Talk:Digg

Why are there two sections on the Digg bar? I am deleting the one under criticism (as the bar is being rolled back by Digg) and retaining the one under history.

Surely this would only be of encyclopedic interest if it were a professional news outlet, whose articles were written by their own staff? The stories are submitted and upvoted by its userbase, and I don't see any other social bookmarking site articles have a criticism section regarding the prefered politics of its userbase. 62.56.124.189 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

read the cited article. It is of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.98.2 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Its incredible how long we've managed to keep this off the article when we have no problem talking about the politics of other sites. The usual excuse to not mention it was that there was no reliable sources. Now that that's no longer valid the excuse has changed to the supposed fact that 'website' itself is not biased. If the users and articles do not represent digg what does? If nothing else, its a notable phenomenon happening to the site which should be mentioned. People don't want the word liberal applied to digg because they fear it will damage their pet website's credibility.Jarwulf (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I edited the "Liberal bias" section to (a) remove weasel words (WP:WEASEL) and (b) specify what kind of bias and who is biased. To be honest I don't think the section is worthwhile. It is less an observation about Digg, and more an observation about the online mobilisation of liberal political supporters. Pat Conheady (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with these sentiments and think the section should be scrapped all together. Digg is not a formal media outlet or even a blog and doesn't report or purport to be unbiased nor does it have a responsibility to be so. It just posts links. And if the majority of Digg users happen to chose articles critical of those on the right or from sources on the left, then the same could happen on the other side. To use the word "bias" implies far too much about the purpose and format of Digg itself. Another noticeable thing about the section is that perhaps, maybe, if there was some kind of study done by an unbiased source that could prove a liberal "bias," it might be deserving of a section. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems unfair for a site to drive more traffic to liberal opinion the conservative. Diggs policy states

With the intention of artificially inflating or altering the 'digg count', comments, or any other Digg service, including by way of creating separate user accounts for the purpose of artificially altering Digg's services; giving or receiving money or other remuneration in exchange for votes; or participating in any other organized effort that in any way artificially alters the results of Digg's services;

The source was PBS it's government. Policeforcer (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody translate this into intelligible? man with one red shoe 02:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Change the digg image back please. Some (Personal attack removed) vandalized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul1991 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BySUXfs-3E&feature=player_embedded

Macshill (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commas and periods go inside the quotes.

I spent a lot of time going through the article correcting punctuation error. Please see the example below. Thanks!

Correct: ...originally wanted to call the site "Dignation," ...

Not Correct: ...originally wanted to call the site "Dignation", ...

--Q-cue (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily so, the punctuation only goes within the quote marks if it belongs to the quotation, so your examples are the wrong way round. http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node30.htmlMidlandLinda (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source is British; British rules on this are different than in the U.S.

Massive Censorship of Digg Uncovered

This obviously should be part of the article.

I've often suspected the same thing has been happening here on Wikipedia. 4.246.204.199 (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article in link. I've corrected it. 4.246.205.242 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Kevin Rose's twitter. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

An edit was made recently (diff) that labeled the DiggPatriots group as "far right wing" rather than "conservative". I've reverted these changes because I feel they fall under the WP:LABEL guideline in the Manual of Style. In addition, the edit was made by an Anonymous user whose edit summary reads "These people are Fascists, not conservatives." Please discuss further changes to this article's labeling of this group; inflammatory language is against the core principle of Neutral Point of View.  Amit  ►  13:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"The traffic has fallen 32 percent" Did that fact come from somewhere? 32% seems like it's probably overstated. diff ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, this is most likely sneaky vandalism. It was reported that since the release of v4 34.000 new users were created. I did a search on google and found nothing about a traffic drop, besides the one were they killed the horrible digg bar which created non-users to visit the site without them knowing. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As recent research showed 78.5% of all the Internet stats are simply made up. Now seriously, any number should be clearly referenced, if not, especially if introduced by anonymous IPs it should be removed. man with one red shoe 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Trust the wikipedia mob to expurgate well referenced truths:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1690829/traffic-plummets-26-after-digg-redesign Digg Redesigns, Loses More Than a Quarter of Audience

And look at what the other guy said, ridiculous: He quotes some unnamed "research" that pretty much negates the validity of ANY research on internet usage. Hahahaha. So because someone said 78.5% of internet stats are made up we should assume digg isn't in the supposed 21.5%... Absolutely incredible what this site will let people with agendas get away with. 85.73.85.33 (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article overly simplifies the true nature of the consequences of digg v4 and its relative demise. Just look at the number of diggs and comments as compared to a few months ago. Not a lot of people visit digg anymore. Why is this article hiding this fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.40.1 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The timeline mentions several Digg Spy / Big Spy things but the page has no explanation of those nor links to other pages about them. Either they are important and need description or irrelevant and need removal. Which is it? --69.232.198.227 (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"In an open letter to Rose, Alexis Ohanian, founder of rival site Reddit, said: 'this new version of digg reeks of VC meddling.'"

The term "VC" doesn't appear elsewhere in the article, and our page VC doesn't seem to have this usage.

What does "VC" mean? If it's a Digg thing, then we should include a quick definition in our article.

-- 187.67.203.186 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It means venture capitalist, a kind of investor. Steven Walling 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- 187.67.203.186 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)