200 Diggs 1 Voice: Diggers Had Enough!

Many top digg users helped push an article to the front page of digg tonight, that discussed the changes Digg made this week to the number of votes it takes for a story to be promoted to the front page.

“Digg has pretty much taken a crap in a cup, and asked everyone, including even the top diggers, to partake in the offering. It now takes (barring a miracle, or a massive, collective pre-planned quick-strike diggfest), around 200 diggs to go popular, which leaves many (including me) to wonder… is Digg TRYING to drive away users, and if so, why?”

At 5:12 pm PST, about 7 1/2 hours after Babblin5 submitted the post “Two Diggs One Cup” made it to the front page of digg. It took 156 diggs with 33 comments for the article to make it, something it would have taken less than 100 to do a week ago.

There was a time when about 30 to 40 diggs on any given story would be promoted to the front page of Digg. That time has obviously come and gone, as we have seen an increase in the number of diggs it takes to reach the front page.

For some users, it now can take upward of 200 diggs.

There are two main arguments to the topic.

1. Top users have a bigger friends base and thus get on average around 70 – 90 diggs based purely on their network. So they should require a large number of additional diggs to compensate that boost that normal users don’t have.

2. Top users are top users because they submit high qaulity material. They should not be required to get more diggs simply because of the great job they have been doing to reach that top user status.

I think msaleem sums it up best with one of his comments on the issue:

“Top user or not, it should be an equal playing field. Doesn’t matter what your standing is, every user should have an equal chance at the front page. Though the system pretends to be helping new users, it hurts them even more.”

So what does Digg have to say about any of this? Well… nothing. Digg has gone almost completely quiet lately. You cannot even get a response by email their support department.

“It is sad to see the veterans who have invested their time, effort, and energy into a community that isn’t returning the favor. Problem is: Digg isn’t defending itself. It isn’t giving people ANY explanations as to why they are banning various strong Diggers and increasing the quota to reach FP. Digg isn’t addressing the autobury situation adequately… It looks like Digg will implode if it continues in this self-destructive path and ignore this situation further..” Nomadelle

It appears a growing number of top users have also decided to speak out in the form of a petition.

“We, the undersigned (comment to join) are ready to find out if there is more to social bookmarking than Digg. We are going to stop submitting to Digg”

So basically they are saying if the site is not fixed, they will no longer use it. If you would like to support the petition to get Digg to change their site you can do so here – Digg Petition.

“What happens if the most powerful users in the community decide to leave? Will others join? Is Digg anything without us?”

Well let us hope we don’t have to find out…

Either way you should read Babblin5’s article and check out the comments on the digg submission. It is an interesting time on Digg right now, and I will be watching to see what will happen in the next few months.


57 Responses to “200 Diggs 1 Voice: Diggers Had Enough!”

  1. Sterango on January 23rd, 2008 10:31 pm

    This is pretty lame, i mean look, I come to Digg because I’d like to see news stories that my peers find to be interesting on THE DAY they were actually submitted, preferably within an hour or two. It’s pretty stupid to have to wait 7 hours to see something popular make front page. The world could end in 7 hours.

  2. b on January 23rd, 2008 10:38 pm

    “It took 156 diggs with 33 comments for the article to make it, something it would have taken less than 100 to do a week ago.”

    Big Fucking Deal!

  3. Chris Taylor on January 23rd, 2008 10:43 pm

    Hmmm I am on the wall on this one but this DOES create a problem. a FAIR playing field as you describe it is by definition an UNFAIR playing field.

    A Dynamic requirement for front page based on your friends APPEARS to me to be closer to a fair playing field. THink about it. If friends “tend” to vote for there friends then those with friends have an advantage that new users simply can not have. IE it means the elite STAYS elite and the barrier to entry for new users goes higher IE content submitters becomes “STATIC” you say make it harder for me and I will leave. I say I will leave if there is no chance really of me getting on the front page. (not me personally I and less a digg submitter and mostly a digg reader) BUT I can see how its a problem.

    IE it makes it HARD for new comers to “enter” this elite.

    You say well get some friends. WELL the problem is how do you get friends? well by getting NOTICED and how do you get NOTICED ? submit front page stories. BUT you need friends to get front page stories ?? See the catch 22 there?

    SO I can at least see where there coming from on this. THEY MUST entice NEW participants into digg as submitters of the content will go STATIC!! IE users will LEAVE.

