What is Digg?106 Comments
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Want Proof?...Here is proof you fools. My site has a PROVEN 59 links to it...that's PROVEN! do a google search on www.theultimateconspiracy.com then do a search on google for link:www.theultimateconspiracy.com and you will get 0 links. And I can PROVE that there are 59 sites linked to mine. Chew on that shills...Now how are you going to LIE your way out of that one?
- LUCUS123, on 10/31/2007, -5/+15Yea whatever...you have no idea what you JUST SPEWED. Link relevance is THE HIGHEST criteria used in google's ranking system. OK smart guy...explain this...why does hotair.com have a higher link relevance than they do search term? Give me a break...you should rename yourself '"The Wrong"
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11All of a sudden when I show PROOF, I hear crickets? Chirp, Chirp, Chirp. A big freaking ROTFLMAO at you shills
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Once again, "The Right" has been caught in another blatent lie. If you go here http://www.theultimateconspiracy.com/pics/tuc_ss.jpg and look at the screen shot it clearly proves that Google DOES index sites in near real time...Strike 4...Next?
- LUCUS123, on 10/31/2007, -6/+14Ahhh...more Filth from the Neo-Con Rove loving idiots who are all part of the bury brigade... The Google "link:" protocol has always been a mysterious beast, Yea, mysterious enough to give low relevance to others but high relevance to hotair.com and michellemalkin.com. Very mysterious indeed. You guys are idiots.
- Seeker135, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Hey, where'd all the internet/Google "experts"go? Geez.There was a bunch of 'em around here a little while ago........Mom must have called "dinner" from the top of the cellar stairs. LOL
- MindFork, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Just to inject a little neutrality into the fight here: 1. How long has your site been online? I am a web designer and all of the new sites that I do take a minimum of 1 month for Google to show a new backwards link to a new site. Often it is 2-3 months. These are normal e-commerce sites for the most part.
Being a webmaster for a number of years, I know a few things about how the intertubes work, and most of theright's technical points are pretty much correct. There are a LOT of plain text instances of infowars.com on the net (there's one, right now) that aren't hyperlinks.
For the record, I believe the towers were brought down with demolitions. I believed it from the day it happened, just like Dan Rather and lot of other rational people, and no amount of "fire melts steel" B.S. in the official story has changed my mind.
I have also seen PLENTY of times where Google video/youtube have reset popularity and viewing counts for videos so they will fall off the front page.
BUT, rather than tell their algorithms to report less backwards links to conspiracy sites, it would be a lot easier to simply have an “exclusion table” that deducts page rank and various other “weighting factors” from all the sites they don't like. Proving that such a table exists is another matter. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Dear Mr. theright,
What an interesting online character you seem to be. A couple of weeks registered on Digg, 3 stories dugg, and maybe 20 commented on, with more than a passing interest in the fate of Korey Rowe that suggests you'd love for him to be sent back into military service in Iraq. Heart warming.
Words are powerful as you no doubt appreciate, wordsmith that you are, and it is my view that they should not be used lightly, but with full cognizance of their impact on the reader. It is one thing to disseminate misinformation from an uninformed point of view, and entirely another to knowingly propagate lies (for some meager compensation one can only assume). I have no idea under which category you belong, but I strongly encourage you to consider well your speech. Mere anonymity does not absolve one of one's karma. - jaysire, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10It appears there might be some validity to your claim. Take www.hotair.com for instance. Google claims on its own "refine your search" tutorial page that "For example, link:www.google.com will show you pages that point to Google's home page.". This means that link:www.hotair.com (which returns the number 11400) should be linked to from 11400 different pages. Still, when you start going through search result -pages, you can only go to page 63 (63*8 links per page = 504, which is very close to the number you get when you just search for www.hotair.com), so if www.hotair.com is *treated* as having 11400 sites linking to it in the competition for ranking, it is definitely given an unjust advantage compared to other sites. That's a big IF though. We can't be sure what number is used in the ranking competition and thus your proof is far from 100%, though it certainly warrants discussion. What if the situation is reversed and www.hotair.com is actually linked to from 11400 different sites? If some pages are left out (since only 504 pages are accessible from google), then shouldn't the webmaster for www.hotair.com be pissed that google "hides" around 10900 pages that link to them?
- inDglass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I can prove that my site is linked to from several places. They are legitimate links that should be registering on Google, but they don't show up. Only one link is shown, a link that connects to a subpage, not the homepage. I don't think I'm important enough to be the target of a conspiracy, but who knows. If I am not, than what is causing this? I would like it to be fixed.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9It matters not what you digg bury brigade goofballs think or do. The article made TOP STORY on prisonplanet.com and is being propagated around the net as we speak. Nothing YOU SHILLS can do to keep it down other than to make the digg article be lowered...big deal. I WIN.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10The Right Says "Then again, as I say, search engines are not updated in realtime." LOL...more crock bologna. Watch me PROVE you wrong again...you just don't know when to quit do you? Once again go back to google and type in www.theultimateconspiracy.com and look at number 2...It's THIS STORY!!! The one we are talking about right now. So tell me again how "Real Time" Google is?www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2986
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I already proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt that hotair.com and michellemalkin.com have higher priority in link relevance. No need to make yourselves look goofy by posting lies that are easily shot down like ones by "The Right" who is very in "The Wrong"
- antiklaus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Once again, I would like to remind you folks who are insinuating the Google Sandbox is keeping this website from getting the links it legitimately deserves need only look at the evidence. The very day Google took over ownership of Youtube, a strange thing happened. A literal unknown with an account only 1 hr old managed to get over 400K views with the "Albright North Korea" hit piece video - and a HUGE presence on the Google search engine with less than an hour of existence! Meanwhile other users who have legitimate views on Youtube in the same range are often entirely filtered, despite links to other websites!
