# Does Digg.com Have a Bias in Favor of Apple?



## dmetzcher (Feb 13, 2006)

I wrote a little article about a bias that some have said Digg has in favor of Apple. The article is below. I posted it as a news story to the Digg.com Web site. I received about 15 diggs, prior to someone at the site censoring me, and "burying", as they call it, the story.

Here is the article, for those interested: Does Digg.com Have a Bias in Favor of Apple?

And here is my story on Digg.com: http://digg.com/apple/Does_Digg.com_Have_a_Bias_in_Favor_of_Apple_

So, I'll ask the question here, and you can all go digg the story if you like...Do you think that Digg.com, as many Microsoft users have stated on the Digg Web site, has a bias in favor of Apple?

Give my article a read, if you like, and tell me what you think. It was just a few observations. Nothing that I'd call scientific at all. I can't understand why the people at Digg buried it, and, worse yet, I think that it might have been Apple users who caused it to be buried. Judging by the comments on the news story at Digg, a couple Apple users weren't too happy with what I had to say. I love my Mac, but, sometimes, the zealots that also love theirs get annoying.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 14, 2006)

hello Dennis, 

great article. Digg can be so frustrating like that. Sometimes you post a great story and it gets no diggs, then someone posts the same story but with a more catchy (often sensationalistic) title and it gets hundreds or even thousands of diggs. Sometimes, too, it depends on the time of day you post it. 

I was unaware of it only requiring 10 "lame" hits to bury it. That's just silly. I dont think it should bury things at all, because marking an article as lame is very subjective. 

anyhoo, interesting article. I have noticed the same thing. I think it's just because Mac users tend to be very enthusiastic about Apple, and many non-Mac users tend to be equally enthusiastic about hating Apple. Therefore, both sides just notice the stories more, the word "Apple" or "OS X" or "Mac" just jumps out at them much more than "Microsoft" or "Windows". 

It's like when you buy a new car. Suddenly, after buying it, you see the same model car you bought everywhere you drive. Doesn't mean suddenly everyone has bought the same car as you, it's just that you are noticing it where you didn't before. 

I think also, it is because Apple is so secretive, and Mac users so excitable about new rumors and products. Therefore a higher percentage of submitted stories go to the front page. Microsoft rarely do anything new and exciting, so by the time a story hits Digg it's old news -- nothing new. 

Look at the Xbox 360 for example. This is one of the few times Microsoft has released something new and exciting, and as such it has enjoyed many many front page stories. 

Just my opinion anyway. 


+digg btw


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 14, 2006)

that's interesting...my +digg didn't stick! I pressed "digg" and the yellow box just "exploded" into a mess. refreshing the page I found it is still at 15 diggs?! (see attached image). The same thing happens in Firefox and Safari!! wtf?!

I tried digging another story and it worked so it can't be a browser or server issue. 

Does burying a story make it un-diggable?


----------



## Viro (Feb 14, 2006)

I don't read digg, so I don't quite know what your point with that site is. My question to you is, is having a bias bad? What person on this planet doesn't have a bias? IMHO, it is only a problem if that bias affects the truth, i.e. digg starts posting loads of anti-Microsoft stuff that isn't true, etc. 

Your article while demonstrating that the ratio of Apple articles to Microsoft articles are not in line with the mainstream press, it does so in a tenuous manner. You correctly admit that you didn't check the articles individually, to determine if they are all just reporting on the same story. Nevertheless, what your article fails to address is, whether this 'bias' of digg.com actually distorts the truth in the other articles. If it doesn't, does it matter?

Perhaps a follow-up article that addresses the issue of whether the bias on digg.com distorts the truth in the articles that are posted.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 14, 2006)

what's frustrating though, viro, whether there is or is not a bias, many percieve it that way. It's to a point now that you can't post an apple-related story without getting a landslide of Windows users posting hateful messages in the comments, and immediately marking an article as "lame". 

Add to this the whole buried article issue myself and dennis mentioned, and that irrational hatred so many have towards Apple undermines Digg.com's mission statement by giving too much power to minorities with prejudices. 

Doesn't seem all that important when talking about a couple of computer makers, but who's to say other unfortunate minorites won't use the same tactics to silence stories that talk about gay rights or racial issues.


----------



## Viro (Feb 14, 2006)

Ah... I see. It should be a bias _against_ Apple instead of a bias _in_ favor of Apple . Nevertheless, I agree that the description of how digg works seems to completely undermine democracy. 10 votes is hardly enough to consider an article rubbish and thus buried.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 14, 2006)

Viro said:
			
		

> I don't read digg, so I don't quite know what your point with that site is. My question to you is, is having a bias bad? What person on this planet doesn't have a bias? IMHO, it is only a problem if that bias affects the truth, i.e. digg starts posting loads of anti-Microsoft stuff that isn't true, etc.


To begin, yes, it is bad to have a bias when you tell the world that you are a "tech news site". If you are going to create a media outlet, and have a bias, tell people about that bias. There are plenty of media outlets that are have a bias in favor of Apple. I visit them all the time. I was simply trying to determine whether or not they have a bias.



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> Your article while demonstrating that the ratio of Apple articles to Microsoft articles are not in line with the mainstream press, it does so in a tenuous manner. You correctly admit that you didn't check the articles individually, to determine if they are all just reporting on the same story. Nevertheless, what your article fails to address is, whether this 'bias' of digg.com actually distorts the truth in the other articles. If it doesn't, does it matter?


Well, I was not looking for duplicate stories, and for good reason. I was looking for instances of Apple and Microsoft being in the news. In the news doesn't mean for each story, it means for every time they are reported on by some mainstream media outlet.