    SO its also a catch 22 for DIGG HOW do they create incentive for new users. Telling me I am on the same conditions as EXISTING digg users who have a friends base already built up is saying “I CAN EXCLUDE YOU” very easily. All I have to do is submit a similar or same story and MY USERS will vote me and bury you as a “dupe” even if you were first ??? Thats not a good incentive for new users.

    IT won’t really affect READERS like me at first but as you REDUCE the “submitter” base your gonna also reduce the DIVERSITY (kind of like Main Stream Media is now) 90% of EVERY SINGE TV you see Radio You hear and PAPER you read comes from exactly 6 people. Ever wonder why MSM sucks?

    well if Digg can not balance taking care of existing users AND enticing NEW USERS digg will fall to the same fate and eventually the readers will see this decline in diversity and “move along” to something more diverse.

    SO is this the right way. I don’t know but something needs to be done.

    ONE way is to give a digg from a “friend” less value but now your punishing those users.

    … Something to think about before getting mad at digg …

  4. Hank Hill on January 23rd, 2008 10:46 pm

    You’re a fucking moron to even consider this view. You’re essentially saying Digg is trying to fuck itself in the ass. Why in the hell would a company do this???

    Just because you don’t understand the Digg algorithm doesn’t mean there’s some conspiracy afoot.

  5. PJ on January 23rd, 2008 10:47 pm

    This new algorithm is an excellent choice. It will make digg more democratic requiring a larger base of diggers to promote a story and reducing the clutter on the front page caused by networks of promoters who are paid to digg and groups of friends who want their content on the cover.

    Get over it. It’s a good decision. Digg will be better for it. If you don’t like it, build your own digg clone and we digg readers will reap the rewards of your retreat.

  6. Brent Csutoras on January 23rd, 2008 10:52 pm

    @PJ The problem is that it creates a clog. All users are seen through the upcoming sections. If the submissions require that many more diggs they will bottleneck the top of all upcoming areas making it harder for the average user.

  7. Ian on January 23rd, 2008 10:52 pm


    “Don’t worry about the world coming to an end today. It’s already tomorrow in Australia.” -Charles M. Schulz

  8. Brent Csutoras on January 23rd, 2008 10:52 pm
  9. Brent Csutoras on January 23rd, 2008 10:54 pm

    @Hank It is not a conspiracy. It is a lack on consideration on Digg behalf. I understand the algorithm very very well. What i explain is a problem and it is not just me. All top users feel this way.

  10. Martin on January 23rd, 2008 10:55 pm

    Well I think Digg is becoming less and less interesting. The articles posted are basically from a few select sites, you might as well just add their RSS feeds to your Google page, it would be the same as Digg. Nothing really new anymore.

    Democracy tends towards corruption, especially when Capitalism enters the picture with sites like Subvert and Profit, which is why I think the vote count is being raised, but it does not get at the root of their issue, it then just means the digger with the most amount of money to buy diggs wins. Digg imitating life.

    Time for something new other than Digg, instead of complaining too much folks should create something better. Time for the anti-Digg.

  11. Curly Brace on January 23rd, 2008 10:56 pm

    Digg is growing, and thus, needs a lot more votes in order to have articles reach the front page. I’ve recently felt too that there are just too many articles hitting the main page which shouldn’t. The truth is that there are just TOO many articles on Digg nowadays.

  12. Masterbtor on January 23rd, 2008 11:01 pm

    Theres so many good news websites out there, why the obsession with digg. Get out of your fishbowl sometimes.

  13. Some Guy on January 23rd, 2008 11:03 pm

    “All top users feel this way.”

    Key phrase, “top users.” I’m sure the lil guys with no friends added (seriously, friends?) could care less about the “top guys.” Hell, this gives them a chance to get articles on the front page. I’m sorry you feel that your “digg social superiority” is threatened.

  14. meeeeeee on January 23rd, 2008 11:07 pm

    LOL @ the nerds getting mad at each other.

  15. Russell Page on January 23rd, 2008 11:08 pm

    Democracy is bogus. People think that it’s the best way, and it’s hogwash. Digg is trying to not be a democracy because the system always gets gamed.

    The U.S. isn’t a democracy either. It’s a representative republic. Real news outlets with real news (not some “I got friends so it was Dugg a lot b.s.) have editors or “news representatives.”