Another interesting facet of this story. As of the day before the Google takeover of Youtube, Terror Storm was #1 ranked video of all time in news and blogs. I should know. I had posted it and taken snapshots of the rankings. Once again, within one hour of Google's takeover, all honors were stripped from the video... not a smooth decline to #2, #4, #10, etc... it was simply removed from the list.
Google is up to dirty tricks... should it surprise anyone that an organization that was started up with the aid of 2 ex-CIA staffers would play dirty?
Not me, that's for sure! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Very good article, which explains why there are so many co-intell payroll kids here. Its like the web version of the east German Stasi. You guys should check into that by the way. A real high water mark for western culture in the 20th century. Neighbors snitching on each other and stuff. Real heart warming.
- SouthAfrican, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Nice article. Thumbs up!
South African for 9/11 truth! - pinkSocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4When I type in "hotair.com" I get a "link relevance" of 11,400 like you, but a "real number" of 177,000, not 526.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8you said "I've just explained this to you. "Alternative" news sites don't get a lot of actual hyperlinks."
Now you're just talking a bunch of malarky! - greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But you are contradicting what occurs then Michelle Malkin's personal site. You sound defensive and you just don't make sense. Maybe you are the paranoid one.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's not digg you moron! It's this site www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2986 which is number 2 on the list...strike 3...YOU'RE OUT!
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Look up. You categorically DO NOT have 59 proper incoming links that are not just plain text and are not nofollow links. I know it's a cliché, but you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7For the record, where are you getting this "59 links" information from? A google search for "www.theultimateconspiracy.com?"
Well, I just performed that search. On the first page of results, we have a number of mentions of the URL on YouTube. All external YouTube links are, by default, nofollow links (to prevent people spamming video links on their websites to get return links from YouTube and increase their PageRank). That means none of the YouTube results are actually noted by search engines. There's one mention in a PDF document; not counted, as far as I'm aware. There is a plain text mention of your URL on Myspace, but it's not a link, so it's ignored by the search engines. I see you posted a link to your website on a "truthring.org" blog post, too. Too bad all the links in their comments are also automatically nofollow-ed to prevent comment spam. That doesn't count either. Haven't seen a single actual link that isn't a nofollow, yet... - LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6First of all, I am probably older than you. Second of all, I have been in search engine promotion for 10 years and a web designer for 14. Third of all, bury all you want. Is that the best you have? And last but not least, is it not past your bed time kid?
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6911weknow.com is plain text, it's not a link and it's in a .pdf file. NOT A LINK. Myspace is just plain text. NOT A LINK. truthring.org is a nofollow (will you just look that up, for cripes' sake? you obviously have no idea what a nofollow link is). NOT A LINK.
I've seen two proper links so far. Then again, as I say, search engines are not updated in realtime. You have absolutely no idea how any of their spidering and indexing algorithms work, and you are in absolutely no position to cry any conspiracy whatsoever. - LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Who said I called "every" and argued with "every"? Give it up already your attempts to troll are clear as day.
- dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Figured you would SPEW out the new cutsie wootsie "TROOFERS" like the rest of your boot licking buddies do.
Where did you closeted pedo-cons ever get that word anyway? lm@o
You guys started calling them "truthers" and when they adopted it, the best you wife beating molesters could come up with was "TROOFERS"?
I friggin NEED a tin foil hat!...to keep the pedo-cons stupidness from permeating my skull anymore!
Christ all mighty!
♣ - adam.skinner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Google is the new arbiter of your paradigm.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Shh, if anyone finds out I work for the NWO/Illuminati/Mossad they don't give me my paycheck for the month! :(
- virtualk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"theright" is simply WRONG.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Look at you hanging on MY story like a complete troll...Irony+Infinity
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Personally, I'd encourage you not to resort to the ad hominem logical fallacy in an attempt to impress your ill-informed views on others. Thanks.
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Lucus: I read all these alternative websites and I would believe it if you had solid proof, but you did poor research on this one. Compare it with other, normal websites. Or count all the real links and url's alone.
@theright: You're wrong about Google being the "first search engine ever invented". Do a wiki on 'search engine'. Before Google, websites could buy their position. - greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2what's this, "the world is always perfect and never corrupt theory from the world is always perfect and never corrupt theorist?
