Comments on: Why Digg Doesn’t Make Buries Transparent

By: Stan Schroeder

Stan Schroeder — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:41:56 +0000

Lately actual buries by users don’t seem to matter much. Stories disappear from all the lists seemingly unrelated to the topic, relevance, and the actual number of times it has been buried.

By: Curtiss Thompson

Curtiss Thompson — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:26:02 +0000

I do agree that digg does require a greater degree of regulating buries. Surely they need a system in place that could prevent bury abuse.

I remember watching digg spy almost a year ago, to see someone irresponsibly burying literally 45+ submissions of mine, in a row.

The problem comes about whenever you make a feature quicker and easier to use on a site. With digg’s old comment system, only the truly offensive and spam like comments where buried b/c you had to go through a drop down menu rating system. Now it’s a one click up or down vote in the comments, which leads people to use it to bury legitimate comments just b/c they don’t agree with the person.

I think a regulation of how quickly a person can bury stories is a great way to prevent a lot of the abuse, and another way would be for people to have to submit a easy and quick explanation of why the buried the story…as some sites use for spam reporting.

By: Ryan Wagner

Ryan Wagner — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:15:34 +0000

I just think that Digg should do something to watch for users who are burying too quickly. For example, I shouldn’t be able to bury 100 stories in a row without some kind of warnings saying “hey, slow down there” like they do when adding friends.

By: Ashish Mohta

Ashish Mohta — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:54:29 +0000

I can understand the point but its always easy to hide the implementation.Moreover If they bury they don’t give a proper reason.They would bury the controversies against them to.Diggers should have enough strength to come out with non vulgar comment to fight back why they did instead of making stupid comments I have seen many a time..

They should give proper reason to bury any story at least they can do that.

Moreover why do they mark posts coming from blogs with “/blog” at the end.Thats no less than racism

My apology if i hurt someone on that but thats some of the question that should be justified.

By: Everton

Everton — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:21:29 +0000

True, digg needs to keep some details close to its chest. However, to not provide any info is a big mistake. Kevin’s post doesn’t provide any information that disproves the existance of the Bury brigade or gives any indication that Digg is going to respond positively to the criticism it is receiving.

By: Ajay

Ajay — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:09:07 +0000

Keeping Buries transparent only makes sense if a bury has same weight as the digg, as on Reddit you can Up and Down equally.

Digg isn’t about transparency and I don’t think it ever will be.

By: Chris Garrett

Chris Garrett — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:45:35 +0000

While there is no transparency of buries the bury brigade will have free reign to destroy the good work that Digg have built.

Mention SEO or post a blog URL and you get marked down as spam. At the very least they should implement a rule that you have to have viewed the article before burying it.

Personally I see this issue is in danger of reaching point. Already there are many stories appearing accusing Digg of bias and prejudice.

Are their precious algorithms work all this bad publicity?