What is Digg?81 Comments
- kenvsryu, on 05/03/2008, -4/+109It makes rickrolls faster.
- mark076h, on 05/03/2008, -15/+103yeah thats nice, April passed and no new comment system?
- GeekyGerge, on 05/03/2008, -1/+58Anyone mind to briefly explain what this means for Digg?
- Matt2k, on 05/03/2008, -2/+45For example, a paragraph about a subject defined by an online resource can include in its element bracket an attribute about [...] The subject is the person's name, the predicate is the act of naming, and the object is the resource where the name is catalogued. Imagine if you ran a certain online resource -- say, a wiki/encyclopedia thingie of some sort
I'm imagining and I don't see how this solves any burning problems.
In other words: We already have a way to cite references that is easily viewable with a standard web browser. Not to mention-- contacting someone based on their name being associated with a paragraph? I can imagine this being useful 5 times in the history of the universe.
In other words: Yawn
Yeah, I know. Don't complain. But I remember about six months ago someone was chatting with a Digg developer about the URL truncating issue when you edit your post, and the developer was "Oh, that's a new one. I'll put it on the bug tracker" like they had never seen it before. And I'm going to get excited about adding a couple REL tags on hyperlinks on my profile page? Has Digg considered hiring, oh, programmers to fix real problems? - nek4life, on 05/03/2008, -2/+29Now maybe they can fix their "Digg This" button so it validates strict xhtml.
- xoxota, on 05/03/2008, -1/+22Oh yes. Automatic personal data mining. I don't see any potential drawbacks to this at all. Not one.
- BobCFC, on 05/03/2008, -1/+21How about we get search working first?
- picpak, on 05/03/2008, -2/+17Now you can find deadfecesguy before the comments.
- Philluminati, on 05/03/2008, -1/+15Wikipedia should be doing this. They've got the power to really make some great content. It's a great idea as well. The symantec web has loads of potential. You could find some friends in facebook and it would collect information about their food preferences (scattered across comments, bio, questions and the events they've been to etc) and google could be used to search for sites containing recipes that have been filtered based on everybodies allergies. (for example). The symantec web is about that describe not the formatting of the page - but what the information actually means. i.e. < telephone > 923232 < / telephone >etc.
However this concept has been around for ages and the only company to actually use it in any meaningful way is Microsoft. (Word has "smart tags" which recognize dates, phone numbers, etc in documents and allows you to create calendar events, address book records etc.) - ElbertF, on 05/03/2008, -0/+12http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_Rolls_Out_DataPorta ...
- expatcatalyst, on 05/03/2008, -3/+13Anyone mind to briefly explain what this means at all?
- therightclique, on 05/03/2008, -3/+13referring to web technology as "siiiick" just shows how retarded kevin rose can be.
- kirakun, on 05/03/2008, -3/+13Huh? Content on digg? Looing for content on digg is like looking for a comb on a bald man.
- boldfire, on 05/03/2008, -2/+11Kevin Rose recently tweeted that he has been playing with it, it's "siiick" and he's "creating a video to post in a couple days - we're killing bugs, soon soon!" http://twitter.com/kevinrose/statuses/802131333
- thetanbark, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9If developers change to strictly semantic web markup, how much easier is it going to be for spam bots and spiders to gather all kinds of info about me? Shouldn't be too hard if we tell them <email>emailme@mydomain.com</email>, as HTML5 would even suggest...
- sq2shooter, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Do people actually link up all their online profiles? Why? I have profiles all over the place and there are not any that are linked together in any way. I do that on purpose. I have a different user name at every site, an anonymous email address and I always sign up under a fake name. I have no interest in having all of them linked together or my actual identity exposed. Screw that.
- SteveMax, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8Symantec web would suck. The browser would keep running all the time, be impossible to uninstall, use up 50% of your available CPU power and RAM, and make you unable to use anything in your computer if you close it.
- Myztry, on 05/03/2008, -2/+9Firefox 2 did that on 'this' computer. Firefox 3b5 doesn't...
- therightclique, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6Nope. It is definitely Digg. Digg's ***** code is freezing firefox all the time. As has been previously stated, the latest firefox beta works can manage it.
- TheMachine1, on 05/03/2008, -5/+10Glad to see Digg is not anti-semantic. That other tech news site is nothing but nazis.
- thomasprebble, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5They say the idea of a semantic web could be used in fields as far reaching as politics. Just imagine how easy it would be to find out if your local MP campaigning against environmentalism was actually linked to the petroleum industry.
- p0tent1al, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3If by that you mean bugs about on their site, then yeah Digg is leading the way.
- darkfus, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3This is a new feature, its not meant to solve problems but perhaps enhance the user experience preemptively. I am sure there is interest in fixing existing bugs or shortcomings on Digg, but there is also interest in staying competitive.
I imagine at some point the use of RDFa will allow you to read Digg without actually using Digg. Which in that case might spare you from the interfaces you loathe. - displacednomad, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Just imagining here...
Since your Digg profile (and twitter, facebook, myspace, delicious, technorati, et al profiles) all have links to your online personas, imagine being able to follow comments and posts by a user across the internet. If I were to click on "Matt2k" in a post, comment to a blog post, or elsewhere, I could follow what you follow by searching your various profiles for any search term. Might be one method of getting me closer to the information that is usually hard to find on the internet if I could follow through to where the experts are going, rather than having to sort through pages of search results and forums myself. Or not, who knows? - dxgg, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4I can't decide if that was funny or just lame.
