What is Digg?59 Comments
- HottSauce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A better link...
http://reviews.designtechnica.com/print_guide46.html
A link to a printable version is always better (all content on one page, less clutter). Just my opinion anyway. - vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Digg = Web 2.0 (Everyone picks stories, everyone is a moderator)"
the thing is, there is no solid definition of "web 2.0". and plenty of people are throwing it around without knowing anything it could mean. hence, web2.0 = lame buzzword
I've been creating these kinds of sites for years. community driven sites are nothing new - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Always interesting to see people saying "Web 2.0 = teh suckage" on a popular Web 2.0 site.
Web 2.0 != AJAX
Web 2.0 isn't just scriptaculous, or whatever AJAX/prototype.js based framework you're using.
Here's a quick example:
Slashdot = Web 1.0 (Super users pick stories, only select few are (randomly) moderators)
Digg = Web 2.0 (Everyone picks stories, everyone is a moderator) - fuentes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with whackaxe. Who the heck puts out a "Best of 2006" roundup in February?! Ludicrous.
- G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, because all of them sites are new in 2006. All of them sites feature this Web 2.0 crap, and they are all the best...
- CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everything that uses http is stateless. If you define "Web 2.0" as accessing the server after a page load, then any web-based chat application since the early 90's would qualify. Please, Web 2.0 is a buzzword coined by managers to impress their bosses.
As was already mentioned, the Internet is an evolutionary beast. Now, come up with a protocal that can keeps state, call it lttp (or something) and you may have a candidate for Web 2.0. Teaching an old dog (http) new tricks (AJAX or what have you) doesn't make it a new dog (Web 2.0) - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What was Web 1.0? HTML? DHTML? CSS? XML?
Was Web 1.0 introduced with the first Mosaic browser or prior to that with Lynx?
Was Lynx perhaps Web 0.9 beta?
Were the BBS systems Web 0.1 alpha?
Web 2.0 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The collaborative paradigm that characterises Web 2.0 sites is great - but not appropriate for all presence on the web. Does that relegate all other sites to just being another web site?
No digg - because the whole Web 2.0 meme blows. - techlinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Umm. I'd say web 2.0 is anythign based around the user.
- daltonvoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Web 2.0 = social engineering, power to the people (Cool)
AJAX = Javascript instead of frames (Big Deal) - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A side note to my last comment: if you notice any bugs on that site in your specific browser I'd love to know! Its currently only been tested on the latest IE and Firefox. mlegate at phpdev dot ca
- whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3a best of 2006? it's only febuary or christs sakes
***** 2.0 methinks - calebrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Stories are “dug,” which allows the most “dug” stories to be showcased on the homepage."
Last time I checked, it was "dugg" - goaliegirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Next week we'll be seeing "Best of 2007" sites.
- minitechnik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lame. this is just 5 links, and one seems to be advertise for vimeo only. the announcement of "best of web2.0" is too big.
*report - Sonic_Molson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, I wonder if we will see the 2007 best of list anytime soon. This is pathetic, no digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slashdot, so sad.
- SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slashdot posted this story, omitted DIGG
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/06/02/24/2050253.shtml - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i prefer google.com/ig as a startup page, has every feature their pick did and then some
also, youtube is more than good enough to be on the list, even if it is for angsty teens or nostalgic twentysomethings who want to watch commercials from their childhood... - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i was really hoping we'd get more web 2.0 top ten lists, and now that dream has become a reality.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is sooooooooo damn lame
- JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is Web 2.0?
It is not specifically AJAX, it is NOT "based around the user" or any other such jazz.
Web 2.0 is stateless internet browsing. AJAX is certainly a part of it, certain types of DHTML are as well. Its anything where the page doesn't need to refresh to change what is displayed. So a DHTML example would be simply loading several frames and showing one at a time based on user clicks. AJAX takes that a step further and brings in the content only as its requested instead of sending it all at once. Flash could even be considered a bloated Web 2.0 since it's often downloaded all at once.
Digg is a great example of this in the way it uses its digg buttons and digg spy.
Flicker, great as it is, is a Web 1.0 technology - you must download an entirely new page every time you click something.
Simple as that.
If you want to see a good implementation of a photo site check out http://www.phpdev.ca/minishowcase/ (note its currently in development for DougJohnson, these are not his photos, and it is also being developed as a plugin to the popular minishowcase script.)
JMJimmy - eatasandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah. Everying is crap. Everything is lame. I must tell everyone that everything is lame. I must sit down at a computer posting comments about how lame everything is while life passes me by.
Is it really necessary to make a comment if you don't like something someone has posted, but have nothing more interesting to say than "this is stupid"? Is the digg/no digg feature not doing it's job for you? You have to also post and tell people which option you chose?
I thought the article was worthwhile even if it is only the beginning of the year. I didn't know about many of those sites before reading it.
When I catch the bus home from work there is an elderly crazy woman who always rants on and on about how late the number 66 is with anyone and everyone who makes the mistake of catching her eye. She complains over and over and over...I've seen her miss her beloved 66 bus because she was concentrating on her ranting.
People who post "this is so lame" every time they don't like something on digg.com remind me of that woman. - Wolfghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For those complaining that 2006 isn't over yet...If it was named "The 2005 Best of Web 2.0", you would complain it was old news. Just relax and let digg.com have the title for most of the year.
