What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
88 Comments
- nar3024, on 10/12/2007, -7/+263Mirrors:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q148/Naresh30241/diggeffect.jpg
http://www.jpegr.com/uploads/1/diggeffect.jpg
http://s10.imagehosting.us/uploadpoint/imagehosting_upload_storage/nouser_1896/T0_-1_1896764.jpg
(Just in case) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+71Hahaha, found that funny.
- HairyFotr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+64How many metric ***** are there in an imperial *****?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+57this assumes that the owner dugg the article, which is not the case for stories that actually hit the frontpage (except for blogs, which are almost always submitted by the author).
Digg won't do this again because of copyright issues and resources it would require, but mostly because it could land them in serious trouble for caching other peoples work - they would indefinitely put their ads on the cached site, unlike google which allows pages to be excluded and does not put in ads on the cached pages. - aaron.dunlap, on 10/12/2007, -4/+53sorry but this just wont happen. Kevin has publicly stated that the purpose of digg is not to take hits away from other websites, but to be a collaborative social effort designed to bring good content to the masses. The content goes down because the server can't handle it.... sorry, come back later.
- cr3ative, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Not feasible, because it'd cost a metric ***** in bandwidth costs, and you can never cache all pages perfectly all of the time.
- Sanitarium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Maybe you could have another form underneath the submission form, which the user can put a link to a Google Cache or a Coral Cache of the page, which has already been cached and mirrored, so if it does go down, users can click a "Dugg to Death" button, and if there are enough of those, Digg automatically switches the story link to the mirrored Google link... All at no extra cost to Digg.
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25And then Digg would have to pay for the bandwidth of every site cached, won't happen
- firepowered, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The idea is great, but it will cost Digg more money and power (servers) just to cache all the stories that get posted.
- t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I think it's some attempt at satire... but it just doesn't make any sense...
- daroot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15how can you install digg?
i dont get it... - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20This is AS bonehead an idea, as Digg letting people "report" that a website is down, and disabling the link or something. Digg works fine. Solutions are HIGHLY nebulous, including Duggmirror. Sorry, good try, so I won't mark it "lame", but I won't Digg it either. 243 misguided individuals should be more than enough.
- Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10A more workable solution would be for a small discreet link to the duggmirror of the article to be placed at the bottom of the description, but only if the page is marked as 'dugg under' x number of times, Digg can ping the page every x number of hours once this has been done, and when the page responds again the duggmirror link vanishes again. Once at item goes down 99% of the time someone will post a link to duggmirror in the comments anyway, so that is just automating what already happens in a more effective manner.
- GamingNews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9How about just boomarking the site and coming back later. I've never seen a single thing posted here that required absolute immediate attention.
If the digg effect is that much of a pain, you should spend more time in the upcoming section so you can see the story before it hits the front. - wajacksonmd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9digg needs to add a button "save for later" so you can mark the story and find it easily in a tab under your profile. Then you can read it and digg it if you want.
- HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You wouldn't have to cache all the pages, DIGG should just delay the promotion of articles to the frontpage by ten minutes, cache the link (or retrieve link from the various caching services) then put it up. And if it goes down the DIGG users vote that the site is down and then the cached version is linked at the top of the story.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10There are 13.67 Metric ***** in an Imperial *****
- ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10But by blocking the ads you are hurting the community that you love's revenue. Fact is we live in a world that demands the use of "money". If digg is not to sell to a megacorp, it needs to be supported by its users (yes, programming new features cost money, as do LOTS of servers, which Digg needs when it gets millions of hits per day). Donations are cool, but what better way to support Digg than on clicking on its ads? It costs YOU nothing, and brings money to Digg.
To not harm the advertisers, I make sure to click on some ads that are somewhat interesting to me, but I still try to support Digg. SUPPORT DIGG!
Notice: I am not affiliated with Digg Inc. in any way shape or form, just a passionate user. - samster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Step 2. Don't use WordPress.
- GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7In most cases I'm pretty sure a jpeg image of a webpage would be larger in terms of file size than the webpage itself.
- Koray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This can be done. Digg can cache articles automatically if they are receiving enough diggs fast enough to be on the front page. The only articles that really need to be cached are front page articles. That is 15 sites. 15 isn't that much. As far as copyright, that's another issue in and of its own. But from a technical aspect, this is possible. We all know it won't happen, but it is possible. ;)
- myheaditches, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Good news! Digg is half way to being full of ads!
- dscx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Couldn't it just read the robots that allows a site to skip Google caching in order to tackle the legal issues? (I assume that is how Google cache works, please feel free correct me if I am wrong)
Also there could be an option which states that you are the site/copyright material owner which would kind of pass the buck to the submitter a little? - ThunderIT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That is the first reasonable idea i have heard so far.
a little button beside MY#1 that adds it to a list of sites you need to revisit - justinjacobs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metric+*****
A metric ***** is roughly 2.287 english *****. - phjr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Nice, but why is it "my" article? In many cases it will not be the author who submits the story.
