« Previous post
Next post »

February 1, 2007

Digg Removes List of Top Users

Michael Arrington

71 comments »

In a long blog post, Digg founder Kevin Rose explains why they’re removed their list of top users, who were ranked based on how many stories they’ve been able to promote to the home page. Since seven of the nine paragraphs of the post talk about the steps Digg has taken to fight spam and gaming of their system, it is reasonable to conclude that this is yet another step in that fight.

Top Digg users are often requested to help stories get the the home page, sometimes in return for cash payments. By removing the list, Digg makes it harder to figure out who those users are.

Rose also says that they will take steps to point out users who tend to vote for stories on similar topics. The goal, of course, will be to build community.

  • Sphere It

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 at 11:16 pm and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. Micro Persuasion

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 am

  2. Pain and Glory from the Trenches of the IT World

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 am

  3. One Powerful Word

    February 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm

  4. Inside Social News » Blog Archive » Digg’s Friend Recommendations - The Overlooked Announcement

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm

  5. cheapest fioricet

    March 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 am

  6. Digg remove lista de “top users” | TNow

    April 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. SearcH EngineS WeB

    February 1st, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Will be interesting to see the effect on Diggs

  2. Davide Salerno

    February 1st, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    I think that it’s a very good think to fight the spam

  3. Otis Gospodnetic

    February 1st, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    Any popularity list will attract spammers and vain people. This is one of the reasons I never added the commonly seen “popular” page to Simpy. It’s too attractive a target for spammers and self-promoters. I think this is a fine move by Digg, as would be (is?) addition of nofollow. I did that too, not long ago, and then saw Wikipedia did the same.

    Digg and other similar sites seem to have created a breed of people who think Digg, del.icio.us, Simpy, and other similar services are all about promotion. They are there so that the little long tail bloggers can promote their get-rich schemes, their acne removal, dog training, coupon giving, college loan repaying, house mortgage spam. Major pollution. Major resource waste. Major time sink for those of us who have to deal with it and fight it.

  4. Say No to Crack

    February 1st, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    How will that help fight the spam? The top users aren’t spamming the site … seems to me that removing it will encourage more spam.

    Anita

  5. Yohay

    February 1st, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Its a good step in the right direction. Digg has been gamed too many times already.

  6. Darren Stuart

    February 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 am

    Digg has turned in to a farboy war site these days.

    post a story that mentions apple and jobs and its frontpage news even if its not news. Ok you can filter that stuff out but its not great because I want to get news on the latest real happenings with apple not crap on what steve jobs pet rabbit ate for breakfast.

    So basically they are going to do an amazon like feature where they say hey you might digg this because other people that digg like you did. Now that might be cool.

  7. Svetlana Gladkova

    February 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 am

    I guess the next step should be removing social networking aspect from Digg - no friends feature at all: it is obvious that we sometimes digg stories submitted by our friends automatically simply because they are friends. Is not it another way to manipulate Digg?

  8. Elenoire

    February 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 am

    It’s a step in the right direction.
    Very good!

    Elenoire Versus Elenoire
    http://elenoireversuselenoire.spaces.live.com/

  9. Rick

    February 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 am

    Sorry, off-topic comment here but I wanted to highlight the recent announcement by the BBC about their proposals for future on-demand delivery of audio / video content.

    TechCrunch recently discussed the BBC in the ‘BBC Announces….What?’ post (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/23/bbc-announceswhat/) but I think this is a really important issue for UK residents as it proposes using Microsoft Windows DRM to protect the files, this of course locks it in only to anyone using Windows as the DRM is not supported on OSX or Linux. Given that the BBC is meant to be a non-exclusive provider then this is not a good thing.

    There is an open consultation into the new on-demand services by the BBC Trust, there is information and a questionnaire allowing you to give feedback on the proposal, please check it out at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/.....vices.html and answer the questionnaire.

    Michael, surely an article about this would be worthwhile? It would particularly be a good TechCrunch UK post if that ever gets going again.

    My apologies for the off-topic comment but I think it’s an important issue.

