What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
17 Comments
- Jacksc, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5good use of the digg mascot
- latrosicarius, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4if getting your article on digg is "the biggest headache of your life", you need to get a better life.
- mvandemar, on 01/03/2008, -4/+7hwn67, the article is about how people who are on shared hosting can survive a Digg, dumbass. I'm guessing you don't even understand the one in the link you listed, considering no one in that situation will ever be able to use it.
The solution this guy offered will actually work for everyone, and probably help some people from getting cancelled by their ISP's for resource abuse. - flamingbird, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Sounds like your screen name is not too far off the truth.
- tomz17, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2So now if I can't get to a dugg page I just have to continuously reload it??? (in this case ~4 times)... Sounds like a plan!
- qpingu, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Imagine the irony when this site goes down/resorts to the annoying 1 in 4 method?
- Rokets, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1lol, oh really?
- merreborn, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Bouncing 3 out of 4 visitors is a good way to guarantee that your site will never get dugg again. It's a terrible practice.
There's a good chance it won't even work, since it encourages people to refresh your site until they happen to get through. Which *increases* the number of hits/second you'll get.
It's just a braindead idea, period. Want a good one? Figure out some way to cache your content statically. Even a shared host can handle serving static HTML to the digg horde. - xdvx, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1The most stupid article ever, did they really thought that this is a good solution?
- rivalius13, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I have never in my life wanted a server to drop as much as I do for this article.
- davidcg, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1lol biggest headache of your life.... yeah right.... (oh noe's website is down for a few hours, must stress out...)
gimme a break. im not even going to rtfa because if the description is that stupid, so is the article. - ligyron, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0A great last resort would be to just take the site down. The idea purposed in that article is just stupid
- Skitzzo, on 01/03/2008, -4/+3hwn, while I'd agree that it's certainly not ideal, it's better than the site crashing completely. This would be a great last resort I would think.
- ligyron, on 01/03/2008, -1/+0So basically they suggest only allow a random one in four visitors to access your site when the author notices it's under high traffic... simple (and stupid)
A better solution that is just as easy to implement is to simply measure the amount of visitors per minute and if it exceeds a certain threshold that your host can't handle, don't allow any more visitors. That code could always be active and useful for more things than just Digg attacks - pzskc383, on 01/03/2008, -9/+8One of the lamest things I've ever seen...
- FatLoser, on 01/03/2008, -3/+0"...it can actually be the biggest headache of your life."
I take it you've never shot yourself in the neck after you drank so much vodka that you couldn't even properly commit suicide, and you woke up the next morning at the ICU with massive blood loss, inexplicable knife wounds on your torso and butt, and the worst hangover imaginable? I'm pretty sure a 404 page isn't nearly the same level of headache. But, then again, I never submitted my own website to digg so I wouldn't know. - hwn67, on 01/03/2008, -8/+5This article just tells you to bounce 3 out of 4 visitors. Here are some tips that might actually do the trick:
http://kevin.vanzonneveld.net/techblog/article/sur ...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is