The idea about 5-10 minutes is great. It prevents digg effect before the site can be actually mirrored, which seems to happen quite often with duggmirror. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Digg won't do this again because of copyright issues and resources it would require"
Not to mention the potential for abuse. Need something hosted for free? Just submit it to digg! Digg can't possibly afford the bandwidth and storage that would be required. People would start using digg to distribute warez, etc.
It's a bit of a catch-22. Because digg can't possibly afford to cache every single submission, the natural choice would be to cache the pages only when the story gets frontpaged. But by then, it's frequently already down! - furyg3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think people misunderstand why sites like Digg and Slashdot don't do this.
The problem is a potential lawsuit. In the mockup it says "my article" but Digg has no way of knowing whether it's your article or not.
It's very possible that someone (crazy, imho) could be angered by the fact that Digg was hosting their content (even if it was because their site went down). Many sites make money off of add revenues, and they'd rather their site be down due to the digg effect than their content be served without having control over it.
Digg (and /.) don't want to be liable for this kind of stuff. Including links to mirrordot or duggmirror on their front page mean *they* have less control, and incorperating the features of the mirroring services mean that they open themselves up to trouble from the individual sites.
So that's the rationale, for those who didn't know. - ThunderIT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why can't people just pay for real hosting
i wish everyone would stop buying that udder ***** hosting for $1.99 etc
real hosting doesn't cost all that much, if you have a site, and you want it to be popular, make sure it can handle being popular.
its like having a party, inviting 50 ppl when your house can only fit 12, and then 200 show up - arnar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's a troll:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153632&cid=12887520
http://tinyurl.com/2xgx6o - GeekedAtBirth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I like the "Digg Effect (TM)" on there...kinda funny.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Step [1] Get people to not use crappy hosts.
There is no step 2.
I have a $6.95/mo hosting plan, it's shared, there are a couple hundred other people on my server and I write complex pages that are a mash of mysql/php/javascript and ajax. Twice my site got mainlined on Digg, twice you'd never know it by the server until you looked at the log files.
It's a big host with generous bandwidth (2.5 terabytes I used 6 gigabytes during the Digg storms -- not heavy into pictures and I know how to compress html files) -- my site never got "suspended for bandwidth", my database never got disconnected, the server never choked, the hosting company never wanted to talk to me about bandwidth/cpu charges. The only thing that happened is that two of the administrators dropped me a note congratulating me on my success.
No I won't tell you who they are, that would be spam. But dang it people if you're going to host a site with content that's interesting enough for a digg effect at least do five minutes of research and get on a host that DOES NOT SUCK.
Shoot even blogger won't die during a digg storm and it's free. - avalenci, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5what about a putting the web page in the Cache just before it gets into the front page automatically??. No need to put ALL the pages submited to digg.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I concur.
That would be very cool. - S1L3NTC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Dwight
You, sir, are an asshat.
The block button is going to fall off of my screen if I have to keep clicking it so frequently... :-P - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You want digg to follow the spec!? The RSS feed breaks RFC3023!
- UnknownCzar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yet dugmirror seems to do it just fine.. hmm...
- neutrino15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3GOOD IDEA!!!
Or maybe only have a "cache automatically" button so that every single stupid submission does not have to be stored on the digg server.. Or maybe yes, store everything, but unless it has "x" ammount of clicks per day, delete the cache... - woogley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3duggmirror can only guess what's going to make the front page, but digg actually "knows." digg could actually cache the page just before it promotes the story to the front page. adding a 72hour cache time limit should give most pages enough time to recover, and this will help digg with the resources..
- jeremymcanally, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think you're talking about dreamhost, and I agree. My site didn't crumble under the digg effect either.
- JordanAustin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Let's get realistic here people.
Do you have any idea how much money it would cost digg to support that bandwidth? The group is already shelling out some bucks to afford the bandwidth of just linking to stories, let alone hosting them.
I'm also sure the copyright laws would be a challenge for Kevin, let alone monitoring what digg is now hosting.
A more sensible solution would be to simply put 2 buttons right next to the title of a topic, 1 for coral cache, 2 for duggmirror. Maybe even add a vote for link down so that we can quit getting stupid posts that lead nowhere. - ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ThunderIT
There's no point to moving the ads off the page. Digg doesn't get paid unless you CLICK on the ads. Yes there are some ads that pay per 1000 impressions, but most of the cash comes from clicks, not impressions. - nar3024, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There would be problems with ownership and piracy, but if users have to prove ownership, and register a site with their account in order to cache it, it would work.
They could prove the ownership by adding a segment of code to a page, or another way, then the cache option would be available. Also, It could only save the first page, and digg could easily add a file size limit. - morphie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My feasibility study is: chaching is faster than telling hundreds of thousand of people to change to dreamhost.
- whistlerpro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But digg don't own duggmirror, digg would have to start paying them.
- NiX0n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3apparently trademarked...
I've always liked the term "Digg-Dotted" - morphie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg should cooperate with google on this one. Fronpage-Digged articles are articles which could have a higher rank on google and therefor needs a proper cache. :)
- lilx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's simple then that, just ask yourself how digg.com doesn't get a digg effect?
LAMP FTW -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
