Talk:Digg/Archive 2

message: I was watching it unfold in real time, so this is my take on it, I am not that great a writer so I will  leave the actual article editing to someone who understands the wiki edit-quitte better than I.
February 11th, 2007
The Doom9 forum had a post in which a user details the procedure they followed to retrieve the AACS key used to decrypt an HD-DVD and rip the contents for viewing on unauthorized boxes(such as Linux). This is out in the wild on the net and no one makes a fuss over it as it is relatively unknown at the time it is published.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=952968#post952968
Sometime in April, 2007
Websites around the net begin to hear word about a cease and desist letter issued to a blog that prints the HD-DVD key in it, this story is picked up on Digg and the inklings of what is to come begins to rear it's head.
May 1st, 2007 
A user on Digg submits a story named "Spread this number" and it is promptly erased upon reaching the front page, no explanation is given and no action is taken against the user. The same user then posts the story "Spread this number again" and once again it reaches the front page, only this time it has gets massive amounts of diggs(votes for it int he positive), over 15,000, pretty much setting it up to become one of Digg's most popular stories ever, the previous record holder having about 22,000 or so. This story all of a sudden just vanishes, and word gets around that the user is also I.P. banned from registering at the site again.
Soon more users try to get the story on to the front page and all stories are erased, and the users banned. Even stories mentioning the efforts of the Digg staff, with no mention at all of the HD-DVD key are being erased and those users also banned. This gets the community into an uproar, how can a site based on the philosophy that the user controls what content makes it to the front page be so against that very belief. Almost organically they idea to flood the Digg front page with stories of nothing but stories about the key while burying everything else as "Wrong topic" seems to take shape in the minds of all Digg users. Soon hundreds of stories an hours get submitted to the site and thousands of diggs a minute force the stories onto the front page almost as quickly as they are made. At one point in the revolt the entire front page, along with pages 2 and 3, were nothing but stories about the key, or just blatantly containing the key in the story title or description.
Jay Adelson blog post trying to explain why the story article were removed from Digg:
"What’s Happening with HD-DVD Stories?
by Jay Adelson at 1pm PST, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Hey all,
I just wanted to explain what some of you have been noticing around some stories that have been submitted to Digg on the HD DVD encryption key being cracked.
This has all come up in the past 24 hours, mostly connected to the HD-DVD hack that has been circulating online, having been posted to Digg as well as numerous other popular news and information websites. We’ve been notified by the owners of this intellectual property that they believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights. In order to respect these rights and to comply with the law, we have removed postings of the key that have been brought to our attention.
Whether you agree or disagree with the policies of the intellectual property holders and consortiums, in order for Digg to survive, it must abide by the law. Digg’s Terms of Use, and the terms of use of most popular sites, are required by law to include policies against the infringement of intellectual property. This helps protect Digg from claims of infringement and being shut down due to the posting of infringing material by others.
Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information - and we want Digg to continue to be a great resource for finding the best content. However, in order for that to happen, we all need to work together to protect Digg from exposure to lawsuits that could very quickly shut us down.
Thanks for your understanding,
Jay "
http://blog.digg.com/?p=73
This post seemed to only add gasoline to the fire, as word also began to spread that HD-DVD was a sponsor of the show Diggnation, it seemed more a blog trying to bow down to the money rather than the users the very site is built upon. Madness spreads to all facets of Digg, and the mods on Digg try to fight back, but at this point it is a losing battle. They try erasing stories, but 10 replace those erased. They try banning people, but at this point they lost respect for the site and didn't care if they were banned. They tried to covertly promote stories to the front page with fake diggs, but people soon notice the action and take screenshots of this and this also gets spread around the net. They try to reset diggs on stories already on the front page, but the stories get diggs so fast that it makes very little difference. They try taking down the submit page, but this only made the revolter focus on digging the stories which were already on the front page. The page is promptly brought back up. At this point the mod staff goes quiet all of a sudden and they seemed to give up trying to rein int he site, which they had clearly lost to the overwhelming power and number of users. At one point Digg is actually taken offline, not by the staff but because of the sheer number of digging and submitting the server was handling. They site returned but the site was acting strangely the rest of the night.
Kevin Rose explaining to the Digg community that they have reversed their stance on the HD-DVD matter:
"Digg This: (Followed by Key sequence, censored by Wikipedia) 
by Kevin Rose at 9pm PST, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…
In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
Digg on,
Kevin"
http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
At which point the site is site is taken offline (the standard Digg maintenance page is shown), and then brought back online with a new story submitted by Kevin Rose linking to the previously mentioned blog post.
So it seems that the community has shown the Digg staff that the site can not survive if they have no users on it using it. Everything slowly returns to normal, and life goes on. But Digg needs to realize this had very little to do with the HD-DVD key itself, that was just a way to get the point across, and more to do with internal censorship of articles posted by the users. Why is it ok to post hacks for the PSP (Dark_Alex custom firmware) but then turn around and say we can't post some numbers(by a corporation also sponsoring Diggnation). They need to reform and refine their post deletion policy, if it is truly for spam, porn and etc, then do just that, but do not choose to censor because that is what the money tells you to do.
NOTE: I may have left out a thing or two, but this is more or less what happened on the site. DCJoeDog 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The events of Digg's HD-DVD Night