  16. Thomas on January 23rd, 2008 11:08 pm

    Who the fuck cares! These guys came up with a revolutionary idea — they practically invented social news. If they feel the need to tinker with it to make it more fair or whatever, it’s their prerogative. Everytime digg makes a change to how they operate, why do people act like some huge social injustice has taken place? Grow up, quit you’re whining, and if you don’t like the changes digg makes, move onto something else or start you’re own site.

  17. Alex on January 23rd, 2008 11:12 pm

    What a bunch of crybabies. Digg is a website. Sure, it’s an interesting website, but still and all, just a website.

  18. Sleeping on January 23rd, 2008 11:13 pm

    I can’t believe anyone actually has the time or interest or need to “make the front page.”

    1.) Submit a story.
    2.) If it’s deemed worthy by the community, it’ll make the front page.

  19. Detrus on January 23rd, 2008 11:15 pm

    Friends and networks helped digg grow into a large community website, but in the long run it’s the wrong approach for judging content as objectively as possible. In an ideal world, content could be submitted and dugg without revealing the identities of the participants. Such a system would not try to simulate real life social interaction, which always leads to loyalties and groups.

    People that invested time in digg would probably want more power and attention. If digg gave them this power it would motivate them to participate more. If digg didn’t give them this power, there wouldn’t be much motivation to spend your life on digg, and possibly reduce the amount of quality content.

    It is a hard decision. Do you try to have a news service that is more traditional, and is run by a few qualified people, or do you try to create something different than the status quo of the past 4000 years? It is worth a try.

  20. guide on January 23rd, 2008 11:17 pm

    a really great homepage! i’m a big fan of your stuff although i’m just 16!

  21. Steve on January 23rd, 2008 11:21 pm

    This sorta explains what happened to me last week.
    I submitted a story and almost had my FIRST front page story.
    I submitted:

    The story quickly gained diggs and was well on its way to getting to the front page. With in the first few hours the story had about 50 diggs and was at the top of the upcoming section for technology and high on the list for all.
    All was going well when suddenly something strange happened. The story was removed from the top upcoming section.
    8 hours later despite having almost 200 diggs the story was no where to be found.
    This was only about my 4th submission and I only have a few friends so im definitely not a top user.
    Does anyone have any idea what could have happened?

  22. Wibble on January 23rd, 2008 11:24 pm

    Digg are doing the right thing.. make the dependance upon VARIETY of diggers, NOT JUST FRIENDS..

    Why should there be ‘top’ submitters anyway, that just ends up making the views biased towards the ‘top’ submitters points of view.
    Digg should outright BAN abusers of the system, anyone found ‘pimping’ their ‘digness’ (not only should be beaten to death with their own keyboard, but..) should be prevented from participating in what should be a FAIR SYSTEM.

  23. Shanghai Bitch on January 23rd, 2008 11:37 pm

    You WANT a high barrier of entry. Without that every spammer in the world will be here submitting.

    They are trying to balance anti-spam measures with usability.

  24. CasualUser on January 23rd, 2008 11:37 pm

    Why are these “top users” so lame?

    The reality is you can go away and new “top users” will take your place.

    stop acting like Digg owes you anything: you are replaceable

  25. grimfandango on January 24th, 2008 12:10 am

    The assumptions made in this article are WRONG.

  26. Rick on January 24th, 2008 12:40 am


  27. yoshemitzu47 on January 24th, 2008 1:14 am

    This problem is easier than everyone’s making it.

    Why does the front page only have to display stories with most diggs? Get a “New Stories” category, where stories with fewer diggs are actually highlighted. Or maybe all kinds of different categories.

    This is just digg, don’t be so doom and gloomy.

  28. KenLenny on January 24th, 2008 2:10 am

    A single tear escapes my eye
    This travesty has got to end
    I’m longing for the days gone by
    When being a top digger meant
    An instant front page run, my friend.

  29. Anon on January 24th, 2008 3:16 am

    Well I would submit to digg regularly (I used to) if they treated all users the same and my efforts to submit were valued the same as anyone elses. As it stands I have given up completely. There’s more to life!

  30. Megane on January 24th, 2008 3:19 am

    this story (which obviously is not a spam) http://digg.com/programming/40_Reasons_Why_Software_Projects_Die
    took 140 diggs in 24h and it didn’t hit the frontpage
    strange thing, that ‘programming’ topic hasn’t frontpage stories for the last 4-5 days!

