We’re approaching 2 weeks on since the unveiling of Digg’s new duplicate submissions detector. We’re strongly, strongly hoping that it improves. In many ways, the old, worn out version was more accurate.
Day one displayed a much-publicized “DOH!” when 2 stories ABOUT the dupe detector (the one linked above and this article from Brent Csutoras) hit the front page at the same time. You couldn’t plan it any better than this:
That was day one. Getting the bugs out. Addressing the issues. No big deal.
Then, it happened again. This time, it was 3 stories, but they were spaced out over a 5 day period saying pretty much the same thing.
Notice that all three mention “Jammie Thomas”. It’s cut off on the bottom submission, but it also include the word “$1.92″ that is mentioned in the top two submissions. Reading all three articles, it is very clear that a proper dupe detector would have picked them up very easily after the first was submitted.
It did not.
You may say, “They were probably offered by ignored by the submitters.” Nope – I was the second submitter and MrBabyMan, the third submitter, assured me that he did not see them as dupes. Why would we submit them, especially after they had already hit the front page by the time we did?
Again, we are hopeful. Digg has been very good at fulfilling its promises and improving on its technology for several months now. The site is too strong and too enjoyable to have silly programming errors hamper the overall experience.
* * *
Read more about Digg on this Social Media Blog.