Comments on: Digg’s new ‘auto bury’ feature

By: Gregg

Gregg — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:54:27 +0000

Yea, I hate it. Digg has the same type of articles over and over because a small minority controls what gets dugg. It’s ridiculous because there’s many of us who are interested in other things other than linux, how to crack this and that, and what’s new for the wii…

By: Svetlana Gladkova

Svetlana Gladkova — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:16:14 +0000

Hi Steve! Thank you for including Profy to your list - it’s great that someone cares enough about it all. But I have two corrections for you: Profy was once banned from Digg for apparently no reason a couple of months ago (unbanning took a week, I think and they told it had been by mistake). And we have had a story about that was indirectly related to bury brigade (http://www.profy.com/2007/02/28/supernova17-banned-from-digg/). So there’s plenty of reasons for us to be buried as well. And I really don’t understand what we can do about it - I only hope Digg owners will understand that they will eventually lose users together with good news and everything they’ll have will be photos of awesome lightnings :) Though it is actually very disappointing when you see a really good story from your blog having over 100 diggs and never getting to the front page.

By: HMTKSteve

HMTKSteve — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:16:16 +0000

I started seeing the hits from Plime in my server logs this morning. I will be investigating the site and reporting on it soon.

By: Darren Novack

Darren Novack — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:12:24 +0000

I read this on Plime.com. Plime is completely transparent. Digg users have long known that 1 digg from a top digger is worth more than 1 digg from a regular user. Plime works that way too, except you are shown a person’s power by their name and on top of that, you are shown the total power of people who voted on a story (not just the total number of people who voted).

Plime also does not ban users. The creator of the site isn’t even the highest ranked user there. Only the community can ban users. It’s a great site because of transparency.

By: HMTKSteve

HMTKSteve — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:31:42 +0000

It’s not the point of getting on Digg that is important. What is important is that “buried” is the new “banned” for these sites.

When a site is “banned” you can say, “Digg hates me.”

When a site is “buried” Digg will say, “no, the community hates you.”

I still do not see how a story with about 700 Diggs can be buried.

By: Manthem

Manthem — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:25:16 +0000

This would be the perfect opportunity to launch a new Digg. If I only had the money and resources, I would be all of this.

By: Stan Schroeder

Stan Schroeder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:10:37 +0000

@Wild: it’s important to point out that actual buries by users don’t have anything to do with stories from these domains being buried. Or, if they do, it’s negligible.

By: Wild Bluff Matt

Wild Bluff Matt — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:00:04 +0000

Any chance of them letting you back in or is that something you’d really just rather not care to bother with?

I also agree about the point that we can only see the “diggs” and not the “bury” votes. That’s suspicious and seems designed to allow them to work behind the scenes to influence.

By: Stan Schroeder

Stan Schroeder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:44:21 +0000

My first comment didn’t get through, it seems. Anyway, all these lists of silently banned sites should be put together into one big list and published - preferably on a site with high traffic and visibility.

By: Stan Schroeder

Stan Schroeder — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:35:04 +0000

Steve, here’s a suggestion. Make a big list of sites who have had all of their submissions buried in the last 7 days before reaching the front page. Include the list from my 901am article. Here’s another one from the top of my head:

deepjiveinterests.com