  31. TC on January 24th, 2008 4:26 am

    Have ego often? What’s considered “top news” by 100 diggers doesn’t make it popular anymore. Digg would survive with its 100 top Diggers. Problem is Digg’s basically a trash heap of bookmarks new AND old, with only a small portion of news thrown in. Maybe it should just be allowed to become a bookmark of the moment site.

  32. PSYCHOTIC APE on January 24th, 2008 4:55 am

    I signed it but I want more transparency in Digg – show us what’s going on exactly, make it an eve playing field so that anyone and everyone can get promoted to the frontpage. The whole friends thing now is just BS because it’s allowing for even further gaming.

  33. Ev Nucci on January 24th, 2008 6:03 am

    Steve, you asked what happened to your article and why it suddenly didn’t make it to the front of Digg? Looks like somebody threw it for you when they said they saw a “meme” coming.

    I wouldn’t look for much integrity from guys at Digg.

  34. Barry on January 24th, 2008 6:24 am

    Heres a simple solution. 3 max front page submissions per user per day. Or bettter yet, 10 total submissions per day. People will get all huffy puffy about it at first, but my solution to that is to tell them to get a life.

    I stopped submiting to digg a long time ago when i would often see my quality submission get 5 diggs in 24 hours, while 10 minutes later a top digger will submit the same story and have 40 diggs in the first hour. Fuck that.

  35. Bob123 on January 24th, 2008 6:37 am

    Suck it up! The general user that comes to Digg doesn’t care who the person was that Digg the article. Obvioulsy as the site gets more popular they will have to make changes like this. So get a life and do the job you are probably getting paid to do right now while you are looking up articles. Unless you are still living in you Moms basement and you need to show her that you got to the fron page to get a cookie. In that case continue to whine because that it obviously one of the few joys you get out of life.

  36. Amit Nyamtabad on January 24th, 2008 7:05 am

    I think that Digg just got smarter

  37. Lmann13 on January 24th, 2008 7:32 am

    Bunch o Crybabies….sheesh!!

  38. flamingtrolls are fun on January 24th, 2008 7:52 am

    I like digg it lets me talk/bitch/rant/rave about things going on in the world.It is the most used page I have for the net.It use to be Yahoo till the yucking fahoos decided to stop letting people talk about the news.I have gone to yahoo maybe twenty times since they stopped.I was looking to see if they finally got it,but no they’re to damn stupid.All the news sites are boring as hell no matter what news they put out when you can’t get together and talk about it.I just don’t understand how the prime sites could just ignore the fact that man since the beginning liked to get together and talk about what is going on.It’s how the Greeks and the Romans got things done.What a waste of opportunity the news sites are.AFAIAC yahoo died the day it quit letting discussions happen about the news.

  39. Newsearchengine on January 24th, 2008 8:05 am

    This problem will be more serious when Digg is getting bigger. A lot of people digg because they want to make their story popular, with increase of user base, it is much hard to do so and people will stop doing it.

    Another reason is for people who like to browse digg, digg is getting to big to be useful for surfaing. The top diggs are not really good stuff, more and more entertainments in nature. As far as search Digg, it is better to search google.

  40. Sid Gilbert on January 24th, 2008 8:10 am

    I think you can see by the tone of most of these comments that the Digg community as a whole is tired of having the ‘top diggers’ monopolize the front page with tripe that they have their friends automatically digg to the front page. I would suggest that you quit using tricks to get your stories to the front page, quit submitting duplicate material (and digg the original when you find that you are late submitting something,) and start acting like responsible members of the Digg community instead of like a bunch of prima donnas who feel they have a right to get to the front page. Just submit a story and see what happens. That is how Digg is supposed to work. You and your friends have perverted it and I for one applaud Kevin and company for trying to take it back.

  41. Lara Behrens on January 24th, 2008 8:48 am

    ‘Top user or not, it should be an equal playing field. Doesn’t matter what your standing is, every user should have an equal chance at the front page. Though the system pretends to be helping new users, it hurts them even more.’

    I have to say I agree with msaleem here and think the situation is dire if they’re going to start penalising people for spending more time and effort on the site, and submitting good content. I’ve had a rant on my blog about it…

  42. Digg_Reader on January 24th, 2008 8:54 am

    I kind of agree with this article. Digg should make things easier for its users, not more complicated. I’m sure they have enough money to invest into developing something fresh and cool. If they don’t make any innovative changes, someone else will, there is so many competition today anyways. For example, Propeller, in my opinion, has much more interesting stories on their front page.