message: The article at this time has large amounts of unnotable, irrelevant and unneeded information. In addition the article is rather lengthy as it is. Anyone else feel it is in need of a clean up in order to remove other unncecessary and unnotable information? --Dr. WTF 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Large amounts of unnotable information in the article

message: Maybe we should add a "Top Users" section to the article, as they have been a major part some of the controversies surrounding digg. If you just do a quick Google Search for "digg top users", it comes up with many results. Tanman627 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, we don't need that kind of advertisement. -- ReyBrujo 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user from ip address 82.35.213.70 just added a top digg users section.  Would it be inappropriate to remove it? Yavoh 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove some of the useless information in the 'Top Users' section.  Some of the text is irrelevant, not within the context of the subject, or both.  The only user worth mentioning, it seems, is digitalgopher since this user had the the highest amount of front page stories. 12.33.41.254 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top users

message: Anyone think adding the location of Digg's headquarters is a good idea? The link is http://wikimapia.org/1455799/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Virtualnick (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a WikiMapia entry for Digg's Headquarters? 

message: I came to this Wikipedia article in the hopes of answering the question, "What language is Digg written in?" I seem to recall that it uses Ruby on Rails, but I wasn't sure and wanted to confirm. I think that could be an interesting addition to the article. Digg uses a lot of interesting technologies (dare I use the word "Ajax"?), and information on what powers Digg would be a nice addition. – Mipadi 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick Google suggests it's coded in PHP. Rufous 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I knew I was wrong! – Mipadi 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically, it's LAMP plus ajax. 24.21.192.220 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ajax is just javascript, and the server-side part of it is powered by PHP (presumably), so just LAMP. :P --—JeremyBanks Talk 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What language is Digg written in?" 

message: Fearne Cotton redirects here, when it should go to an article about the UK childrens TV Show, Diggit!. Unfortunatly, I do not know enough about the show to even create a stub article. 81.137.159.61 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because someone redirected Diggit here. I will create an article later, and fix that redirect. There seems to be some information and the show appears to have been notable enough, as it was broadcasted for 8 years and there is enough information for it at tv.com. -- ReyBrujo 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stub article and redirect are now in place: :Diggit (TV show). - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diggit

message: It down for anyone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.177.67.8 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digg Down? 

