For muhammad saleem it seems harder and harder to break a story on to the front page. It’s like not all diggers are created equal. His crime? People like what he submits. It seems people like the stuff he submits so much he is given a handicap.
But why?
Surely it’s the story that gets to the front page, whoever submitted is irrelevant. Unless of course there is something going on here we don’t know about. Of course digg has to protect their system, but this is just silly, when the system actually stops good stories getting to the front page the system is wrong.
Is Muhammad spamming the system with useless info? No. So what is the problem? And what is the big secret.
Check out this screen grab earlier, 150 votes and still not on the front page.
Also
Tamar has also pointed out the problem with getting 10e20.com some traction on digg, it seems the site has been targeted by the bury brigade. Do we know what is actually happening? No we don’t and that is the problem. Where is the transparancy?
Digg is great, but it’s a little paranoid. But, “just because you paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you”
11 replies on “How many digg votes does it take to get to the front page?”
Even Top Diggers are helpless.i lost similar 4 chances to frontpage.
In order to understand Digg, you have to be in a desert, with nothing to do and on digg everyday for over 2 months, for hours at a time.
Thats exactly what I have done. It takes so many diggs for their stories to go to the front page because most of their diggs come from friends that DON’T actually click the link and read the story. When they do read the story, its AFTER they have already dugg it. The digg inner workings seems to devalue diggs if they are to fast.
Thats why some of their more interesting stories go at 100, and some at 120, and some at 140.
I’m a top digger, I’m really afriad to make a comment. As a top digger I need to not only have good content, but it has to be vetted, I mean NYtimes vetted for the source, content and story. Or I get nailed on Digg, I get more request in a month to submit crap for $5000 then you guys can imagine. Msaleem is a ‘youngling’ ; I have tons of cash and you couldn’t buy me if you had ‘Paul Allen’s’ money, but that a different story. But just believe that Andy, Mu. and Me try and do our best with our stories and what hits the homepage. So when you guys see a story of mine that hits 154 digg and no frontpage, well I don’t really bitch about it… I just submit top 10 crap the next day because I’m pissed. Or My favorite ‘butterfly ‘ pic. But we do try and stand vanguard over digg, if you guy notice or if you don’t. I love politics, science and tech. So if I can sneak in really good content, that might even appeal to ‘bobby’ the bioshock fanboy then I’ll do it. Hell my 4 year has a laptop. That’s it, that me and thank you guys for my 1.2 seconds of fame!
I’m sorry, but thats just noise.
We should all give up on Digg and simply make Stumble Upon work even better. I’m finding that the cream doesn’t rise to the top with Digg, but a lot of crap does.
friend votes are worth less than non-friend votes, it’s there way of equalizing the “built in” votes people with lots of friends automatically get
I think Digg is trying to confuse it’s users.
Why doesn’t someone just suggest to Digg that they try beta testing anonymous-until-popular-or-old story submissions? Remove the whole popularity factor altogether? Perhaps see that a friend submitted a story, but not which friend?
Anyone have Kevin’s email where they could suggest that to him? 😀
I kinna got turned off Digg for awhile because it started to reflect real life too much. When I say real life, I mean it is not what you know but who you know. The crap that makes it way to the top is based more on friends or people who like a particular writer just voting for that article blindly.
i think there are other factors also that effect to be on front page not only how many diggs
well i agree on some of the commenters but, i have seen some company who is selling digg votes. have you guys seen it before?