| 
| Michael VanDeMar commented on August 7, 2007
|
Any idea how much data is being missed? What rate is it being collected at?
|
|
| Adam Lyttle commented on August 7, 2007
|
Looking at the last 100 stories captured, it looks healthy. Very healthy. It's not absolutely accurate, but it does give a good understanding of why a story may be buried. Personally I think Digg should add an option similar to this to the site. It protects the anonymity of the burier, but gives a submitter more of an idea as to why their story was buried.
|
|
| grace commented on August 7, 2007
|
I just tried to check for a few articles that were on digg and for all of them it said that the bury info wasn't available... what is wrong with it?
|
|
| Adam Lyttle commented on August 7, 2007
|
As stated numerous times the tool relies on capturing data. If you tried looking up old stories it won't have the captured data. The more people using Digg Alerter 1.2, the more data we can capture.
|
|
| Steve commented on August 12, 2007
|
I've never had this work for a buried article. I am betting Digg doesn't want people to know that. If they let everyone know how easy it is to bury articles, it will be gamed even more. I use 1.2 and the articles are recent. It would be a great asset though.
|