- Culyt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Depends on the sites, I like to keep my username constant across forums and such provided they are of similarish content, ie a persona for digg, reddit, tech forums etc..., maybe another persona for gaming forums, another persona for anime.
I would like to link a myspace account to a facebook account if I mostly used it with real life people (although I don't really use either.
I however wouldn't want to cross link my real life persona with my anime/gaming/tech ones since a lot of real life people wouldn't have much interest in such stuff it might even cause problems (ie you won't want your employer seeing Kirk vs Picard posting) and I wouldn't want abusive gamers tracking me down in real life either,
In real life there isn't much way to link them, but I would like to beable to have people see my reddit profile from digg and visa versa. - applepro, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Actually... the "Search" is one of the poorest implementations of anything I've seen online from a "big website". That should be their A-1 priority.
But if they're going to do something and it seems like this semantic web standard stuff looks very top-level, they might as well implement it right. - joesmeat, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2I think you're describing Vista.
- displacednomad, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2But I think we've shied away from it because that has always meant additional tagging of our content. Who really wants to write a paragraph of information and then go back to apply appropriate tags? But with the newer wysiwyg editors (like what you have with your email accounts, with cute buttons and everything) tagging can be as simple as highlighting text and pressing the button, such as highlighting "923-2323" and hitting the telephone icon.
To use your example above, imagine throwing a party for friends, and clicking on their names and searching across all their online profiles to see what kind of food they like. Then your wonderful browser would make a short list of it, and you could throw a party based on your friends food preferences. "Everyone likes Indian food? Perfect, that's what I'm making for the party." - danconia, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Oh I'm sure net "neutrality" will give the government a way to keep that from happening... wouldn't want the public to know what's *really* going on.
- mrcabnit, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3How dare you compare Kevin to Tom!
- ddawggin, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2No, although Digg would lose credibility if a story about Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 reached its Top 10 in 10 minutes.
- richbradshaw, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Wikipedia does use this in the about boxes for people.
- Vagari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Ummmm... Microformats anyone?
- raynevandunem, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaW ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Mediawiki
It's an extension to MediaWiki, the server software used for running Wikipedia and multiple other wikis. This one (SMW) tends to place particular emphasis on tagging specific words in wiki pages with a relational wikitext syntax so that the data can be extracted for any specific or trivial purpose by any particular application. Don't see much else as far as additional visible features are concerned, and I personally think that there should be more tangible reasons or persuasions for adopting something like SMW as de-facto.
On a more general note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_wiki - shitthisfook, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1What if he wants to comb his pubic hairs
- Philluminati, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It can be either tagged on the server side (just a bit more XML, but hardly a lot) or processed on the client side, in which case it wouldn't be more effort than a Firefox plugin
- jbetancourt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The Semantic Web is a means to allow machine based access to information. Right now the only way to access information is to to full-text search web pages and apply complex parsing. The obvious example of this are search engines, of course. So SW makes the web into a distributed database and distributed schema, not just of links but of data too. Starts the transition from web 2.0 to web 3.0.
Sure its an old concept and XXX already some of this. Semantic Web, of which RDFa is a small part, has bigger ambitions. But, who knows, it could happen. - philodygmn, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I disagree meta-resource managment won't happen without money. Case in point being Wikipedia. One day, people will wake up to the fact that the infrastructure for this sort of thing is worth supporting even if it's not profitable in and of itself.
- MariusAgricola, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Semantic Web is not about new ways for web browsers to display things at all. Instead it's about allowing machines to gather the kind of contextual information that only humans are able to do right now. In overly simplistic terms, it comes down to being able to ask a question and get an answer. The most common example I have seen is trying to find the prices of a certain sized plasma television. While you can do it now by visiting several sites, there is nothing that just gives you a list of plasma television listings it finds on those various sites and displaying the output for you to compare and sort. There are some that have merchant-controlled lists of catalog items (pricewatch, shopzilla, etc.), but they are not the same as a dynamic set of results that draws from the Internet at large to answer the questions you are asking. So while the idea is that the data presented is for eventual human use, the way it is gathered is done by machines, and that requires adding semantics to data so the machines "understand" what it is they are seeing.
- synystar, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1RDFa is definitely something that is needed on digg. "Read da ***** article."
- plaing, on 05/03/2008, -2/+3Anyone mind to lose credibility when digg gets 10 out of 10 for beta testing semantics?
- Squeeself, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Not that it's hard for them now to harvest email addresses...My favorite is people hiding their email adddress like "email at email dot com." Like that's REALLY gonna help stop a spambot from harvesting the email. Since it's happening, there's no reason to make it harder for more legitimate uses.
Not that I think semantic web is all that useful. - Myztry, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Are people having trouble? or does Ubuntu just trigger an auto-bury response? Meh. Works beautifully regardless...
- joeanon, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Semantic technology is awesome, but today's offerings are all but useless compared to what we could really do.
This standard will be immature. - beaunewcomb, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Sounds like it will help make things a little more organized in theory, but I think it will also be easy to spoof the content of an article for spamming purposes..
- lamiaconfitor, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1we totally need to find one...
- Altanar, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2I didn't realize that, so I tried setting it as application/xhtml+xml and discovered the reason people don't. IE doesn't display xht pages; it downloads them.
So I went and converted my page to HTML 4.01 strict, instead. **shrugs** -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 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