- dutchrapley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lame. no digg. More like, this is all the cool sh*t that became popular last year. Only last week, did we first get wind that any of these exist.
- Hoohoonick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where's LIVE.COM? Muhahahah
- CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I add my voice to the growing crowd of 'net surfers shouting "Die!" to "Web 2.0"
+Lame. - vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"he doesn't care what technology is actually behind the scenes so long as what the user gets (and the load on his servers) is what he expects - a page that doesn't need to reload to change its content or layout."
I agree with the first part. web 2.0 has nothing to do with what's on the backend. but I still don't agree that a 2.0 page is a page that doesn't need to reload to change content. why not just use flash for that? using javascript to call data is just as inaccessible as using flash.
AJAX should be used to /enhance/ the browsing experience. not replace it (IE: you need javascript to digg stories. even though it could be easily handled through a normal link with an onclick event that returns false, so if a user does have javascript, they won't leave the page. but if they don't, they'll go through a simple redirection)
"web 2.0", to me, is about bridging gaps:
making the user seem like they are in more control. they're able to post content, rate content, report content, do anything. AND we give them tools to even further that via REST/XMLRPC apis and feeds.
and to bridge the gap between website and a native program. I'm not saying replace, like an XUL app. I'm talking, like I said above, to enhance your site. permalinks to content should ALWAYS be available - JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0there is no Web 2.0
It's just a label for people to refer to the current snapshot-in-time of the web.
Things are just getting started. If you like Web 2.0 you're going to love the chindonet.
Too bad the US will become a backwater from fascist gov+industry like control attempts that will fail.
A billion+ people can't walk across an ocean, but their consumption can set standards better than any lobby, monopoly, or cartel. - fusioned, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wrote the article and am glad it's gotten a good response. Enjoy.
- v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0marketing hype, buzzwords, n00b CSS coders, muttering things like DIV.vs.TABLE, DOM.vs.AJAX, Web 2.0, etc.
It isn't even the end of the 1st quarter of the year yet, so how can the be 'the best [buzzword compliant] sites of 2006'??
When you Web 2.0 kiddies wake up and realize you are just way behind only trying to remodel the wheel before you reinvent it, do me a favor... STFU!
thanks =) - Anviltongue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meh, I like http://www.protopage.com as a start page (does the whole customizable RSS lists, google-email, notepad, whatever). It's not as pretty as most 'web 2.0' sites, but it gets the job done.
I believe I have heard of most of these at one point or another. - Macc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0link directly to the story next time
- saurabhv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is lame !!!!
- Zipp425, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0haha, im trying to make a web 2.0 page and i cant figure out what the heck it is really....
- asdren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, that's pretty much right
except for word processing
http://www.writely.com/ - herrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate top ten lists but the ones chosen are all herrin approved.
- herrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@trejkaz
Ummmm, AJAX diggs? Hello? - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That could be said about any technology - they're all "evolutionary" - and I do agree that Web 2.0 is a buzzword - however its one that marks a major step forward in the way a designer builds a page. If a client comes to me and says "I want this site, and I want it to be Web 2.0" I know immediately what he's looking for, he doesn't care what technology is actually behind the scenes so long as what the user gets (and the load on his servers) is what he expects - a page that doesn't need to reload to change its content or layout.
And you could say that any web-based chat would qualify - except that the early versions did in fact re-fresh the page or at least the "chat frame". Later versions improved upon that by incorporating Java, Flash, and then AJAX. But so what - we could have called them web 2.0 back then - but no one would have know what we were talking about because the technology was still limited by the available browsers at the time.
Anyway, I think its a term that's here to stay - though I think it will be over if internet 2.0 becomes available (a complete re-work of the http/ftp protocol, if it happens great but I'm not holding my breath! ;) - FelixdaaHack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg because I learned of Vimeo for the first time...some of the most original videos I've seen in a while
- Inbal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The title is strange, the choices are obvious but good. It's a nice useful list to send to people who don't know the web very well.
- shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Fiction, web 2.0 is cool, or interesting, or even real. Fiction, web 2.0 is Ajax. Fact, any scripts associated with web 2.0 are simply for people who can't be bothered to code their own stuff and feel that wasting memory and CPU usage of their visitors for it is fine. Please. You can have pretty sites, and you can have AJAX to make things easier for you and your visitors. But all these web 2.0 scripts and effects libraries and all those are BS.
- lordelric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Isn't it a little early to have the best of anything 2006 ???
- vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Web 2.0 is stateless internet browsing."
personally, I think that's a terrible definition, and nowhere near what it's said to be. browsers for web 2.0 won't have back buttons? looks like I'll wait for 3.0 - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> making the user seem like they are in more control. they're able to post content, rate content, report content, do anything. AND we give them tools to even further that via REST/XMLRPC apis and feeds.
We used to do that back in the '90s by giving people the ability to upload HTML to a web server... - chromaphobic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Digg is "social bookmarking"? I thought it was a news site, silly me.
- wiredgonzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No real surprises here, but they are all good sites in their own right. Good job to all!
- anarckie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Nothing new here...
/lame - MissionSix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3the term web 2.0 needs to die. Nothing is new, its just some intensive javascript frameworks that communicate with serverside scripts.
www.mypagestyle.com - vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0man, whiteboard.com is a sick web2.0 site
reported as lame -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is