message: As anyone going to add a section to the "criticism" part that talks about the disproportionate number of left-leaning articles that are on Digg? There are at least 4 rawstory, think progress, and crooksandliars articles that float to the top a day, and it's something you definitely start to notice after a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.88.140.206 (talk • contribs).
You'd have to have some hard evidence of left-wing bias to add this Lurker 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digg's failings have been discussed in places like the WSJ and the evidence is right in front of anyone who cares to glance at its front page. Stuff like Gore's mansion and Sen. William Jefferson never seem to see the light of day while Bush will make the frontpage everytime he picks his nose. There is literally a constant stream of antiadministration articles making it to the front page every day. Many sites have a noticable overall bias but I can't see how anyone could argue for this supposed politically neutral Digg. Digg is still partially a techsite but it is also a leftwing political/religious blog/soapbox, a forum, and a geewhiz look at me linkpage.  Jarwulf 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, there does need to be a section about Digg's biases. Digg has an incredible amount of extremely obvious biases. Ron Paul is idolized on Digg, Everybody hates George Bush, and there are about 50 Linux/Freeware articles a day. it doesn't matter what your opinion is, these need to be mentioned somewhere. Wikilost 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact this article goes in depth about the AACS encryption key controversy, which was just a blip on the radar, yet still ignores the massively obvious political nature of digg, goes to show how much of a joke wikipedia is. Serving up hardcore dailykos style articles has been a major part of Digg for years and is increasingly its dominant feature, (Obama McCain anyone?) plugging your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist does not make it so Jarwulf (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, log in and digg the stories that you like, what stops you? Wikipedia is not a bitching place for people who don't get their favorite stories on top. Complaining that Wikipedia is a joke will also not move forward your point. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't complain on Wikipedia because I have some secret ambition to win the hearts and minds of leftwing 15 year olds on Digg. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of using websites and 'blogs' as sources for innumerable other articles but ignoring the massively obvious political bias of Digg under the pretext that we have to wait for the New York Times to do an expose themselves in order to have a good enough source. Or that somehow that information is 'unencyclopedic' and does not 'deserve' to be in the article while the AACS spat does.Jarwulf (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I read this correctly you want to push your POV here even though there's no reliable source for it and the matter is not encyclopedic. We can talk about AACS spat and if it deserves to be in the article or not, but remember that a bad piece of information doesn't justify including another one, these issues are disjunct (it's irrelevant to political bias issue if we have or don't have AACS spat in the article) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First that the Digg community promotes more stories and headlines favorable to leftwing (as defined by wikipedia) sensibilities than rightwing (as defined by wikipedia) is not POV it is fact. Secondly, despite your apparently distorted interpretation, what I clearly say is that. 1. Based upon other articles there is already a plethora of good sources (easily found on Google) available to cite the bias with many notable authors. Yet the editors of this page oddly enough, insist on holding this article to a nebulous 'higher standard' and keep any mention of bias off with the first excuse that all this is somehow not good enough. 2. The fact that AACS has remained in the article (whether it deserves to or not is irrelevant) while any mention of Digg's politics is continuously deleted, show how flimsy the second excuse of non-notability is. I could be bold but I'd likely be deleted the next time the Bury Brigade rolls back around Jarwulf (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Digg is a democracy, stories are pushed ahead by votes, this can change at any point (go ahead, log in and promote your favorite story). Talking about Digg bias is like talking about US right-wing bias because the president is Republican or left-wing bias because of the Congress. A moment in time is not relevant nor encyclopedic especially for democratically-driven content. Also, come back with some reliable sources and then we'll talk about this again, till then I fail to see the relevance of your opinion. I also explained about your AACS point and you ignored my explanation, feel free to remove the info if you consider it bad, don't use bad info to support other bad info (not that I say that AACS is bad info, but even if it were it would still be irrelevant to this current discussion, you can never push some content saying that "but that info is equally bad or even worse" -- if that info is bad be bold and remove it so it won't remain as an excuse for other bad content, however be preparted to see people having other opinions than you -- and be prepared to accept that idea without labeling them as leftwing nuts) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm from Holland, and consider myself very liberal, especially by American standards. That doesn't stop me from being very annoyed bij the biased stories that pop up on the frontpage of Digg day by day. Pro-Obama and anti-McCain, without any exceptions. I think this Wikipedia article should definately mention the liberal character/ bias of the Digg-community.  -- Tomroes 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Digg bias

message: There appears to be a line inserted into this article that should not be there.  I would fix it but I don't have the rights.  To find it just search for "ferret" or the HD-DVD key. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcbarron (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent vandalism (just search for the word "ferret") 

message: Someone has changed the site photo to a screenshot of the numbers. It may be a good idea to remove it. Bappt 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site Picture 

message: I believe that the HD DVD group signed a deal with Revision3 Corporation's hit show Diggnation but  is in no way linked to Digg, except the fact that some of the ownership of Digg runs Rev3.
If I am however wrong please post it here and correct me for future reference.
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TSSaloic (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digg and HD DVD Connection Nonexistant 

message: [text copied from http://blog.digg.com/?p=74 deleted. —tregoweth (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source An admin should stick something in about the initial deletions, user response, and Digg policy change.Tyro 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digg bows down to users! 

message: I've changed this to semi-protection.  If a problem occurs, reversing my decision is cheap.
I note that Wikipedia:Protection policy places "Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses" (this situation) under "temporary semi-protection," not "temporary protection."  IMO this would've solved the problem in the first place by controlling the vandalism and limiting edits to confirmed known Wikipedians (who presumably would not have engaged in vandalizing the article, although that's correctable as well). Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've added the material Cerejota proposed above to the article Lurker 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, Lurker, for doing your part to make Wikipedia as unreliable as Digg.
Lurker, thanks for that, and anonymous: please try to understand how different Wikipedia is in function and content from other sources before gettign sarcastic with us. Even non-admins like myself hold significant power to change how this work, and rarely would admins not take into acocunt us. ANd when they do, it doesn't last.--Cerejota 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: I have attempted to rewrite the HD-DVD issue so that an outside reader would be able to read the article and understand what was being said.  One of my primary sticking points is what specifically the "AACS consortium" is.  Wikipedia does not define AACS consortium. The AACS page has a few of the developers of AACS listed.  HD-DVD lists a bunch of supporters for it.   It is not clear to an uninformed reader who is sending cease and desist letters.  If somebody could clarify that in the article...Sentineneve 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consortium is a reference to the AACS LA Founders odds are we should find a better way of writing that or just state the letters are from the AACS watchdog organization or the like. --Darkstar949 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Clarity Issue 

