Archive for digg
In this latest installment of the AllSux retrospective, I’m taking a look back at the site’s most controversial and popular posts! If you’ve been reading for a while you may or may not have seen these, but they are the ones that put the site on the map and brought in the readers it has today.
(5) This post about Ask, Google and┬ Google-Sux got some attention mostly because I bashed a site, and its administrator came back at me guns blazing. However, their counterarguments got shut down pretty fast. In reality, I think it was the comments that drew more attention than the post.
(4) This post about the huge scandal about LiveLeak not being indexed by Google drew a lot of readership, though much of it was from a Spanish site I never was able to decipher!
(3) Of course, one of the biggest AllSux targets has been Digg.com – and this story that followed the huge Digg scandal┬ was the most popular of them all. While other blogs (and major news sites like Wired) were confused, I stayed up all night and summarized what was going on.
(2) The Technorati experiment had a huge readership. I think that a lot of people are interested in the deeper consequences of using social networks, and this post struck a cord with folks.
(1) Of course the most visited page on AllSux is Allsux! That bodes well for this and my other (newer) blog, because it means that there are a lot of readers who want to see the lates and greatest, and don’t just show up to read a single post and leave. Thanks to you all – keep visiting, reading, and please leave comments! Also visit this new blog I’m helping develop: WebUrbanist.com.
An honorable mention┬ goes to all of the articles on AllSux about Helium. Though none of these pages have individually made the top five, they have cumulatively done amazingly well. Why? Because other frustrated Helium writers keep finding them and sending me words of support as well as their own stories bout Helium.
Well, the Web Urbanist has some new stuff this week – and a lot of comments and traffic to boot. Why? Some of it has come from this neat archive and link list related to creative and interesting guerilla marketing campaigns. However, most of it has come from this piece (also with links and images) related to the Google Street View controversy and privacy issues. However, it is definitely worth checking out this post as well – a follow-up on the first which has amazing, clever, strange and surreal street art.
Want to get lots of traffic from Digg.com? It’s easy: just┬ submit an article that is well-written and praises Digg extensively. An article about how Digg has changed the universe┬ is currently the hottest number on the site. Surprise!┬ The article starts with propaganda of the first degree:
“With a very simple concept, Digg.com has changed the fundamental nature of the news media and how millions of people access information. Digg … democratized the media, and wrenched control of what gets read from the gatekeepers of print and broadcast corporations and gave it to the people. Now, argue about whether this is good or bad, but itÔÇÖs now a fact of life.”
Meanwhile, what about the voices of those negatively impacted or censored or banned by Digg? They are swept under the carpet unless they exist in such quantity that they can shut down the site altogether. And what about the many ways you can use Digg to your advantage? Beyond the obvious ways to manipulate Digg, there are still rumors of “bury brigades” as well as sites where you can buy, trade or sell Diggs.
People are outraged about how the news has cut out political candidates they deem ‘irrelevant’ while alternative news sources are so full of scandal stories they miss out on the real issues. So, which is worse: covering candidates who (by all estimates) have no chance, or covering only those people? Or how about: a corporate news source we know we can’t trust but that we at least understand or a news source that works in incredibly mysterious ways and seems to censor its critics?
Digg.com is likely facing a series of lawsuits that may well end this popular user-driven news site forever. The website has gone through an incredible and unprecedented series of transformations in the last 24 hours. As of right now, even major websites like Slashdot and Wired are (at best) not yet telling the full story or even (at worst) giving inaccurate or incomplete information. For example, no one is reporting the fact that the illegal code in question has been up on Digg.com for months! Digg first adhered to its Terms of Service, then violated them as well as the law in a 180-degree turn-around.
Read the rest of this entry »
… did you know that┬ all of Kevin Rose’s submissions to Digg.com end up making it to the front page? Over the past year, he has submitted an average of just under one article every two days, and every single one of these has been Dugg to the top. Gee, the founder of Digg.com coincidentally is 100% successful when making submissions to his ‘corruption-free’ site. What a surprise! Most Diggers probably have at best a 10% success rate. I won’t even bother spelling this out further. So much for new, democratic and dynamic communities of the Web 2.0 revolution!
I’m still a bit busy with other things but I thought I’d let you all know my story on Digg scandals and corruption was published (after I cleaned it up┬ a bit) on Associated Content! Of course the best part about it (irony of ironies!) is that you can go read the article and Digg it even though my URL is still banned from their system – too funny!!!
Meanwhile, it took them long enough but Digg finally figured out how to stop the tactic of adding a ‘period’ after the URL to slip a banned URL or duplicate story into the system. ALSO check out this hilarious Digg-bashing Digg-clone – AWESOME!
Update: I have to run for a bit, but thought I’d add this real quick: a screenshot from Google Analytics from today so far – soon I expect Digg.com will be my highest source of traffic for the day, even though my URL is supposedly not reachable from their site. Too funny! And to top their corruption off, they’ve effectively buried my Digg post so you can’t even find it if you search for the exact headline.
Note: as of 9:30 PST the Digg´┐Ż traffic´┐Ż is up to over %30
« Previous entries
This is too funny … a very intelligent-sounding report just came out with 5 reasons Digg can’t be corrupted by cash. Of course, a Wired contributor already proved that this was in fact not the case. Still, given the relationship of Wired and Reddit one does lead one to wonder. So,┬ instead of judging, I┬ sat down with the list, and took it apart, piece by piece:
1) Super-History Tracking. Their claim: because they can track individual computer histories they can see if you visited a site with a pay-per-Digg program. So what? You could look up those programs on a school or library computer! And if they start blocking accounts from publicly shared computers? (a) They might hit the wrong person – an innocent follow-up user┬ and (b) their own users will revolt and ditch them.
2) Timing is Everything. Their claim: if something is voted up slower rather than right away, it is suspicious. Fine. I’ll go to any of a dozen university buildings I can access, or local libraries, and hop between dozens of available computers in under an hour, building up Diggs with pre-made accounts. Before you know it, I’ll be on page one from piggy-back Diggers.
3) Spam Reporting Lowers Reputations. Their claim: your user account will be flagged if you exhibit unusual Digg behavior. I could almost laugh out loud at this one. So what? Just make up a new account. Takes 30 seconds and a junk e-mail address.
4) Where You Vote Matters. Their claim: because pay-per-Digg users jump directly to sites they will get flagged. That’s an easy technicality to overcome, or at least it will be once Digg.com searches actually work. Pay-per-Digg services will simply┬ advise ’employees’ to go to Digg and search for certain keywords, find the story, and Digg it. Duh.
5) Big Targets are Easy. Their claim: (a) lawsuits from pissed off Digg┬ and (b) users getting pissed about abuse will bring these pay-per-Digg sites down. Well, (a) I haven’t heard of any lawsuits yet and (b) who isn’t pissed about abuse? Digg openly accepts and endorses plagiarized content. If anyone is going to get sued, it is Digg.com.
Well, I think my fascinating encounters with Digg are at an end. I have to say it was worth the ride, and thanks to those of you who participated in various subversions, submitted comments or threw a laugh or two my way. I’ve enjoyed tracking back some links and seeing what you wrote about all of this on your *own* blog, but don’t forget – you can leave some comments here to if you’d like (I recently added that feature, which some of you have already taken advantage of. Kudos!).
· Next entries »