  10. Rodney Rumford

    February 2nd, 2007 at 3:28 am

    I am glad to see them taking these steps. I think it is a move in the right direction. I suspect that this will have a positive net result after the potential controvery dies down.

  11. Evelin

    February 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 am

    good job

  12. Anshul

    February 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 am

    Well as of this moment, the top users list is still alive. Even if they do remove it, it wont make much of a difference as most of the heavy users already know top 10 users by username.

  13. Otis Gospodnetic

    February 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 am

    Svetlana:
    Won’t really help, I think. There are other ways to connect. When people I know want extra digs (always?), they IM me. Hm, 1 digg, new currency?

  14. Jeff

    February 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 am

    Digg sucks because digg is prone to the crap that is the web.

    FREE.

    Free invites all the people who want something for nothing. They think that the system owes them something, because some guys built something they ‘think’ they now own it.

    The guys who built it are so desparate to be a google, a yahoo, they fear the truth.

    And that truth is that to be good, to be truly valuable, it can never be free.

    Free doesn’t work, look at digg and every site desperate for audience, they all whore themselves to be popular and always turn into spamfests.

    Imagine if you had to pay to use digg.

    You wouldn’t get all the crap that is free social networking, not even the numbers, but I bet you could attract an audience.

    A relaible faithful sick-of-all-the BS audience who would not only be true to the what you were doing but actually give an honest care about the thing you built.

    Tomorrow I’m going to build a site where you pay to get to, just like digg but with no crap or spam or ADS or gaming.

    A site that is for you where you benefit on every level.

    Maybe even get a share of the revenue

    Will you come?

    Of course you will, even just to check it out.

    Even if you don’t join, you’ll still blog and talk and spread the idea.

    I bet if I charged a $100 a year per person, I could get a million subscribers after 12 months

    That’s news, that’s power.

    Clean, honest and the best.

    I’ll take that bet.

    Jeff

  15. TreeLife

    February 2nd, 2007 at 4:52 am

    I totally agree with #13. Once you make something for free you’ll get all sorts of things and most likely not the best input or quality participation.

  16. Rajeev Vashisht

    February 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 am

    Well different people have different ways of dealing with spam. I tried to become a registered user of Engadget but the process never worked, neither the comments are posted nor a user name sent even after trying umpteen times. Maybe the fever of succcess. Also at HuffingTon Post I could register my name but they would not publish my comments. Thinkprogress allows like our own TECHCRUNC’s good ethical team
    .
    Three Cheers
    http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com

  17. Laura

    February 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 am

    It’s a good step and I wonder if reddit will follow this trend. if they will not do this we could observe if indeed the users rate it positive

  18. Fashion Industry Ceo

    February 2nd, 2007 at 5:12 am

    I actually visited digg like one or two times but never go back…it says its all about user content but only thing that is ever on the front page is about apple,microsoft,computers…. I started a site that is like digg but for blogs only cuts down on the spam and builds reciprical links through blogs promoting their blog on their page for frontpage ranks…and everyone is on the frontpage at sometime because everytime someone votes for your blog you get promoted to the top of the frontpage..but it takes atleast three votes to be published to the frontpage until then you stay in the new and unpublished section… Techcrunch is on their and users earn a share of ad revenue for having popular articles that earn from google adsense…

    http://www.rankmyblog.net :)

  19. heri

    February 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 am

    kevin is definetely sending mixed signals. when you have a system that works like digg, of course there will be people wanting to organize and promote stories that they like. you cant expect people to vote as an individual, they have friends, they have jobs, they are involved in communities. they should have focused into the tech news at first and stay there. now digg is becoming mainstream with inaccurate, sensantionalist, boring news.

  20. Bob

    February 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 am

    I agree with #13 Digg Sucks.

    Unless you want to see articles about Digg or the newest Free collection of fonts, the stories are crap. Removing the top users list won’t matter, people can just look at the profile of submitters for articles on the home page. The only articles that make it to the home page are the ones submitted by the top users anyways.

  21. datter

    February 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 am

    Digg is a great idea which has grown faster than it’s creators ability to administer it.

