense of the top users.

"I am disgusted that you have caved so easily. None of your concerns got fixed, you got an assurance that they might start listening to you in the future. but what kind of victory is that? And how long after the sale do you think that'll stick?"

--Round 1: open a channel of communication. Yes, that is a victory. We will be watching them. Their continued involvement in communicating with Digg's community is the only thing that is holding a boycott. You need to understand. Many of us love Digg; destroying or harming the site is the last thing many of us want to do.

"so this whole thing really was just a hissy fit wasn't it? You really are more concerned with loosing power than the corruption of digg. I thought this was a battle for democracy.
but i was wrong wasn't I? This is about maintaining you oligarchy, and I just got played for a fool."

--No, not a hissy fit. And, this is about more than Democracy. There's the Digg we know and love as a social networking site and some of us feel it is at stake here. We should not be penalized for our social natures.
Check with the users here. How much power do you think any of us had? None of us trying to control Digg.

[p0ss]

wow, a coherent and sensible response. I am truly impressed. Esspecially given how emotional and uninvited my post was. Thank you.

ok, I accpet your line of reasoning and I think its a fair call. I still expect to cop some flack at digg, I allready have from some friends, but I hope you are right about the broader community.
I don't want to destroy digg either, i have loved it too. not so much now, and I can't see it getting better under fox. but i certainly don't want to *destroy* it.

I think the combined power of the users here is evident by this whole incident. Control is relative, and surely the whole idea of communcating with them is an attempt to gain some control over something that effects us all.Digg has called itself a democracy, but doesn't that imply an element of control greater than just sumbitting and grading stories?

So how long does digg have to provide "a channel of communication"? and how much impact do you expect it to have?

[Gerard Barberi]

Check JD Rucker's recent blog post for information regarding a "channel of communication." He is also responsible for this site's existence. Also, I don’t speak for all users. You may want to chat around with them and find out why each of them is here. Please try to be considerate with others even when their views don’t align perfectly with your own.

[JD Rucker]

Gerard and p0ss --

Great dialogue. That's the point of this community and hopefully the start of something at Digg as well.

A brief history of me: I have had a love/hate relationship with Digg for a few months now. My account was deleted when it started building up steam, most likely because I am on a shared IP with my wife who was banned simultaneously. That is okay -- I've come to grips. I started a new account and my wife has not, even though she definitely misses it sometimes.

One of my blogs is on the Autobury list that Jay was unwilling to admit exists. I am working with other bloggers who are also on the list to provide as much proof as possible that it does exist. Without going into details, here are some quick facts about it: 8 of the first 14 submissions hit the Digg front page. After that, the next 18 submissions were buried between 20 and 26 diggs, never before, never after. They were submitted by a wide variety of diggers and at various times: 4 were newer (one of which was brand new) while the rest were more established. Some were submitted during the day, others at night, and a couple in the wee hours of the morning. Regardless, they were always removed, automatically, from the upcoming pages between 20-26 diggs.

It went far beyond the possibility of being simply buried by users. MrBabyMan submitted one that fell off the Upcoming list approximately 42 minutes after he submitted it at exactly 20 diggs. Zaibatsu submitted one that was buried at 24 diggs in a very short amount of time. There is more evidence, but as you can see the chances of it happening because of poor quality, bad headlines, or "haters" of the blog are almost nil.

The point of this is to demonstrate that I do have some major issues with Digg. Am I satisfied with what transpired on The Drill Down? Absolutely not. BUT, it is something, and if we continue to fight it hard even after they have agreed to start communicating, then we are the bad guys in this. They need a chance to show that they will make the changes we want, and that chance starts with allowing them to open communications.

With that said, my personal time-limit on this is short. I want the issue pressed as hard as it can. If there are no results quickly, I'm prepared to take this to the next level. RIght now we have to allow them a chance, even if it's just a sliver of one, to get the ball rolling or we will be counterproductive to the end-goal of making Digg better for everyone.

[Gerard Barberi]

You must be 0boy on Digg? I believe I know which blog you are referring to and how it earned its spot on the autobury list -- Anti-Digg (or Not Digg Friendly) articles.
Shared IPs - This is why I think their new algorithm will eventually be taken over by spammers and gamed every which way possible. A tor client or other anonymous proxies can cover this. Digg user Brooklynzoo posted a pic that hit the FP last night. It shows a post hitting the FP at 19 diggs. This post had been in the queue for over ten hours and, as soon as, it hit the FP it was quickly buried back down.
As for bannings, contrary to Digg's belief, our user accounts are not disposable. We put time, effort, and even our personality into them. Even the recourse of "you can create another one" is not always sufficient.

[Digidave]

Oboy is absolutely right. The whole problem with Digg is its lack of transparency -- that's what we want to change -- and that's what this ning site will do for us in the future. Next time we need to organize - we will be able to do so here.

It's not about caveing in - it's about making sure we really have a cause to stand behind. If it turns out that Digg really isn't a place that listens to the community - then we will rethink what we are doing. Let's not act out of emotion.

[p0ss]

I agree the transarancy is the issue here, Thing is, honestly, how transparent can it be if its sold? thats like rallying for myspace be more open..Fox does not have a great track record at listening to its users.
Even if Kevin and Jay listen, whos to say the new owners will?

What do you guys expect to happen when/if Digg is sold?

[Gerard Barberi]

RE: transparency. I believe mostly what Dave is means is that we would like it if we could see just what happens on Digg. For example, I would like to know everything that happens to a submission from start to finish. I don't want to submit a post/article into a black hole.

[p0ss]

I agree, I would particularly love to see a list of who buried/ dugg an article including any bots.
My concern is that these kind of measures would not be welcome under corporate ownership. In the same way that digg is filtering out anti-digg stories, fox would filter out anti-fox stories. And given the level of censorship on fox, that excludes allmost everything that makes digg good.

Actually, i think I might start a new topic. about it

[dotlizard]

i'd just like to say that the exchange i've just seen here is a truly awesome example of constructive dialog, which i wish was more common on the internet. kudos to JD Rucker for starting this place and to everyone else for a thought-provoking discussion. glad i'm here.