Comments on: I’ve got a bad reputation

By: shun

shun — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:02:55 +0000

You’ve been slashdotted :

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/30/1415239.shtml

Now, the question that I have is : why did it take over a month for them to notice this?

By: notyavgkat

notyavgkat — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:10:41 +0000

I’m definately not a top user at digg. but i’m a faithful user, and I occasionally do make the front page, which is very exciting when I do hit it. So I truly believe you are wrong in your point that only a few top users control digg….Stop all this digg hating!!!!

By: Newitz Slaps Back « Blog Fights

Newitz Slaps Back « Blog Fights — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:39:17 +0000

[...] Newitz Slaps Back Wired writer, Annalee Newitz, responds to Arrington’s claims with a combination at Wired (sharing her first death threat from Mike’s prodding) and Techsploitation. [...]

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 05:10:42 +0000

I’m convinced that what you did and wrote about was a much needed wake up call for Digg’s administration. They have been walking around the past few weeks with the idea that they fixed everything, which is simply not the case. Digg is still very much game-able, which you have proven.

By: links for 2007-03-02 at Baron VC

links for 2007-03-02 at Baron VC — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:22:03 +0000

[...] Iâ€™ve got a bad reputation Wired writer defends Digg article. (tags: digg social_media) [...]

By: Everton Blair

Everton Blair — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:29:42 +0000

A word of warning. This story has 40 diggs so any second now a lot of users from Digg will be coming who I can assure you, won’t have nice things to say.

I for one believe you did nothing wrong (see trackback above) and it’s sad that people would question your and Wired’s journalistic integrity.

Keep your head up!

By: Why Do Bloggers Think That ‘Old Media’ Rules Don’t Apply To Them? | Connected Internet

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:14:46 +0000

[...] In the case of Wired/Reddit/Conde Nast Vs Digg story, I thought it was very sad that many bloggers including the highly respected Michael Arrington would even dare to question the integrity of a respected publication such as Wired. [...]

By: Wired.com Writer Defends Her Article on Digg « Tons of Fresh News

Wired.com Writer Defends Her Article on Digg « Tons of Fresh News — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:18:16 +0000

[...] March 2, 2007 at 3:15 pm · Filed under Uncategorized Wired.com Writer Defends Her Article on Digg Already, critics are saying that Wired did this story because Wired News owner CondeNet also owns Reddit, a small company that competes with Digg. This is absolutely not the case. I actually did extensive interviews with the founder of Reddit, and even spoke briefly to the one person who had ever successfully â€œgamedâ€ Reddit.[news] [technology] [industry news] [...]

By: Maurice

Maurice — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:17:23 +0000

Illegitimi non carborundum

By: Ilya Lichtenstein

Ilya Lichtenstein — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:02:43 +0000

First of all, great blog. As for Digg, you have only scratched the surface. Digg is almost completely controlled by a few groups of top users who use bots to Digg each others’ stories. I witnessed this firsthand, because, as part of my research, I attempted an experiment to game Digg, and succeeded tremendously. By making the right friends on Digg and digging the stories they submitted religiously, I was able to bruteforce my way in to the circle of top users(I was in the top 200 at the end of my experiment, and was easily getting 1-3 stories to the front page evry single day). The level of corruption on Digg, which I experienced firsthand to my benefit, was ridiculous. It got to the point where every story I submitted got 15-20 diggs, no matter how stupid or inane(I tried very hard to submit the worst stories with the worst titles possible by the end, making your crowd blog look like the collected works of Shakespeare by comparison). It was ridiculous as I watched the same people digg every single thing their friends submitted. With stories from my own blog that did not get to the front page, the number of diggs was invariably greater than the number of hits to that story from digg, meaning people dugg before clicking. I have no doubt that marketing companies and certain bloggers are exploting this to their advantage.