One of my pet peeves currently is when people badly submit an article to digg. It is bad for both digg readers (who may never get to see the article because it was dugg badly) and of course for the publishers. It's definitely a flaw in the digg system. But there is a relatively easy solution for this problem, which I'd like to suggest here.
First let me explain what I mean by a 'badly dugg post'. Take for example Alex's excellent post here about Apple's iPhone strategy. It explains why the iPhone is more than just a breakthrough mobile phone device - that it's a strategy that may expand Apple's sphere of influence, from web browsing to social networking and even possibly search. Now look at the digg submission for that post:
Title: iPhone May Really Matter
description: "The iPhone is here. The blogosphere is echoing with both great praise and cries of problems. The hype was both met and a bit too much. Overall, it seems that both media and users are underwhelmed with the iPhone as the phone."
OK, the title is passable (only missing out the 'Why'). But the description makes the article out to be an anti-iPhone post, which it is not. Plus it completely misses the point of Alex's post, which is that Apple has a larger strategy for the iPhone. So the context to the original article has been lost - which in this case actually led to the story being buried.
Another example: someone submitted our Top 100 Alt Search Engines article today like this:
In this case, the title is completely meaningless and the description incomprehensible. To make matters even worse, it was submitted under "Tech Deals"!
It doesn't need to be this way. One relatively painless enhancement digg could make to the site is to allow a badly submitted post to be edited - perhaps by a power digg user, who is given privileges to 'fix' bad submissions. Normal digg users can then continue to submit posts (because don't get me wrong, I am very happy for any digg user to submit articles of ours), but at least there is some quality control over the submissions. There would only need to be a flag that the digg story has been edited, and a way for users to check the original submission wording - so that everything is transparent.
I think this is win-win - because all digg users can continue to submit any article they find, but if they happen to submit it with a bad title and/or description, then a digg editor can fix it up (there could even be a special email form for publishers to request a fix). No harm done, the normal diggers still get points for submitting good articles, the publishers are happy, the end digg user is happy because they get to see quality articles on the frontpage. OK, I am very biased in suggesting this -- but what do you think of the idea?
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2330
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Just to chime in, I also write for a political news site, and this is a continual problem there as well. So this is not something localized to Read/WriteWeb, or tech sites, or just a few diggers. This is a fairly widespread issue that has, as Richard said, a fairly simple solution.
Posted by: Josh Catone | July 2, 2007 5:52 PM
This is a problem I see with my own web site thats similar to diggs which requires users to write a description about an album.
The best solution I can see is having the post being flagged by users for having a poor description similar to flag as inappropriate. With enough flags the power users/admins can improve the content. With the limitation of still being in upcoming not on the front page.
The other approach would be wiki style but then would the user have the same satisfaction/motivation for having his post on the front page?
Posted by: Dan McGrady | July 2, 2007 6:02 PM
Here are some more possible solutions:
- Change Digg to allow duplicate stories to be posted
- Only allow the original title of the story to be posted
- Post the article yourself before anyone else has a chance to.
- Resubmit the story with a slightly different URL
Personally, I don't see the problem with submitting duplicate stories. At the end of the day if people like a story, they will vote for it. Why does it matter if it's already been submitted by someone else? Why does it matter if a story is on the front page more than once? Often this would be useful, for example if Apple.com releases two products a few days apart.
I also don't see the problem with self submission. What harm can it do? At the moment I think this is the best option.
Posted by: Tim from bla.st | July 2, 2007 6:58 PM
I have used digg to check out what items are currently popular. I just assumed that the details could be 'fixed'. That is very suprising/disappointing that they cannot be.
I dont think duplicates should be allowed. neither should sneaky alternate urls. those type of things muddy the waters.
Some kind of solution that allows a change would be a great thing. Even if any registered user could change any item, but with an audit trail, like wikipedia.
To workaround the current situation, can't you just digg your own articles with correct text? or is that frowned upon?
Posted by: Robert | July 2, 2007 7:18 PM
It's definitely frowned upon to digg your own articles. Besides, I like the idea that any digg user can submit our articles and possibly get on frontpage if the story is a good one.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | July 2, 2007 7:22 PM
I think most Digg users would be loathe to see this kind of system implemented if only for the reason that they highly oppose editors "controlling" content on the site (recall the hex code fiasco a little while ago).
