Digg restricts fast aka blind digging

Comments (11)

1. • cGt2099

   3 reasons I submitted the Digg post instead of the original screencap:

   1. The comments, discussion, and debates among people on the digg page
   2. The Digg story is well past the 24 hour threshold and already hit the popular page
   3. It has become one of the most dugg stories ever - 12000+ votes

   So I guess the question is... does this solve the issue of blind voting?
   Judging by some of the feedback from people there, they're not happy.

   Thoughts?

   • (4 Kudos received)
2. • DarkNemesis618

   I don't think its a bad idea. I don't use digg much anymore, but even here on Mixx you have some users just going through all the pages voting everything up, not looking at the title or even the submission itself. Its a touchy situation as you don't want to block people from voting a lot of stories up so long as they're reading them etc, but to put a temporary hold on voting for a user if say they vote up 20 stories in a minute I wouldn't say would be too "out there" as there's pretty much no way they would have read all 20.

   • (2 Kudos received)
3. • inthedoghousenow

   I think that this is totally an issue of blind voting. The comments are really surprising to me. People actually thought that this piece had relevance. I can't believe that it has reached the popular page!

   • (0 Kudos received)
4. • dobata

   well that's how digg, it's a bit too much to call it a ban, it's more of hindrance.

   • (0 Kudos received)
5. • dobata

   could this comment have screwed me, digg ban have arrived in my home

   • (0 Kudos received)
6. • greggo

   Isn't blind voting why Mixx doesn't show the voting buttons on the "Your MixxFriends" page?

   • (0 Kudos received)
   1. • DarkNemesis618

      @greggo yes, that is the reason, but at the same time, many users just go to the other pages and vote everything up. It's a nice feature, but cannot stop everything. It's just the way of things. Social media sites have a few choices. Make it too easy to vote, or too much of a complication for users to bother. I think Mixx has a pretty good balance.

      • (0 Kudos received)
7. • nowsourcing

   this just made digg crappier than it was before. Screencap = screencrap.

   • (1 Kudos received)
8. • The_Plagiarist

   To paraphrase:

   "Those who use bots wont be even affected. They will just slow their bots.
   THE REAL USER IS BEING AFFECTED."

   "Ok, finally I was able to Digg. I can see why it is done but not why they do it totally wrong!
   This just gets top users higher in the category (all digg them anyway) and their fans who want to get top diggers are not able to do so. I just wonder if there is a limit of commenting? voting up or down the comments?"

   "Now Digg would tell me When to digg and When Not Digg."

   "If only they gave this much attention to blind burying and active trolls something constructive might be achieved."

   ►Contrary to popular belief, blind voting is not that serious of a problem in Social Media unless you have a mute community that doesn't engage with users that much. Digg has these users. Too much even. This doesn't make the service any better and that's why I agree with those users. The intention does not always justify the means.

   • (0 Kudos received)
9. • polymath22

   i blind voted this article (up)

   its kinda annoying to click on the title of the article and get brought into this page rather than to the original article. extra page loads may not bother some people, but if you have a slow computer or a slow hookup, these extra pages loads waste time and irritates consumers...

   • (0 Kudos received)
   1. • The_Plagiarist

      @polymath22

      Agreed but why blind vote at all if that's the case?

      • (0 Kudos received)

Add Your Comment Digg restricts fast aka blind digging

Login now to post your comment.