No Digg Blog

Make Sense?

2006-03-15T15:16:00.000-08:00

With the new digg comment system, does it even make sense to continue with this blog? Did it EVER make sense? :P

I could just continue with the reviews of the digg clones.

Fake Digg #2: VideoBomb

2006-02-14T08:52:00.000-08:00

Video Bomb is one of those sites that honestly, needn't exist yet it should. It's a ridiculous statement, I know. The whole concept of it is to imitate digg, but the hook is, it's for videos. It works by you getting your video from Google Video, or even YouTube, both of which allow you to upload video of your own. From there you submit the videos to the site and people vote for which video goes to the front page. The area where your videos or "bombs" are submitted to is called "Incoming!", how witty...

From the VideoBomb FAQ:

Video Bomb is a community site for people to bring together and share the best videos on the web. You can share interesting videos with a wide audience by posting, commenting and tagging videos on the site.

The tagging feature should prove useful for finding specific videos when you search. The thing is, I just think that this is something digg can incorporate, sorry to say, or even YouTube can do it for that matter. It even has a nicer interface and aesthetically pleases you. A YouTube/digg merger/integration would really be something interesting to see.

Video Bomb is worth a look, if not for passing the time by watching funny videos or seeing what the latest viral marketing thingamabob is, then to what digg may become in the future.

Then again, you may be better off just browsing YouTube.

Sorry for being a day later than promised with this one.
Don't forget you can submit anything digg related to nodigg@gmail.com

Since When...

2006-02-14T08:34:00.000-08:00

....is this new?

New Fake Digg tomorrow! News is oh, so slow, so I may even do 2 this week.

Firefox Review

2006-02-11T09:57:00.000-08:00

This has nothing to do with digg but since I have to set back up a personal blog (soon) then this would be the best and only place I could put this. It's still something you'd see on digg about 3 times a day. Here's a short but totally sweet Firefox review. Enjoy.

Digg RSS Widget

2006-02-10T06:41:00.000-08:00

This is for the Mac users, all none of you. This is an RSS Widget that gives you the headlines for Digg.com

It requires Mac OS X 10.4 or higher and weighs in at a mere 304 KB.

Enjoy

I've Got Nothing

2006-02-08T13:17:00.000-08:00

I'm way tired, no major updates for a little while, so until I get a breather from all my work, do take a look at the Digg Watch Weblog.

Fake Digg #1 - Stock Digg

2006-02-07T17:52:00.000-08:00

We'll kick off the very first segment of Fake Digg with Stock Digg. Do these people have no shame? I mean, the word digg is in the URL. That aside, let's look at what stock digg is.

StockDigg is a financial website that provides investors access to major financial news as well as user-submitted stories (e.g. stock picks and analysis) and individual stock rankings by investors. With StockDigg, users rank stocks and submit stories, which are reviewed (i.e. ranked and tugg) by other investors. Only the most timely, relevant, and valuable stories go to the front page.

So, it's digg, for stocks. This is what we call "Good Idea, Damn Ugly". Peep the image below.

It looks like the most advanced tool used in making this website was a highlighter. Somehow fluorescent colours don't mix with a site like this. In fact, they don't mix with internet. Looking at this site makes my eyes burn.

But the question remains, is it any good? As I said before, it's a good idea, but as we know, Kevin Rose recently stated that digg will be going into other regions, such as politics etc. Who is to say that stock isn't a viable outlet to use when new areas of digg are unveiled? Rather than this being a stand along site, I see it as just a section of digg, if people want it separate, they can get that with their RSS feeds. As it is now, I say stay away because of the seizure inducing colours. That Barney purple colour just doesn't cut it.

Anything you want to contribute? Do it here: nodigg @ gmail . com

Announcing "Fake Digg"

2006-02-07T07:56:00.000-08:00

Later today I will start my weekly look at those places on the interweb that are eerily similar to digg.com Yes each and every one of the sites I look at will simply be a coincidence and I can live with that, but I'm going to give the answers to the questions you're asking; Are any of them worth a damn? Are any going to overtake digg? Do they have a chance of overtaking digg? Why is there so much air in my bag of potato chips? Yes, all this and more will be answered in due course.

