So it came to pass that some user wanted to post something humourful on Digg. He posted a link on Digg that was to a headline on Reddit that was a link right back to the same headline on Digg. On either side, he'd written up the description as this being an internet-based illustration of recursion. The problem was, then he submitted the story multiple times (this, I suppose, was an unstated illustration of iteration?) and then created multiple fake accounts and dugg his own stories (another unstated illustration, this time perhaps of reference counts for garbage collection?). These actions are against Digg terms of service, so his account was banned, and his stories were deleted. He decided to write up a transcription of the events. Somehow, the facts from the previous paragraph (his iteration and gaming) were left out of his account. The Register, a rag known more for its humour than its accuracy, picked up on the story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/27/internet_humour_brown_outs/ This led me to write this rebuttal to El Reg:"A Digg headline that leads to a Reddit headline that leads right back to the Digg headline? That's not recursion. That's RUNAWAY recursion. And no programmer could possibly find that funny. Usefully recursive functions have a base case, where the recursion stops. So the Digg programmers were flustered and angry at this runaway recursion. Surely, though, the non-technical staff should enjoy the 'humour?' But lo! Our community guys weren't laughing. Why not? What could vex them so? It turns out this guy had submitted the story several times. And dugg it himself using multiple accounts. These are against our terms of service. As humourful as his attempt was, he was annoying our userbase, and violating our service agreements. So we banned him. Alas, somehow these facts seem to've gotten lost in his retelling of the events. Curiously, every single user we've ever banned from Digg failed to include some very important facts in their retelling of the events. But we wouldn't expect anyone else to suspect this. It's so uncharacteristic of users that get banned from online services. --Hopefully El Reg can suck it up (I mean, honestly, the guy was banned from Digg, did they really think he would have a fair and balanced account of the situation?!) and publish the rebuttal. Later, another member decided to test Digg's integrity by posting this story: http://digg.com/programming/Reddit_com The story made a good number of Diggs, actually. Probably by the conspiracy crew. However, Digg regulars weren't amused at the story (which isn't interesting in any way) and it was quickly buried as "lame." This didn't stop the conspiracy crew from claiming Digg censored the story. Jay had to hop in (on a comment near the bottom) and explain how you can differentiate between a story Digg staff removed and a story that the Digg members removed. As he admits, we don't really make it clear which happened, and it is an improvement we're working on.
timeless o' Digg"
Update: 1 August 2006 Pacific -- El Reg wants details! Unfortunately, I don't really know details, so I have to be a bit ambiguous. :( Andrew's asking the questions in the following exchange. I'm answering them.> Did you receive any user complaints before banning John?The drama unfolds. It's good to see John (the original perpetrator) is admitting to violating the TOS. It sort of takes some of the huff out of this controversy.
I'll ask our community guys. It might be a while before they answer me. (Honestly, I think almost all our reactions to TOS violations happen before user complaints). > John claims to have submitted the story twice - you say "several" - can you specify how many times it was submitted by John?
I'll ask the community guys this, too. I'm pretty sure "twice" is enough to violate TOS. But I think that's less important than the creating fake accounts to digg your own stories aspect of his behaviour. I mainly highlighted the multiple-submission as part of the gag. You know. Recursion. Iteration. Reference counts. Cornfield. Flares. > You say Digg programmers they got "flustered and angry" at this.
(Sorry, can't assume you're just playing along with the joke, though it really looks as though you are, with purple flares, a stepstool, and everything). No-one on Digg staff was flustered or angry at this guy. We thought it was amusing. Even our community guys thought it was amusing. Unfortunately, we can't really tolerate TOS violations. We're trying to be a serious community-oriented news site here. Maybe John could start being a good community member, and make his comedic mark without violating our TOS? That'd be super cool. > Are they of a nervous disposition? What else makes them "flustered and angry" - and what do you use to calm then down?
Fortunately the programmers don't have any final say in community aspects of the site. But any sort of buggy programming routines will make them stomp around in a huff. Hair flies. Tea gets spilled. And I'm talking about that high-quality Fine American Lipton sort of tea that you just can't get anywhere else in the world. We calm them down by secretly replacing their Lipton Crystals with Earl Grey. Let's watch and see if they notice.
Final? Update: 2 August 2006 http://diggtrends.com/stats.aspx?entry=23 - His account has been unbanned. He defends himself on his blog (http://www.jgc.org/blog/2006/07/unbanned-from-digg.html). He claims that he did not create fake accounts to digg his own story. If true, that's great! Digg on.
| Edit -:- Attach -:- Ref-By -:- Printable -:- More |