    In a perfect world, they’d be ahead of these sort of problems, rather than playing catch-up trying to fix scenario after it’s proven to be broken. I suppose broken is a bit harsh actually, but the site is definitely being gamed with Rose et al trying their hardest to implement some rules/policies that will keep it together without destroying the essence of what the site is all about.

    Being forerunners in this sort of self-run community, they get to sort out all the pain for those similar sites that will follow later and improve on the idea. Slashdot lead the way for a long while in this regard, and Digg came along and improved on the model without having to figure out a lot of the issues Slashdot had already been through. Now Digg is leading the way and having to wade through the mire themselves.

    Sucks to be out front sometimes, but that’s the price of success.

    datter
    http://www.datter.com

  22. Nick

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 am

    The problem with this is that many of the top users on digg are the top users because they enjoy the fame associated with it. Seeing your name at the top of a prominent list, such as diggs Top Users list, helps keep users motivated and working for free. Now that digg has taken this away from them, I can definitely see some of the top digg users backlashing.

    -Nick
    http://adgridwork.com

  23. Mark Seremet

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:07 am

    I have to admit to having reached out to the top guys to promote a story…it’s probably a good move.

  24. Stephen

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 am

    As for removing the friends feature … might be a good idea. Or at least limiting your friends to 100 or 1,000 or something. I’m getting spammed by notices that I have a new friend … who usually turns out to be an SEO hack with 5,000 friends.

  25. Anand

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 am

    Now, there will be an extra bunch who will ’sell’ the list of top diggers. You can buy that list, and the job becomes normal as ever. Big deal!

  26. chris

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 am

    It has always been very clear that the posts making it to the top are not making it there on their own merits.

    The spamming is a big problem and i sympathise, we have a lot of spam posts at our site, we limit the numbers per shop per day though.

    chris
    http://www.frostfirepulse.com

  27. visible.mobi

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 am

    Definitely a step in the right direction.

  28. Bernardo

    February 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 am

    User content and free is great. What is not great is lack of personalization. Through my Diggs, through my friends, through the diggs of people who digged like me, I should get my own view of the news.

    If I am consistent I will not see spam or news about macs, if they don’t interest me. One size does not fit all.

    It is amazing to me how little we have done for personalization. Ubiquous personalization in digg, youtube, search, etc, etc. We have work to do.

  29. HMTKSteve

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 am

    I will be saying goodbye to Digg.

    Digg was fun because it is a game! By removing the game (not gaming) from Digg they will also lose those users who submit because they enjoy the game that is Digg.

  30. Jeremy Steele

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:16 am

    That is alright, they could still sell off Digg for millions of dollars and retire happily. Even if the system completely died off, the domain itself is worth millions.

  31. seofreelancer

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 am

    I can say that is good idea. No more game - no more stupid gamers. If author changes game rules during game a players can go home.

  32. Startup Booster

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 am

    I don’t agree with this. I don’t think this is the direction that Digg should go. To me, this seems like a move to hide their real issue.

    Why would you hide top users list if those top users aren’t gaming the system. Rose should rather introduce tools and REMOVE the FRIENDs tool first to avoid these issues rather than just randomly banning sites and users and now removing the top users list. I have read many articles about how digg is pretty much run by their top users for 80%+ of their content. I am working on a blog posting that will talk just about these issues.

    -Guna

  33. Go Away Digg

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 am

    i get tired of people asking me to digg stories for them. doesn’t that undermine the entire premise behind this stupid website? and also, who exactly are we digging stories for? The general public? No, you’re digging stories for the same techies who have already read that story an hour ago. What’s the point?

  34. leo Casey

    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 am

    # 32, I couldn’t agree with you more. What’s sucks about Digg and del.icio.us, I used to spend hours posting my links on their site. Once, I was off the homepage, neither of them have a decent (not even great) search so I could find them later for referrence.

  35. Stan Hansen

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am

    I think this is a horrible move for Digg. It will not motivate any of their top users to continue Digging. I agree the practice of them getting paid to Digg is something that has to stop, but removing the list of top Diggers is a bad move.

    This will have bad long term consequences.