message: I think that should be in the article since it was an article that may have ended up deleted as well, on Digg. The only problem would be finding a "media" source that details this, because there are several blog posts about it on the internet.
The problem is the deleted articles, Eg., this article on digg is now deleted, but can be found on Google cache: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Detailed_Account_of_How_the_HD_DVD_proccessing_key_was_found
(I hope this edit goes through, because someone else posted at the same time I did which put theirs in instead of mine)
:Here's a blog so you at least know what I'm referring to: http://texyt.com/Digg+founders+took+HD-DVD+sponsorship+00071
The probable reason there are no WP:RS commenting on this is because this is sheer loony conspiracy theory. --Cerejota 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out that it's not something that came out of thin air, episode #76 of the Diggnation podcast is one example. Video stream of episode --DCJoeDog 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mentions of HD-DVD sponsorship of Diggnation, and relation to the controversy? 

message: There seems to be a growing number of articles that are referring to the events as the "Digg Riot" perhaps we should change the title of the section to reflect that, or put some more detail in to HD DVD Night and get the article renamed. --Darkstar949 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But a Digg riot can happen again, at least this name distinguishes it from any other that may occur--DCJoeDog 02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we call the next one if/when it happens the "Second Digg Riot" and this would will then be called the "First Digg Riot" --Darkstar949 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "HD-DVD DRM Key Controversy" or "Digg Riot" 

message: Why do you people remove such things, it's just a 16 digital hexadecimal code. They did not copyright the code, we can distribute the code in any way we feel like, its not like we're telling people how to use the code (which would be criminal... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.15.80 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. WP:KEYSPAM --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting the decryption code... why remove it? 

message: If you go to archive.org and type in digg.com, it will show up results prior to 2004. Does anyone know if Rose purchased digg.com from someone else? If so, how much for? This would be a good addition to the article I think. 82.163.38.88 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org 

message: Someone put the template  up for deletion... please comment...--Cerejota 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|09F9-notice}} TfD 

message: YO.  digg's "cluttering of google results" is NOT a slashdot effect.  I'd fix this myself, but the page is locked... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.210.133 (talk • contribs).
: it's locked for anonymous users. the solution is to get an account :) Misterdiscreet 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slashdot Effect

message: I've reverted my previous contribution back into this article.  The reasons the person who removed it gave were that it is not important and that it it needs more references.  I think it would clearly be important if Digg were banning members because they support Ron Paul's presidential campaign or because they're posting articles critical of the Council on Foreign Relations.  If Digg is banning users because of difference of opinion with its management, that is clearly important since Digg promotes itself as being an unbiased news aggregate.  As for the claim about it not having enough references, I think its pretty obvious that the one reference is sufficient.  Feel free to improve the text or the references. Life, Liberty, Property 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained in your talk page, we need more than one reference, especially when the site has been created exactly a month ago and does not qualify as a reliable source. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. -- ReyBrujo 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xuvious ban 

message: :I'v removed the global warming part from "which often leads to expungement of criticism of hotbed topics like global warming that does not mesh with the prevailing view of the community" since it doesnt appear to have a reference(or agree with my and other ppls experiance of digg). Mite need a different example if there is one but global warming isnt the right one. John.n-irl 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming?

message: 67.180.60.2 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Information?

message: Should the recent takeover by Microsoft of Digg's advertising be mentioned in the article?
Spikeyone 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Advertising 

message: I think this template should be added there:
206.47.141.21 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section importance tag to it. There should be a criticism section but its now about half the article's length. It looks unbalanced and overly critical of a website that millions of people use happily.Operating 17:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "millions of people use happily" is OR. i think OR is perfectly acceptable, but not all wikipedians do. just fyi.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.214.5 (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be OR if i'd made that comment in the main article space. I didn't. I made it here on a talk page signed with my name, so it's my personal opinion. Just fyi. Operating 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Criticism Section 

