Does anyone know how accurate this is? Efinke.com has a top 100 list of their own up for some time (which I'm not ranked), and they also recently released a list of the top 1000 digg users in CSV format, where I appear to be ranked at #237.Following two successful studies on Digg’s Most Popular Domains (and Sorted by Topics), I had an idea for one to finish the series. Ever since Digg removed the top users list, I’m always wondering who is a one-hit-wonder submitter, and who has a track record of submitting high quality articles.
I’ve finally finished adding up all the authors who’s submissions made homepage in the past 30 days (same as before, March 15th 2007 to April 15th 2007), and it had a strangely cool outcome. The number of users who had more than one article hit the homepage in the past 30 days works out to be EXACTLY 300. It’s the small things in life….
Anyone else make the list?
I think Digg should bring back the top users list. The point of removing it is lost as long as third party sites are still offering mirrors.
The "mirrors" were taken down after Digg revised its points system and removed the top ranking numbers. Matt just linked to one such "mirror" but that is not truly a mirror. It is careful analysis of "top Diggers" from recent popular Diggs. There's no way to get that data anymore easily.
I agree that the top Diggers list should be restored.
Matt I won't pretend to know how accurate these are, but I'll make some observations. All these lists are basing things on who gets the most stories to the front page, though I suppose it's possible Digg would look at the percentage of stories that get there and maybe even the time frame which they get there.
The top 300 list where you rank #57 is just for the last 30 days. The other lists are all time.
If you look at your profile you've gotten 30 stories to the front page. The top 300 list shows 6 in the last 30 days and the top 1000 lists shows you only have 24 make it to the front page. I'll make the general assumption that the top 1000 list hasn't been updated in at least the last 30 days.
So you probably aren't #57, but you probably have gained on people over the last month and rank better than 237.
But again that all assumes these lists are correct and everything is based solely on the number of stories you digg that go popular.
Excellent insight, thanks vangogh
Glad to help Matt. I've wondered since I first saw the top 100 list how accurate they are and just did a little observation on the lists. You'd think that Digg would have a little more complex algorithm than simply who got the most stories to the front page, but this is Digg after all so who knows.
the order changes too fast!
Hay Matt this ones for you! I would give you a pat on the shoulder if you were here great job any ways, no matter if the list is gone.
this is not a sales pitch but can you please digg my site if you think it's digg material www.articlestamp.com
Sorry, no-can-do :(
Arghh I was hoping I'd make the Top 1000 list. Hopefully soon!
News & Videos Submitted: 82
News & Videos Made Popular: 7
Popular Stories Ratio: 9%
Soooo....
Does this mean there are only 300 real users on Digg and the rest are all pseudos?
*wicked grin*
Or maybe 2 real users. Matt and the person with the other 299 usernames.
short answer: I don't know. Longer answer: will you dig my story for me ;)
My story was buried on Digg though.
Thanks for the syndication. :)
Yeah, the second I saw the digg icon next to it I had no doubt it would be buried by the staff.
but the staff don't bury articles, do they?
I'm just speculating but I'm pretty sure that the digg staff buries certain articles that pertain to digg itself
Ill tag my comment as sarcasm next time <oops>
haha..doh. Don't worry about it, I'm just going to tag my comments <stupid rel="missing the obvious"> next time
Yep, it received over 100 diggs in about 3 hours, but still somehow didn't make homepage. This was BEFORE it was buried.
There is without a doubt some other system in place that stopped it.
I'm sure thoes guys employ people who sit there removing things which is related to digg. If they dont' want you to make homepage, then you never will. That is the justice behind Digg, ofcourse I dont' have proof of that.
Hm... that brings up a good point. Someone should dredge up a decent article that would allow for the word "dig" in the description of title, drop an extra G on there, see if it gets auto flagged. Might take 3 or 4 attempts to get one that would otherwise be popular, but might yield some interesting results.
I've submitted another article to try again:
https://www.digg.com/tech_news/Extensive_Digg_Study_Reveals_Top_300_Most_Powerful_Submitters
I'm assuming it'll probably be buried as well, but we'll see.
Oops, missed that. Nice find.
Hopefully they go back to the drawing board with it and come up with something else or a better way.
What, as in a better digg? Simple - get rid of the diggers!
;)
heey congrats man!! :) you did a hell of a lot digging i guess.
I am sure it's next to impossible to track and keep accurate manually since the ranks would change so often one day to the next. It seems like they would be the most accurate when the are first created and posted.
They should start something like the Moz points system and keep an ongoing list for other members to see that updates automatically or at least on a daily update schedule.
They did - it got gamed - it got binned.