While I realize the intent of this system would be to improve the overall experience, it still introduces a subjective editor. Someone who is a power user but who hates the iPhone could still miscast your post in the wrong light.
Maybe a random auditing system like Slashdot implements would work. I totally agree with you that titles/description make or break the submission though - just not sure that editors is the right way to fix it.
Posted by: Brian | July 2, 2007 8:26 PM
This is why sites like http://www.DailyHub.com are picking up steam. Narrower focus (in this case business geeks) with a fair amount of oversight and moderation.
The result is less democratic, but much higher quality content for users.
Posted by: carefreeliving | July 2, 2007 8:42 PM
"It's definitely frowned upon to digg your own articles"
Yes but why? There doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind this idea. In my mind it shouldn't matter who submits a story, if people like it, it will be Dugg. If they don't, it won't.
"I dont think duplicates should be allowed. neither should sneaky alternate urls. those type of things muddy the waters"
If duplicates were allowed sneaky URls wouldn't be needed. Duplicates should be allowed to be posted simply because of the reasons described in this article. How about this idea:
- Stories or the same URL can be submitted to digg multiple times
- A story can't be promoted to the front page if the same url has already been promoted in the past week
Isn't it just duplicates on the front page that are not wanted? Would duplicates clog up the "Upcoming Stories" section to much?
Posted by: Tim from bla.st | July 2, 2007 10:02 PM
I agree with you Tim. But then I think part of the attraction for digg users is to find good stuff on their own and submit it.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | July 2, 2007 10:21 PM
It's true that bad diggs are horrible. It's also true that digg'ing one's own articles is frowned upon. The next best thing, though, is to make it so your users can easily digg your articles as you would like to see them dugg. I'm not really huge into the Digg community, so I don't know if others do this as well, but check out Ars Technica. I was very presently surprised, one day, that its title and synopsis was neatly filled in for me when I clicked on the "Digg this" link. If more authors used that method instead of relying on their readers to do their work justice, we'd end up with better quality Diggs.
I learned from this article that Digg awards points for the submission of good articles. If that's the case, it's no wonder that contributors put any old thing in the fields, just as long as they're the first to submit the article. Further, what Ars does makes even more sense, then. All contributors have to do is select a category and submit, which consumes even less time than fabricating some drivel to type in the fields; authors have control over how their work is paraphrased and presented; and readers get better content.
Posted by: Gita | July 2, 2007 10:28 PM
Don't blame the reader for getting it wrong!
If a reader Diggs your post and got it completely wrong well maybe you have to reevaluate your writing. maybe The structure of the post needed to be different in order for this reader to really grasp what you thought was the main point of the post.
rethinking the functionality of the "Digg this" link
I think that most people simply want to share their interest in a specific post. selecting a title and a short abstract is just a pain to them.
maybe Digg should release a blog plug-in that lets you associate an abstract and a title that will be the default when a user clicks the Digg this link.
I wonder how many Diggers will change the authors default.
Posted by: Avi Charkham | July 2, 2007 10:35 PM
"I agree with you Tim. But then I think part of the attraction for digg users is to find good stuff on their own and submit it."
Indeed, another reason multiple submissions could work. Sometimes the authors titles are crap too! (never on this site of course :) ) Sometimes the timing of an article will make a big difference too, so multiple submissions gives the story a better chance of working.
It's easy to suggest ways big sites could be better, however if they had done things differently, they might not have become the success they are.
If I were to build a digg competitor, here's how it would go:
- Anyone can submit pages as many times as they want
- All voting and posting would be anonymous. (Would anyone want to participate then?)
- Up voting only. No down voting or reporting. Currently if half the users dislike a story on digg or reddit, but the other half love it it doesn't get anywhere.
The question is, would a site like this succeed?! All we know is the Digg recipe worked.
Posted by: Tim from bla.st | July 2, 2007 11:15 PM
I think it's an inherent flaw with Digg, people want to make it to the front page for any given meme. Add that to the residual desire to be "Top Digg User" and you have a system where people will always submit stories from highly diggable blogs.
It's neither necessarily "right", nor does it lead to the most thoughtful titles/descriptions. I am of the belief that there should be multiple submissions allowed in certain cases. How it would be policed is beyond me though.