I'm shocked! - DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You must be looking at a rather different version of google than the rest of us are... I did exactly what you described, and the second link does *not* point to google. The only digg link is at number 15, and points to another truther conspiracy posting from 17 days ago. So try again - you fail this test.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Speaking of truthers, does this guy remind you at all of a truther with the screen name"jesuswon" that was around for a while? He was that vulgar, foul-mouthed little idiot that absolutely refused to listen to anyone's point but his own. Eventually his language got him kicked from Digg and then he went on one of the Alex Jones sites and whined about it. If this isn't the same guy then he surely suffers from the same mental illness.
- LUCUS123, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5No...welcome to the real world where you FAIL to research. I can 100% for sure promise you that if you do the research you WILL find that there are thousands and thousands of sites linked to infowars.com.
Ha...want the proof, go to altavista and do a link relevance search there you shill and see for yourself how many pages ARE linked to infowars.com - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Spoken like a true NWO shill babbling Newspeak.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Digg.com is an extremely popular website, therefore it is spidered by search engines very often (in this case it would seem multiple times a day). Your site, on the other hand, with no more than a handful of proper incoming links and no real importance, will probably be spidered once a month at most.
And no, the fact that Digg.com is spidered regularly does not dispute my statement that the indexing on search engines is not updated in realtime. So no, you haven't proven me wrong at all, no matter how many random words you write in all-caps. - theright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know where you got your figures from. How else would I have pointed out how utterly useless they are?
I'm glad to see you've finally realized that comparing URLs in plain text and genuine hyperlinks is a massively flawed argument. For the record, this means you also concede that your entire article is bunk, and the sensible option would be to retract it immediately, am I not right?
As for your latest clutch at straws, yes, you are comparing apples and oranges. Yahoo! and Google use different systems to index linked pages. Google obviously has more selective criteria for indexing links than Yahoo!. This can be based on all manner of things, such as the PageRank of linking pages, the relevancy of the link, etc. The algorithm is not public knowledge, so we cannot know for sure (I can already tell this will be your next argument) but It's quite obvious that the end result is Google's "link:" better reflects the number of quality incoming links.
Your "number crunching" and percentages shows nothing other than the fact that, given Google's criteria weeds out lower quality links, established mainstream media outlets and well-known political blogs receive more quality links than "alternative" news and conspiracy websites such as PrisonPlanet.com. One would have thought this much was common sense... - theright, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Google reports no external sites linking to yours'. Yahoo! reports no external sites linking to yours'. Altavista reports no external sites linking to yours'. Windows Live Search (formerly MSN) reports no external sites linking to yours'.
Either every single one of these privately-owned, completely unconnected search engines is in on this elaborate conspiracy you've just invented... or perhaps your site just isn't important enough to be spidered every other day and therefore the details haven't been updated in a while? You do understand how search engines index sites and incoming links, right? You do know that they do not work in realtime, right? - dancantone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I had to digg up this comment since I believe it's true.
- theright, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's quite clear you are unable to contest the overwhelming flaws in your arguments. Please, I would appreciate it if we could debate this without getting bogged down in petty insults and ad hominem attacks at every available opportunity. I have been polite all the way through, and I would expect the same back from you. I have been involved in SEO-related work in a non-professional capacity for more than four years, and I can assure you my knowledge of the subject far outweighs the couple of Google searches you've conducted in the past hour or so.
For the record, nothing I have said is at odds with any SEO experts. Incoming links play a large part in search engine rankings; I never contested this fact. What I contested was your claim that "[t]he more sites that link to your site, the higher you go on the list" as written in your article in the context that this was the be-all and end-all of search engine optimization. This is patently false. You are ignoring hundreds upon hundreds of other factors, many with far greater influence on rankings. You have argued that search engines index pages in "near realtime." I would love to see the response if you approached an SEO expert with that claim. As it happens, the link you claim has been indexed has still not been indexed. I've tried using a number of proxies, all with no filtering. The link has not been indexed. Another commenter also posted at the time you provided the screenshot that the link had not been indexed.
Your latest argument focuses entirely on the quantity of incoming links. You have completely ignored the fact that Google have certain criteria for indexing incoming links, that obviously differ quite considerably from those Yahoo! employ. I would appreciate it if you could address this fact rather than skirting around the issue in favour of hurling petty insults. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No this guy is named Lucus Drador who is a well known truther that runs a conspiracy blog. He posts on LCF about 17 times per day, and has conspiracy theories about almost everything. Based on his picture he seems to be an adult in his late thirties...
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What?
- newsninja, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7it's real sad how anyone who dares point out flaws in your arguments and articulate a bit of common sense is instantly branded a 'Neo-Con Rove loving idiot'
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Awww, the little guy gotten cranky. Time for bed maybe? How old did you say you were again?
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm pretty sure I have t-shirts that are older than you.
Regardless, even if you have been in "search engine promotion" for ten years, you apparenlty suck at it if you don't understand what a hyperlink is. - pinkSocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know whether you're right or wrong, but it is your explanation an internet phenomenon, or is there an intuitive reason behind this that I'm simply missing?
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The irony in this is amazing.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Why? Because I put true Liberty and the Constitutional rights of everyone ahead of some doddering old fool? I think that you need to get to know your candidate just a little better.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 