    Stan

    Idea Thunderdome

  36. EZecho

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 am

    Well, digg just took another step for fighting with spam comments and stories. what I think is the valauble user is the one with loyalty, beacuse they like the system and service, they enjoy the environment of the site, they would not care about if their name appare in the front page or not.

  37. Dude, get a life

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 am

    Are spammers really the problem here, or are there just too many sad souls who need a friend, a hobby and ultimately a real life (away from their computer keyboard)? It is a part of the ‘Internet culture’ that’s least understood.

  38. Startup Booster

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 am

    #34 Agree.

    I’ve talked about this on my blog post. Hopefully Digg doesn’t ban Blogger’s like myself who believe this move is a bad idea.

  39. Josiah

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 am

    Removing the list of ‘top diggers’ is a complete waste of time and a silly way to combat spammers and people looking for find top Diggers to bribe. Since Digg.com still weighs diggs by top users more than Joe Shmoe, one only has to look at the front page stories and list of people who have digged it and bam, you have your list of the big boys. Easy. Or, you could simply look as the submitters of the top stories, as they tend to come up again and again on the front page.

    Removing a public list of top users when the data is all there in front of you is silly.

    Until Digg starts devaluing top users and starts valuing other variables this will continue to be an issue.

  40. Startup Booster

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am

    Okay Guys. Need your help. I’ve posted this on Digg and within 10 minutes I got 4 digg. Then my story is gone! Gone off the radar. Now tell me what I said wrong and why Kevin believes this sort of pissing off bloggers is a good Game. Can’t bloggers say what they thing is a best approach for Digg? This is not going to work.

    http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg.....ke_Mr_Rose

    This story is no longer in the Queue and no one can see it.

    I will have a follow up post on my blog about shame action by Digg. This is truly a bad. I will check to see if my site is also banned.

  41. Donna Rhea

    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am

    So what’s an alternative to Digg then?

  42. Stanmiller

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 am

    >> what’s an alternative to digg?

  43. Stanmiller

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 am

    reading books and playing sports.

  44. Digg Down

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 am

    @Donna Rhea:

    What’s an alternative to Digg?

    Erm, are you serious? Reddit’s been Digg for grownups for a while now.

  45. Jonix

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 am

    I think digg is in the good way. The top users most of the time produce “fraud”, and they controled most of the home page stories.

  46. Aircraft Guy

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Yea, I think this is the best thing for digg. All as they need is a bit of a bad reputation and then they’re yesterdays news.. It is a long road back if they go bad. Just ask msn.com or wait - live.com

  47. Erika

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am

    Wait a minute- ITS BACK!: http://www.efinke.com/digg/topusers.html

  48. bob

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am

    i think the friends lists are what is wrong with digg

    great news/posts should make their way to the front without help

  49. Chris

    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am

    This is a very good step. It’s hard to say that your site is some sort of new egalitarian news utopia when top users have 50%+ of their stories hit the front page. Of course, maybe they just have the pulse of the people. I for one, can’t wait to see another “Apple changes Font Size!!!!!” headline.

  50. Alaska Miller

    February 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 am

    It was incentive to get people to digg in the first place. You start playing the digg game and rise to the top of the top 10 list. Since they’re not paid, not showcased as being the uberdiggers that they are, and since they no longer has as much influence as they did before…

    What’s the point?

  51. Net2pt0

    February 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 am

    I was waiting to see if “Digg” spots were going to show up on eBay, as a promotional method for gaining incomming hits and higher page ranks. I was also wondering if it would be cheaper to get a Digg spot than an Adsense spot??

    Net2pt0
    http://www.net2pt0.com

  52. smith288

    February 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Digg has a large, obnoxious user base and I avoid Digg because of them.

  53. drew olanoff

    February 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am

    The digg social network aka MySpace killer, coming soon!

  54. Kyle

    February 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am

    Though it may be painful in the immediate term, Digg’s done the right thing. The stated goal of the service has been to produce a democratic news and information source. Too much focus on a small group of over-enthusiastic submitters was a detriment to the quality of top stories. I hope Digg continues to push social facets focused on like-minded groups while playing down individual “popularity” across the service.