Regarding distortion of the truth, you don't understand Digg.com...they don't report on anything. You submit a news story, and link to a story on the Web (either one on your own Web site or on someone else's Web site). Other people look at what you posted, read it via the link (you post a short description of the story you are linking to), and then either "digg" it or not. They can also kill stories if the predetermined number of downvotes are received. The problem is that Digg does not make it clear, exactly, what kills a story. I am testing this right now with a few user accounts that I created, and I hope to know what it takes to kill a story within the week. My problem with Digg, at this point, is that it seems that a small group of people can override the will of the other users, and kill a popular story that thousands of people agree is newsworthy and valuable. If 1000 people digg a story, and 10 people report the story as "lame" (their term used on the site), do you think that democracy? That's my problem with them. They make claims that are not true about the nature of their service. When you mess around with the media, and you are hiding either biases or certain functions of the service that have a real-world meaning to the users, I believe people should know about it, that's all. If users know the deal, and they like it, fine. If people like what you have done, and you are honest about it, great. I may not like it, or I may, but that means nothing if other users find it useful.



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> Perhaps a follow-up article that addresses the issue of whether the bias on digg.com distorts the truth in the articles that are posted.


No article needed. The truth isn't an issue here. It's an issue of whether or not Digg had a bias, and having a category for Apple, a company, and no other company, tells me that there is a bias. Do I think this is wrong? Yes, unless they are honest about it. My problem with Digg is that the owner, Kevin Rose of TechTV, has stated that he has "big plans for Digg", and that he envisions it becoming a place for all news. What if they give a preference to certain types of news, but don't tell anyone. If a major news outlet were to do this, and sometimes many of them do, people report about it. That was all I was trying to do. I was also asking the question in order to spark a conversation about the issue on Digg with other Digg users.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 14, 2006)

Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> what's frustrating though, viro, whether there is or is not a bias, many percieve it that way. It's to a point now that you can't post an apple-related story without getting a landslide of Windows users posting hateful messages in the comments, and immediately marking an article as "lame".
> 
> Add to this the whole buried article issue myself and dennis mentioned, and that irrational hatred so many have towards Apple undermines Digg.com's mission statement by giving too much power to minorities with prejudices.
> 
> Doesn't seem all that important when talking about a couple of computer makers, but who's to say other unfortunate minorites won't use the same tactics to silence stories that talk about gay rights or racial issues.


This makes my point clearer, and I completely agree with your last statement. I take the news media seriously, and when you decide to create a new media outlet, you had better adhere to certain journalistic values, else if I can, I will tell as many people about it as possible, or, at the very least, disregard what you have to say (I do this with a few media outlets in the mainstream right now). That's all I want from Digg. Be more transparent. Tell us what it takes to kill a story. Tell us how it all works. Tell us why there is a category for a publicly held company. Is Apple sponsoring Digg? Who knows. They have their own category when others don't, so I think we have to assume that something was done to give Apple an advantage. Again, I have no problem with this IF you tell me about it. Don't tell me you are unbiased and that your serive works via the will of the people who vote. If that's not true, you are lying, and your product is a farse.


----------



## dmetzcher (Feb 14, 2006)

Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> that's interesting...my +digg didn't stick! I pressed "digg" and the yellow box just "exploded" into a mess. refreshing the page I found it is still at 15 diggs?! (see attached image). The same thing happens in Firefox and Safari!! wtf?!
> 
> I tried digging another story and it worked so it can't be a browser or server issue.
> 
> Does burying a story make it un-diggable?


I saw the exact same thing with a story I tried to digg yesterday. It was a very old story, so it was probably buried as well. Perhaps their little "bug" ensures that people can't vote a story up when others have killed it.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 14, 2006)

On a general note about digg, I used to like it a lot at first, but lately I've noticed that it tends to be worse than Slashdot at times.  About the only good thing going for it is that some stories show up WAY before other sites like OSNews or Slashdot post them, but of course OSNews and Slashdot have people that filter out the bad posts while they usually end up getting lots of diggs on digg.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 14, 2006)

I like digg, and will continue to visit, but it has become a different place in the last couple of months than it was in the beginning. 

As you know, iy was originally for posting interesting tech-realted articles, but now there are a lot of links to images, or a download page for an update. Sometimes people will post an interesting article, but instead of posting directly to the story, they will post a link to their _blog_ that posts to the story, creating an unneccessary extra step. Nothing wrong with posting your blog so long as the article on your blog IS THE STORY, and isn't just an extra step standing in the way of you and the story you're after. 

I even saw a digg post that offers tips for how to use Digg to promote your website, which encourages this kind of behaviour. 

Still, I don't hate the way Digg is going. I quite enjoy the stupid little stories, so long as there are also "real" articles in between. And the podcast is great.


----------



## solidsnake (May 7, 2006)

how can it be biased if people choose to Digg it or not?


----------



## dmetzcher (May 8, 2006)

solidsnake said:
			
		

> how can it be biased if people choose to Digg it or not?


While I generally agree with where you are going with this, my point was clear about the fact that the Web site courts the Mac user community. I understand that people can choose to digg something or not digg it, however, when you have categories that are specific to a company, but do not have categories that are specific to one of that company's competitors, you drive the news in one direction over another. This is why it seems to many digg users (just read through the comments on most of the articles that make the front page) that digg seems to be the Apple/Mac hangout. I have no real problem with this, in reality, but I think that Digg should be honest about it, or remove the specialized categories, which seem to have been created some time ago, based on the interests of a small group of people at Digg.


----------