Posted by: Steve S | July 2, 2007 11:53 PM
I expect this issue has been discussed at length in a digg forum. I can understand the merit of allowing multiple submissions, although I cant see how it could be nicely implemented to avoid dozens of the same uri.
without editing, what happens on digg if someone completely falsifies a submission? say if they dug this uri and said it was about the war in Iraq..
Posted by: Robert | July 3, 2007 3:25 AM
I wrote about this several times, just to sum it up quickly:
Digg currently has editors. They just don't want to admit it.
Digg desperately needs editors, to correct mistakes, remove duplicates, etc. However, the current "hidden" editors don't do that. I say: go public with the editors - at least for grammar & spelling.
Posted by: Stan Schroeder | July 3, 2007 5:06 AM
Hire topic editors - Now, we don‚Äôt want to run the risk of paying Digg members ... One Response to ‚Äú5 Things Digg needs to do or it will die in 2008‚Ä?
http://www.paroles32.com/paroles/michael-jackson/index.php
Posted by: Mark John | July 3, 2007 6:37 AM
The problem with a Wiki-type approach, with power editors, is that you have a 24 hour window to hit the front page. Editing of submissions just wouldn't happen in time.
Posted by: steve | July 3, 2007 7:11 AM
Thoof is a recently launched startup which combines exactly the concept you describe, collaborative editing of stories, with a powerful personalization algorithm. You can find it at http://thoof.com/.
Posted by: Ian Clarke | July 3, 2007 12:32 PM
Gita (#11), thanks for that suggestion! I'm going to find out how Ars Technica does that, because I agree that will probably help at least some articles get dugg properly.
Avi (#12) said: "Don't blame the reader for getting it wrong!
If a reader Diggs your post and got it completely wrong well maybe you have to reevaluate your writing. maybe The structure of the post needed to be different in order for this reader to really grasp what you thought was the main point of the post."
-->Rm: in the iphone post, the exact summary of the story was in the very first two lines! So the submitter actually ignored that and used the next paragraph.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | July 3, 2007 1:22 PM
We used to allow editing of submissions. People abused it... it was taken away.
Posted by: Owen Byrne | July 3, 2007 3:02 PM
But aren't people abusing the current system too, in terms of entering bad information in the first place? Perhaps they are just rushing their submissions in order to be first, or perhaps they are doing it deliberately. Either way, it is a problem for digg and I hope you try and solve it.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | July 3, 2007 4:59 PM
The easiest solution seems to be digging your posts by yourself :-).
Or does something bad happen then?
Onother way would be to provide an article summary at the top of each page. Perfect would be a solution where the dig-button is linked with this summary. But digg.com needs a autofill for the form via URL for this...
Posted by: Tobias | July 5, 2007 4:39 AM
You should possibly learn Russian :) to dig into habrahabr.ru
The essence of the service is that anyone can submit an article (original, translation, or link to some article elsewhere) into his own blog (hosted at habrahabr.ru) or into come community, or collective blog.
The interesting part is their regulation system — the community is rather popular in terms of Russian internet and there of course are a lot of trolls and other problems so what they did was they defined several parameters like "carma" (how much users love/respect you) or "experience" (how much and for how long did you use the site) that limit you in your actions. Say, you can't post into some community if you have carma
Posted by: Nikita | July 5, 2007 3:19 PM
3rd paragraph in my last comment is broken for some reason...
Here's the ending:
Say, you can't post into some community if you have carma
Posted by: Nikita | July 5, 2007 3:22 PM
Grr, it seems that HTML brackets (< and &rt;) not used in HTML tags but used to mean "more" or "less" break the comment system :(...
That's what was missing. I'm sick of reposting, but this is the most important part in what I'm trying to say. Again, hopefully for the last time:
Say, you can't post into some community if you have carma less than 2, or you can't change carma of other users if your carma is less than 5, and you can't vote ("+" or "-" — like on Reddit) on any articles if your carma is lower than something and/or your "power", "experience" or something else are insufficient.
Posted by: Nikita | July 5, 2007 3:27 PM
I think they should implement some sort of editing process even if it was just for the titles of the posts. Technorati has a claim my blog if Digg had a way for the author to claim it and edit it some I think that would not be a bad idea.
Posted by: elysa | July 6, 2007 3:04 PM