What is Digg?51 Comments
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -4/+18hmmmm... i'll stick to google. thanks.
- MrTito, on 01/08/2008, -1/+10Does it come with all the high-drama and backbiting that Wikipedia moderators are known for?
- imikedaman, on 01/08/2008, -1/+10I remember reading something similar about Wikipedia in general when it was just a startup. Sure, many mediocre writers would just result in a large amount of mediocre work, but that type of statement fails to account for how many experts are hidden among our ranks. You don't need to work for Google or Britannica to be an expert.
- xdcc, on 01/08/2008, -1/+10Where is their privacy policy?
- controltheweb, on 01/08/2008, -2/+10Launched with a not-yet-ready index. Pre-beta still. Also none of the human relevancy tools are available ..
- kingofpenguins, on 01/08/2008, -4/+10Wow, this is awesome. I've always looked for an alternative for Google Search that had an open algorithm, but could never find one. The dmoz project was pretty cool, but if this matures I think I will end up using this a lot instead.
- Dokument, on 01/08/2008, -2/+8for some reason or another i see somebody adding code such as (if search contains "a" then redirect = www.mysite.com
- zeptobyte, on 01/08/2008, -7/+12Mediocre programmers, no matter how many of them, cannot write more than mediocre software.
- zeptobyte, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4True, but an expert in topic X can be employed doing X and still WRITE about X on Wikipedia. That's more difficult when it comes to doing search for your employer and ALSO for a competitor. And most experts probably are employed working in their area. Writing about it is one thing, doing it for someone else is another..
- pengas, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3OS algorithm. w00t!!
- jacquesm, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Jimmy Wales forgot that wikipedia was not 'launched', it was grown. To start off this search engine with such high expectations is a strategic mistake of the first order. Also, what's this mini-article *****, it's supposed to be a search engine, not another wiki...
- amnezia22, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Their open source search looks very familar. Maybe that because its basically Nutch which has already been around for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutch
Nothing new here.. - SniperZero, on 01/08/2008, -3/+5I wonder what would happen if Google indexed all its search pages and it indexed all of Googles. The internet might break!! : O
- jacquesm, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3google is notoriously unhappy about anybody crawling their search results. Which is kind of hypocrite if you think about it, they crawl everybody else, at a minimum you should be able to 'return the favor'.
- bubbagump, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3The alpha engine didn't return a good hit for a basic search. The bad resulting photographs required a login to view. How badly can you mess up a project before you even begin? I think we have an example.
Here's one that's destined for great things...yeah...right. I'll stick to google. - SniperZero, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I think thats because it would make an infinite loop. Googles search engine would then index the pages of its self... which then the other engine indexes then that page is indexed... tooo confusing >_< :p
- 89vision, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Google has an insane amount of infrastructure in place. Just because some startup decides to open up their algorithm doesn't mean they will overtake them in the search engine market.
- jmpeagle, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4never said that. I am just backing up the original statement that nothing will beat Google at least not in the forseeable future. By beat, I inferred usage not quality.
The QWERTY keyboard turned out to be less efficient than another keyboard but QWERTY was introduced early a dominated the market. It's an example of an inferior product crowding out the market simply from early adoption. It happens a lot. - Irco, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3regardless of how great google might seem right now, I think it's ALWAYS good to have alternatives and specially an open one. And even more so, when one does not fully agree with the ranking system google uses.
@Dokument
that would not happen for the same reason people don't just add backdoors to linux. You are able to see and modify a copy of the code, but that doesn't mean your code is the one that gets to be online without anyone revising it. - Irco, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1uh..I'm sure if the government wanted to find out what you are searching online, google wouldn't stop them...no matter how many time they said no. Is not a matter of google playing the non evil corporation role is a matter of relevant results. I love google services, but I'm sure everybody has encountered situations where the results are not even close to what you wanted, and besides..that blind trustful mentality on google is pretty dangerous in my opinion .
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Wikipedia works because it is a MMORPG with some pretty simple "rules". Basically all you're really allowed to do, technically, is synthesize from reliable sources. If you do this faithfully you can level up and become a more and more important member of the community. Getting to the level of admin has the added bonus that you have to REALLY be a mental case to ever level down (hi essjay!)
There is no reason to think wikia won't work the same way. Useful in the same way that the very early Yahoo was useful. - lkms, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2I thought they opened a search engine to search various open source code for implementations of different algorithms .. that would be cool.
- Akaji, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3The "freedom of information" political statement is one of the motivations behind a large amount of open source software.
- MiDri, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1*Head explodes like that guy from scanners*
- kabbalahdigg, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1yes, i agree.. does such a site exist?
- CarzorStelatis, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2'Right now, the most important thing you can do is help with the "mini articles" that appear at the top of popular search terms.'