In the meantime, do send any and every bit of digg tidbits, interviews, rumors or imitations to nodigg at gmail dot com

Correction: Why Digg Needs MORE Moderators

2006-02-06T12:28:00.000-08:00

ZDnet's Richard MacManus (a mac loving man from the U.S?) has done a two part interview with Kevin Rose all about, you guessed it, digg.com. It makes for an interesting read. I was pleasantly surprised to see such quotes with reference to the digg community's control over the site.

"But for the most part I'd say it's probably 95% user-driven..."

So people who whined and moaned about my XXL article about how digg.com needed moderators could just sit on it. But it gets better.

There are systems behind the scenes that notify our moderators, who are watching the site, whether there's any activity that we can detect.

So, wait, that means that there are already moderators, not so? That means I wasn't off base in what I was saying about how Digg Needs Moderators now, was I? But it gets even betterer!

"It's actually only one person who watches the site in general - it's not really that big a task because the community handles most of it."

So the general public didn't know about digg moderators, or a digg moderator for that matter, and my crackpot ideas were right on the money, but it's just a case of a good idea not properly executed. The thoughts, views and ideas in my initial article still stand since this good idea is still in effect, just not to the extent that it should be.

Interview With Kevin Rose, Part 1
Interview With Kevin Rose, Part 2

I now apologize for my longer posts and promise to keep posts to a reasonable length and colour in within the lines.

Do feel free to submit anything at all concerning digg to blog about, contact info on the right of the page.

For You Feeders

2006-02-06T08:17:00.000-08:00

For the people using the feeds to subscribe to this blog, you really need to get out more, but in the same breath, thank you, since I now feel specialer than the kids on the different school bus. For anyone else looking to show pity upon my poor self, you can subscribe to No Digg the Blog here.
The saddest part is that we now have more subscribers than the official digg blog, which you can subscribe to here.

Many Thanks

2006-02-05T18:37:00.000-08:00

Big shout out goes out to Flock Sucks, without whom I'd never have learnt how to love.

Why Digg Needs Moderators

2006-02-03T15:45:00.000-08:00

Wow, my feet smell. I saw there were some opinions regarding my saying that there should be moderators on digg. Yes, collective wisdom seems like a great idea, in theory, but given the circumstances that have been presented by digg, in this instance this "collective wisdom" just won't cut the mustard without some aid.

Now, I despise slashdot, I really do, and I did not suggest turning digg into that horrible site, my suggestion was about having a core group of users, possibly the staffers at digg along with members who have shown to have good judgement etc to moderate digg. Now, what exactly would this moderation entail?

Editing Stories

This would have a few aspects to it. As I mentioned in another post which I am too lazy to search and provide a link for, I stated that the moderation of stories was not about editing the stories people read in the vein of slashdot, but rather it just be a way for people to filter out the obviously ridiculous items. Use it as a form of training wheels. While the community will be able to say that a story was submitted improperly because maybe the story was submitted but was just a link to a blog linking to the story, it's not something that should be dealt with now.

Have people to remove stories that wouldn't make it to the front page at all, even if it is something that is very newsworthy. Again, to reiterate my point, let us suppose Google was giving away money and I submitted the story to digg, but it was just a link to this blog which had a link to the real story, it wouldn't or at least shouldn't make it to the front page even though the story is front page worthy. What a moderator would do is simply not allow this sort of thing to get through at all. It isn't about stories people like or dislike, because the digg community still has the power over that, but it is about the quality of the submission, not the submission itself. The other way in which a story would be edited is if the description and title isn't good.

The reason for this is to seem a whole lot more professional to those who are viewing the site for the very first time. There was an article on digg about how people make judgements on a website just as quickly as it loads. In all honesty, if I were to come to a website that had the first story as saying "Google Releases Another Service LOL" and had a description that read "IMHO Google is not as cool as Clusty.com" I would simply go elsewhere to get my news. While the link may be good, the title and description need to be informative and to the point. No reason it can't be witty and/or entertaining, but some level of professionalism has to be maintained if digg is to really become what it can be.

