The Digg complainers are out again

[mesler]

http://www.iaocblog.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/3/3068799.html

I blogged in response here: http://www.ronpaulpresshub.com/?p=88

[mvent2]

Digg story here:

http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_fs_Digg_Manipulation_Exposed

I reckon the "Ron Paul buryers" are the spammers because the supporters far outnumber them yet they feel the need to bury every RP story, I haven't seen a Ron Paul story on the front page in ages because of them. If we bury this story enough it'll give them a taste of their own medicine (it won't reach front page :D ).

[mesler]

If there is a networked bury brigade, they should be 'called out' too.

[mvent2]

The problem is you cannot see what stories anyone has buried, as opposed to what they have dugg or submitted.

Lots of Ron Paul stories get hundreds of Diggs yet not one reaches front page (not even the iPhone story!!!), isn't that a bit suspicious?

[mesler]

Perhaps, but some of us, myself included, quit digging articles to counter the overabundance of RP articles.

[Mesogen]

I love this one http://www.iaocblog.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/3/3068799.html

Oh noes! 30 whole people!
What an army!!

[Kuldebar]

Somebody explain to me wth Digg is supposed to be...other than a popularity contest? I don't get it, I thought it was about expression and sharing interest in certain stories.



I love this one http://www.iaocblog.com/blog/_archives/2007/7/3/3068799.html

Oh noes! 30 whole people!
What an army!!


Well, supposedly that's our whole movement....

[Rabbit]

A group of networked Ron Paul supporters with enough votes to get a Ron Paul story out of the Upcoming Stories bin every time (an action that requires around 12-15 diggs) is most certainly “artificially altering” the results.

A non sequitur here.. The author even helps define Digg's own definition of "artificial altering," of which he seems to miss the point entirely:

By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to use the Services:
9. with the intention of artificially inflating or altering the ‘digg count’, blog 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.

(Emphasis mine.)

If each Digg is from an individual, the criteria for "artificial altering" is not met.. If the author had evidence that a single individual is creating multiple accounts (or any other violation for that matter) in order to Digg stories, he failed to show any of it (yet he claimed to have it).. All I saw was a bunch of speculation and rumor, which the author readily acknowledges with his opening sentence..

There are rumors of Ron Paul supporters manipulating Digg. (Like your article here?)

. . .these people ONLY digg stories about Ron Paul, and many of them don’t read the actual content of submissions. (And so the speculation and lack of evidence begins.)

Anyway, the issue isn't supporters of Ron Paul, the issue is a Digg matter and should be treated as a Digg issue.. Bringing RP into this smacks of agenda, especially when the author starts attacking RP..

Now, I have no opinions on Paul’s political platform nor do I have any political agenda of my own.

..is followed later by this:

Obviously, the man has some support to sustain this kind of guerrilla campaign, and I’m not here to dispute his political strategies.

Immediately followed by THIS!:

Clearly, his [Ron Paul] tactics, although unethical, are working. (No opinion, eh? Heck, I see two in this one sentence..)

Do they not see how they are also contributing to the RP Phenomenon? He seems bright, but he just doesn't see his own effect on things.. The whole idea of what they are doing is bogus, it's not a reasonable criticism of RP, it's a measly red herring.. But hey, if this is all they can come up with.. WOW..

GO RP!

[Rabbit]

Digg is basically an opinion poll where people "vote" for a news story they like.. You'll see many many articles now that have a link named "Digg this!" or something similar that the author of the story (or whoever) places near his article.. People who are registered with Digg can click that link and a "vote" will be added on Digg's site for that article.. As each individual Diggs the article, it gains Digg points and therefore goes up on the ranking list of popular news articles on the Digg site..

[tsoldrin]

It's on page 4 of upcoming now... I don't think it'll make it much further. Diggers for the most part are fairly discriminating and will see it as one-sided... also, for once we have all the anti-paulers working in our favor... funny.

[torchbearer]

did i make the list?

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

He picks me out to slam for some reason. That's okay. He plugged my blog and spelled my name correctly.

[LibertyCzar]

I don't think Digg is the right place for politics. Too many people on there just want to talk about games, and sports, and Paris Hilton to care about something like a presidential election. But Digg should have the US Elections 2008 section divided up into individual candidate subsections. Then we could have a better shot at getting good Ron Paul stories advanced.

[tron paul]

Organized burying violates Digg's Terms of Service.

Nuke em.

[constituent]

Digg has become an irrelevant joke. Sorry folks, but it was fun while it lasted.