  43. Teipp Stephens on January 24th, 2008 9:08 am

    Eh, so what if it takes 200 diggs to make it to the front page.. It makes a lot more sense this way. Now, the stories will have to get enough viewers to make it, and it might actually be interesting

  44. wow on January 24th, 2008 9:10 am

    you people need to get laid.

  45. Teipp Stephens on January 24th, 2008 9:11 am

    Wow.. All top “diggers” feel that way? Since when has digg been about just getting your article on the front page? I would much rather see a story that is has a lot of diggs on the front page, cause it usually means that more people find it interesting

  46. jamEs on January 24th, 2008 9:12 am

    You guys make it sound like without the top diggers Digg wouldn’t exist. While they do a good job of finding fresh content, there is nothing saying that if the top 100 diggers disappeared tomorrow that anyone would even notice the difference. Ever see how many dupes are in the upcoming queue reporting the exact same stories that are on the frontpage? Quit crying like little bitches with skinned knees and suck it up.

  47. dennis on January 24th, 2008 9:18 am

    “What happens if the most powerful users in the community decide to leave?”

    Absolutely nothing. And I mean that in the most literal sense.

    The “top users” are the exact problem digg is trying to solve. Whether these “most powerful users” or digg itself manipulates the page promotions, they are being manipulated. I would rather see some semblance of fairness rather than collusion hidden behind the guise of community leadership.

    If you think links will magically dry up because 100, 200, or 500 users stop showing up… Dream on.

  48. kurt on January 24th, 2008 9:34 am

    why not, just a thought here, remove the user names of who dugg what, that way an article gets to the top by being dugg by other anonymous users, if you really need some kind of ranking or affirmation of your being then create a stats page showing who dugg what and when but only after a few days or something, then people can just read the article or whatever and decide if they want others to see it by digging it, again anonymously, easy democratic, and stupid proof.

  49. Q dub on January 24th, 2008 11:39 am

    Simple, because Digg is growing, not only in regular users, but in TOP users too. Only so many posts can go front page, and if you’ve got more top users competing for the same pot, then naturally the bar has to be raised.

  50. Robert on January 24th, 2008 12:04 pm

    I have to say, I really could care less about this change. I only go to digg to read news, not to be an internet celebrity. I just kind of laugh at you guys who are all up in arms about this making an elitist core at digg. All I know is I havent seen nearly as many ‘impeach cheney’ things and old ass internet memes being reposted as I usually did prechange. I’d say its for the better.

  51. fatlester on January 24th, 2008 2:43 pm

    I have also wondered if Digg has been targeted by an internal sabotage campaign aimed at destroying the site.

    Digg is clearly not being run by professionals. The the poor leadership and bad decision-making that has been going on may have cost the site a chance to cash in on the big bucks.

  52. Alex on January 25th, 2008 4:37 am

    Socially recommended content will always have this problem. Digg can continue to improve and provide relevant content, but only to that community. To diversify weakens the community appeal. Even more broad social sites like Reddit rely on a close overlap with “similar” users for consistent quality.

  53. steve on January 25th, 2008 11:59 am

    I will start using Digg more often the instant the power of “the top users” is curtailed.

    Too many groups just blindly vote for their friends. Silly and less interesting by the day. I stopped scanning DIGG quite a while ago because of this.

    It seems DIGG realizes this. Good.

  54. Bill on January 25th, 2008 5:18 pm

    ‘Top users are top users because they submit high QAULITY material.’ Are you sure about this?

  55. Marcos on January 26th, 2008 6:47 am

    Digg is the best. Always the changes is good for us.

  56. 1389 on January 29th, 2008 2:15 pm

    There’s an old Russian saying: “the fish rots from the head.” Digg is a bad site because the people running it are bad – in terms of tech ability, lack of transparency, deceptiveness, spin, you name it. The same is true of Digg’s venture cap investors.

    Over a year ago, Digg could be fun some of the time. Those days are long gone. Every time Digg changed anything, they just made it worse.

    Digg is not really concerned about excluding spammers, cheats, and sock puppets per se – Digg already had mechanisms that accomplished that purpose well enough. No, they just want to control the mix of users and of stories to meet their own criteria – all the while preserving the illusion that the typical user has meaningful input.

    Use StumbleUpon instead. It beats heck out of Digg.

  57. denzelb on May 18th, 2008 10:34 pm

    I would rather see some semblance of fairness rather than collusion hidden behind the guise of community leadership.

Leave a Reply