Editing Comments

You saw this coming. People still view the comments as well, comments, which in reality they are not, they are forums, with every new article submitted being a thread ready to be ripened with discussion. Again, having a select few members/digg staff moderate these comments would benefit the site immensely. I don't expect it to be a case of "be nice, don't do this" but more of an observation thing.

To explain this better, moderators will not be outright identifiable as such, they would be members such as you and myself and they would take an observatory role in the digg community. Simply look for the people who submit one word comments, the people looking to start arguments and flame wars, and simply warn them about it, once.

Once anything persists, ban them from commenting, over time, this would benefit the site tenfold. More intelligent discussion would come about and more people who had before stayed away from digg would join and make digg a richer, more close knit community.

Now, to look at comments of the story submitted to digg highlighting this site.

This comment comes from infradead:

Go to Amazon or wherever and search for a book called "The Wisdom of Crowds".
Buy it, read it, if you haven't already. The basic premise is that groups of
people are generally better at reaching conclusions than solitary persons. It's
counter-intuitive, counter to Western culture even, but it's a good read, and
it's a damn good idea.
Digg is one example of how this group decision-making
process can be harnessed -- we moderate, we make the decisions. It's not
perfect, since we can see which articles are getting dugg by others, which will
tend to cause a cascade effect towards popular stories. And some people are
actively gaming the system with multiple accounts, etc. But basically, it works
and isn't far broken. The last thing digg needs is to have editors and
moderators -- it would be just another slashdot and not nearly so good. What
digg probably needs is far fewer stories, so I suppose you could say it's a
victim of its own success. Whatever, I think we can live with its imperfections.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the power of numbers to identify who or what is bad for digg, right now the community is just not in that position, so I think my suggestions above would be very beneficial. I mean to say, it's not something that will be noticeable by the community and they aren't losing their power. After the community has been "trained" then these moderators could possibly even be removed, so they could be temporary even. Nothing is perfect though, so yes, I agree that there will always be suffering imperfections. Right now though, we are suffering from a case of the stupid.

Joel2600 Opines:

yeah, but that is the basic idea of digg... to let the masses decide. and when
crap makes it to the front page, it's not because we need moderators, it's
because there are enough people visiting the site that find the crap interesting
that actually want to see it.you throw in the moderators and digg just becomes
another slashdot, except for less interesting things and a lot of buried stories
that nobody gets to see.

The validity of the content going to the front page is objective, you may or may not like it, after all, there are categories. What I have been talking about is the way in which the news items are submitted. I think if you have an open mind and a bit of intelligence, anyone can at least see where I am coming from.

I hope you walk away with something from reading all this. All I want is for digg to become the best online community that it can be, but right now, it just isn't there. My feet still smell.

Oh, and kudos to joel and infradead, who show what real digg commenting is about. I'm not mad they didn't like the story or even that they disagreed, and the way they handled it was beautiful to say the least. Hats off, fellers.

You Hate Us, You Really Hate Us!

2006-02-03T13:26:00.000-08:00

I'd just like to say that I'm thrilled someone took it upon themselves to submit this sorry excuse for a blog to digg. I must say, it was quite surprising to see that there have been less than stellar responses from the handful of people from the digg community that bothered to look at it. People, unimpressed with a blog that aims to chastise them for their retardedness? Surprising indeed.

Have A Gander, or A Goose Even

5 Rules For Good Digging

2006-02-03T06:58:00.000-08:00

While checking through digg, I found an article on how to be a good digger done by Bill. While you may not really want to read the thing, some obvious points were raised. Obviously it could be fleshed out a bit more, but it shows that people are pissed off with digg, as if that surprises anyone.

Before you hit that Âdigg itÂ button stop and read the article Â the article. Not the description, not the title, the article - hint: you can get there through clicking on the article title. Unlike other social bookmarking networks, when digg articles arenÂt really bookmarks, theyÂre articles.

Well, yeah, that's a given, but we shouldn't have to. I, just like other people, nay, normal people, want to digg things to come back to them later. I shouldn't have to check if the story is actually a story. For this reason alone I think that digg needs, dare I say, moderators? Yes, there is no reason that digg cannot be like /. in that a few good members or staff can simply check the validity of stories either submitted or that are on the front page. Instead of having an editor choosing what news you read, have editors sifting through for the stories that you can digg, simply disallowing things that are obviously spam etc. Not to mention that the comments need moderation as well.