  55. JasonM

    February 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am

    Digg was always about the competition / ego of who did what to ones story. This is will be a good result.

  56. Mike Rundle

    February 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am

    There will always be sites that thrive on their own popularity, and there will always be ways to game or trick the system. When all of you read articles in magazines on the “hot new company” do you really believe that the company deserves such attention, or do you realize that the article was probably the result of some expensive public relations firm’s connections. When you watch FOX News and they say that Obama is some crazy Muslim hell-bent on US destruction, did you believe it at face value or did you do your own research.

    It’s easy to see what links on Digg are worth your click or not because YOU control what you click on. If you don’t agree with something then don’t click on it, don’t Digg it, bury it as lame, and move on.

  57. HMTKSteve

    February 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 am

    For Digg to “do the right thing” they must also:

    1) Get rid of Digg Friends.
    2) Hide the number of Diggs on a story until after you Digg or bury it.
    3) Strictly enforce dupe checking.

  58. bobo

    February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    This is BS. Digg profits greatly directly and indirectly from the gray and black marketing that go on in regarding to promoting stories on digg. Kevin et al are typical corporate heads who do just enough to appear to want to be ethical and above board. Iraq War, RIAA, Enron, Exxon, digg its all the same BS, different dollar amounts, different groups of cheerleaders.

  59. bobo

    February 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    “we’re confident that such attempts do not impact the content that reaches the home page. We work hard every day to develop tools and systems that guard against this behavior. Whether someone is paid or chooses to try to “break” Digg, it’s irrelevant– our systems can tell when it’s happening. Stories reach the home page only when enough legitimate users have put them there.”

    This is the typical corpspeak lie that I am talking about. That last sentence has been proven to be lie in a number of specific cases - but since people don’t have access to the innerworkings of digg.com they can’t prove if it happens because of human intervention by their staff or by a system that assigns a higher weight to more popular users. How many times have we seen stories about how a digg story reaches the front page with just a few diggs (but from a certain repeating pattern of selected users) while other digg stories with lots of diggs languish and still other digg stories with lots of diggs but that are critical of digg (or one of their sacred cows) disappear all together?

    “such attempts do not impact the content that reaches the home page” - clealy they have in the past as documented in great detail in a number of cases - WhyTF do people turn into liars when they move up the corporate ladder?

    Kevin - I am calling you out - buck the trend of C level execs - be a man and stand up and freakin tell the truth for once, instead of being a whore to the almighty $. But if you want to still claim that you are not lying, then properly, openly, completely explain how and why these things happened in the past.
    And don’t call it a damn blog if people can’t post comments, call it a soapbox.

  60. Paula Mooney

    February 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Cool beans. Maybe now they’ll un-ban my site now that the hooligans are gone, or at least invisible.

    http://paulamooney.blogspot.co.....s-men.html

  61. macewan

    February 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 am

    Has this been dugg yet?

  62. SearcH EngineS WeB

    February 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 am

    Here are screenshots of the very last list on Page One hours before being taken doen

    http://seo-serps.livejournal.com/

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zo.....amp;size=o

    Compare with this Update to see the effects on Diggs as time goes by

    http://www.efinke.com/digg/topusers.html

  63. SearcH EngineS WeB

    February 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 am

    Here are screenshots of the very last list on Page One hours before being taken doen

    1- http://seo-serps.livejournal.com/ (all users)

    2- flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=377384042&size=o (active Users)

    Compare with this Update to see the effects on Diggs as time goes by

    http://www.efinke.com/digg/topusers.html

  64. SearcH EngineS WeB

    February 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 am

    Will this effect Diggs by Top Diggers as time goes by….

    Here are screenshots of the very last list on Page One hours before being taken down

    1- http://seo-serps.livejournal.com/ (all users)

    2- flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=377384042&size=o (active Users)

    Compare with this Update to see the effects on Diggs as time goes by

    3- efinke.com/digg/topusers.html

  65. Ray

    February 7th, 2007 at 10:32 am

    There’s more information buried about top users at http://www.giggg.com

« Previous post
Next post »