message: The article for shoutwire has been deleted, I assume the same thing will happen to the digg article since, well lets face it, they are pretty much the same thing and I don't a war over biases is a good thing. Toxic Ninja 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoutwire 

message: Reference #3 points a non existent article
128.211.238.144 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #3 points a non existent article 

message: Whay the hell does my GOATSE section keep getting deleted?? I know lots of digg users are wikipedias, but denying facts doesn't make them not real.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilost (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goatse  

message: Because the page is protected from editing, I can't add interwiki to the Hebrew Wikipedia, so just add he:digg.  thanks, Netanel h (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki

message: The site seems to be completely offline right now. As many of you probably know, it's been undergoing a lot of work lately, and there's been quite a few bugs. I just figured I'd put up something so people would see it, should they check Wiki.
So, does anybody have any information as to what's going on at the moment? -D14BL0 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site maintenance 

message: I found an interesting article that explains why digg works (http://www.managingio.com/2008/03/29/why-digg-works-and-where-it-fails/) but i cannot link to it because the site is protected...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinger123 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Digg works 

message: Ronjohn's edit (07:35, 19 April 2008) replaces the summary here with the exact text from digg.com/about/ which isn't appropriate here.
What are you talking about and next time quote your stuff retardRon John (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revert 

message: So, huge swaths of this article are lifted directly from Digg itself. That's generally inappropriate, as I understand it, so I'm gonna attempt to rewrite those parts. Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the content seems to have been copied from their site.  I've removed the obvious copyright violations and unsourced criticism. Nakon 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or... yeah, you could just delete it all. That was fast. Wow. Howa0082 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is such an ad for Digg... 

message: It would be helpful to know the difference between these, as well as what stories are. Are they news webpages or something else that's narrative?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: links and stories

message: The Google PageRank article describes the PageRank algorithm, so why not describe the secret sauce for choosing popular articles at Digg?  AndrewHZ (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable source for that? If you do let us know... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digg algorithm 

message: I was going through some old bookmarks and I found one labeled "noozy.net - Current news from fark" with the URL http://noozy.net/now/fark.s/. When I clicked on it, it redirected to Digg. Was this the orginal website? -- LGagnon 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old name?

message: I see that my attempts to add a section on Digg's losses to the criticism section have met with some resistance, so I think we should discuss it here. The news that they are losing money was covered quite a bit (http://news.google.com/news?&q=digg+revenue) by reliable sources. I think the news is relevant given businessweek's coverage alone. I realize the techcrunch source isn't really reliable (I was unsure whether it belongs here), but I thought their analysis balanced out the businessweek article. Any comments? Meanwhile, I'll move this out of the criticism section because it doesn't really belong there as is. Rm999 (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Revenue is am important issue, but I wouldn't like to frame this as a criticism, that's a bit too POVish for my taste, as for the techcrunch it even had the word "rumors" in the link, I think we should try to keep rumors and speculations out of Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 08:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Techcrunch analyzed the numbers in the context of rumors, but analysis is allowed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. I was careful to use the word "speculate" to make it clear we are discussing an opinion, not a fact. The techcrunch analysis brought another POV by pointing out what I consider obvious: Digg is losing money because their employees are working on development, not direct revenue generation. Regardless, it's in a gray enough area that I agree we can drop the techcrunch part. Rm999 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Analysis and opinions are allowed as long as they come from reliable and important sources and in my opinion have to be aged a bit, like good wine, since Wikipedia is not necessary a minute-by-minute report on things, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia that captures "encyclopedic" info, which rumors and speculations are not. I'm glad that you agree to drop that part. man with one red shoe 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue Criticism 

message: I'm on Windows XP service pack 2, I tried two different computers and Digg doesn't work right in Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, OR Google Chrome.  I"m serious... I can't click "sort by most dugg" it just waits and waits and waits and never displays the answer.  This leaves me wondering...what browser is Digg SUPPOSED to work in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.97.118 (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what browser is digg SUPPOSED to work in?? 

message: Come on, this is wikipedia, common sense has to respected sometimes over a fanatical sticking to "sources" only. i.e. of course people bury stories they don't agree (e.g. politically), this is more common sense than gravity. --AaThinker (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "suspicion that some people bury opinions they don't like" 

message: This section is more of a criticism of thinkprogress than digg. There are no cited sources criticizing Digg for the event. I'm going to remove the section unless anyone objects. Rm999 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   UPS Controversy 

message: I think this talk page is growing quite large. I believe it would be appropriate to archive it. WP:ARCHIVE suggest that we get some WP:CON before that happens, so I am here asking. Should this talk page be archived? Paulish (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive talk page