Moving back to the article, Bill, was there a reason to link to digg.com 23 times in a 16 paragraph article? (depends on what you wanna call a paragraph)

I did say that I found this story while on digg, so let's look at what those insightful users of the English language have to say about this article criticizing them.

(remember to click on the images to see better)

The very first comment backs up the point I was making earlier about wanting to check the stories later.

Let's not get carried away, buddy.

Well I find it amusing that you have found it necessary to be so nitpicky when your name is grammatically incorrect. jermscentral?
Riiight, because we're all obviously being forced to agree to do anything posted on the internet.

Don't like the tone, aye? Has mommy never raised her voice at her precious pookie bear?

Give the man a cookie.

ROFL! Get off my internet.

I'm tired of reading stupid comments for the while. I saw this blog mentioned in the comments though, whoever it was, I hope it wasn't anything condescending. If anyone finds some particularly dreadful comments and/or submitted stories, do leave a comment or send an email.

-no digg

What Belongs On Digg?

2006-02-01T08:14:00.000-08:00

So many times on digg I'm seeing people saying stupid things. Wait, that was a very unsurprising statement, maybe I should specify. What I mean is, referencing digg's content. Why is it I am continually bombarded with idiotic comments on how X story should not be on digg? First off, let us look at what digg is.

From the digg faq:

Click on images for bigger version.

Digg is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do.

Reading about what digg.com is about, we see that it is about user driven content. If I want to submit a story about politics, then I'm free to do so, and if other users vote it for the front page then so be it. Stop with comments such as:

and

Don't tell us what does and does not belong on digg, if it reaches onto the front page, as was the story these comments were taken from, then it does belong on digg!

Yes, the digg FAQ states that it is a technology news website but once something is on the front page, even if it isn't tech related, then nothing can be done, unless of course it would be voted off. Here we now arrive at a sort of contradiction of sorts since something could be voted off the front page. The thing to look at is that it has to be voted on. What a world we live in.

-no digg

This Is No Digg

2006-01-31T16:01:00.000-08:00

Hello and welcome to No Digg, a parody weblog made in lieu of the official digg blog being made as a means to get information straight from the horse's mouth. The purpose of this weblog is to help the community of digg realize what idiots they are and how they are essentially turning a good thing into a social news ghetto. This cesspool of idiocy known as the digg.com community amazes me in that they think they are the greatest thing since the Infected Podcast , but here's some news for you, you're not. The people that make idiotic comments day in and day out can make digg not worth what it really could be, and this is not something Kevin Rose needs right about now.

To make myself clear, this weblog is not about bashing digg.com The fact of the matter is that the community, for the most part since there is always an exception to the rule, drive away people such as myself who would like to have intelligent, thought provoking conversations on news stories as they come out. Even if you're not able to be the most insightful, you can surely do better than the ever popular "no digg", more on that in a subsequent post. I know for a fact that many people do not participate in digg as much as they would like because of the poor quality of the community. If people would simply show a little consideration for each other, be a little more understanding, more mature and more intelligent, Mr. Rose would see an even bigger surge in active digg users, meaning more than just people simply checking the home page from time to time.

My aim is to help people to at least attempt comprehending how a decent online community with a TechTv backbone should act and in the end, we'll all win. The faster mister Rose can get digg to a level that he can let others run the company, the faster we can get more episodes of SYSTM and The Broken . Alas, my fellow diggers, please don't take digg down, if you know you can be intelligent and insightful when commenting on stories, then do so, and if you can't then go to some other crap site.

To the "OMG Kevin Rose Ownz me and i'd follow him even if he made digg.com into a kitten war clone" fanboy crowd who think what I'm talking about is rubbish, please pick up a dictionary, learn some manners and please ensure that your brains, however small they may be, are totally devoid of nonsensical acronyms and 1337.

"LOL"

*Puts on Teflon overcoat*

-No Digg