Er... we already have that, it's called Wikipedia. - CoryDambach, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I disagree, Google is too simple, people today suffer from wanting things dumbed down so much until everything is meaningless. Many times I am searching for something very specific I can't find it with Google, there are many feasible options that Google does not give searchers...But no one else I know of does either.
For example: I want pages that have a word within a certain user-specified number of words from another specific word(or better yet words related to a another word)...
Just to give one example... - rmtatum, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I support Ron Paul but you are giving his campaign a bad name by posting off-topic comments.
- pizzas, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2this appears to be the work of witches
- thailand1972, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1I'm excited about wikia too. A lot of cynics are knocking it, but it's good news for search that there's potentially a serious contender entering the search market (how can that ever be a bad thing, except if you're Google / Yahoo?). About dmoz though - come on that sucks big style. You wait years to get your site on the directory, if at all. dmoz was down for like 2 months last year when it came to edits too....
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Developing this search engine without an array of spiders constantly indexing the internet is failed from the get go.
The internet constantly evolving can never be built like a wiki.
It has some pip dream features at best, but it will never conquer the tried and true google.
The future of search engines is making it even more simpler than Google. Yes I said it, simpler... - courtjester555, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1[Baseless criticism/"joke"]
Lighten up, Digg - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2It does not work with Javascript disabled.
It lacks visual feedback when loading the results via Javascript, on my first attempt I thought "oh great, no results for this" then the results plopped up.
No usability whatsoever. :( - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0i wont get disappointed if it turned that its been owned by google/yahoo or whats ever
- known, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Employment is to survive in life.
Entrepreneurship is to succeed in life. - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1It sucks, the results are pretty terrible...this isn't neccessary at all...Google already does the job
- Diggaloo, on 01/14/2008, -0/+0Its bad enough wikipedia keeps outranking all my keywords in google with there overpowered pages! Now there starting an engine of their own. Thats just a pain plus they will never touch google there just going to have more dam pages ranking in google.
- thorZeus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Where can I get the algorithm from?
- TechGuru2009, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Wikia is just a weak/bad copy of Anoox
1st, this Wikia search is a complete copy (theft of IP & idea) of AnooX which pioneered
the "people powered search engine". You can see anoox here:
www.anoox.com
2nd, Wikia search does not really work in regard to people powering its search results.
That is it is nothing like how Anoox easily & transparently allows people to affect the search results by simply clicking on the button next to each listing to move it Up, Down, etc.
3rd, what makes Anoox great is not only that Anoox allows people to democratically generate the search results, but it is also the following aspects of Anoox:
1- Anoox is operated on a Not-profit-motivated basis, so cost of Advertising on Anoox is
much lower as a result,
2- People who make Anoox their preferred search engine can share in Anoox Ad revenues
3- Anoox is operated on a new Open source license model in an Open fashion
Cheers all :) - relentless1, on 01/11/2008, -1/+0How can the integrity of the search results be maintained with an open source algorithm?
- CuddyBuddy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+0Whether Wikia will live upto (Wales') expectations, time will tell...but it is no doubt an admirable effort / try. If you are a webmaster, you will know how difficult it is to live in a dictatorship that is the search engine world today, with Google pretty much doing as it pleases, with little concern about the honest efforts put in by millions of web sites owners...for this alone, I wish Wikia all the success...nothing better to remind Google that it is mortal too than a painful kick up its ***
- inactive, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1of course its good to have alternatives, hell i use ask.com or yahoo.com when my DNS screws up and i can't resolve google.com.
but google has always been about not becoming an evil-empire. Hell, They've protected our privacy when questioned by the government to provide them with search querys..
i personally doubt any open source "project" would go that far, and would probably just fold in half when it comes to the government asking.. - jacquesm, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1and it doesn't work on top of that. I really think it would have been better to keep this quiet until it was ready for the mainstream, now everybody will check it out and find it wanting. You only get one first impression and this on isn't favorable. Also, there is more than enough work to be done on wikipedia for Jimmy Wales to be 'distracted' by a search engine, which should be a major project in its own right.
- Akaji, on 01/08/2008, -6/+5So somehow consumer adoption of a product means that the product is superior? Windows is crappy, but it's what everyone knows, and so it's what most people buy. This leads to companies creating products almost exclusively for Windows, making it almost impossible for Windows to cease being the dominant OS (although Apple's making some headway).
- frostpoint, on 01/08/2008, -4/+2This is so overhyped.
- cvonwallenstein, on 01/08/2008, -5/+2A political statement? That's interesting motivation for new software.
- Akaji, on 01/08/2008, -10/+6Google's Ph.D. employees vs. half of the programmers on the internet.
I don't think that's even a contest. Quantity beats quality when everything is subject to peer review. - jmpeagle, on 01/08/2008, -11/+4really? How's Linux's share vs. Microsoft's share?
- bluvapor, on 01/08/2008, -15/+4Ron Paul is the algorithm.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is