What is Digg?70 Comments
- uncoolcentral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+75What... no blogspam? There aren't even any ads when I click on the link. Buried for lack of obfuscation.
- diggitizer, on 11/05/2007, -5/+21The problem with digg is, 0.2% of the digg population notice things like blog spam. We need education. Digg also needs the ability to make your 'friends' diggs and bury worth more. However, seeing your own digg through those rose tinted specs is removing the underlying threat of people taking advantage of the digg.com system
A 'this is blogspam' button with 'direct link' voting. If people vote on a direct link, it replaces the original submitters link.
Obviously this needs to be beyond the reach of the very blogspammers who operate on here. - google01103, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16hmm, well developed argument - did you work long and hard on it? Was the decision close?
- Latka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Blogspam is when a poster adds his blog as an intermediary, as in he posts the story first in his blog and then submits to digg, instead of linking directly to the article.
The benefit would be a bunch of pageclicks (money) but the loss is bigger when the community despises the blog. - Kanundra, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18Too bad there isn't a major overhaul on the UI
- spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And furthermore, the blog article has the same or less information than the article the blog links to. Blog articles containing useful original content are not considered blogspam.
- HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8A piece of blogspam, is a blog that is spammed. General this means they take a link from a website (say opeoffice.org) and post it in a post, then submit their blog url to digg/reddit/etc.
This mae even more harmful by the addition of adds (AdSense being a favorite).
The main reason Digg hates this is: blatant self promotion, waste of time (click two links instead of one), addition of adds into the browsing experience (Digg's, the blog's, then the actual story - none with ABP, though), and mainly: the blog's server will often die before the actual main server, often without being caught by Duggmirror. And even if Duggmirror catches it, the main site hasn't been cached, so if it goes down Digg's screwed - with no hope of a cached site. - RobertBogley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Any docx support yet ?
- jakswa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Sorry to be so uneducated about digg terms, but what exactly is blogspam? My interpretation, without knowing what it is, would tell me that it is a good thing to have no blogspam (or spam in general). This is just an honest question. Sorry to be off-post-topic.
- kharrison, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Not everyone trusts their business documents with Google.
- Tippis, on 11/05/2007, -0/+5Re: point 2...
You *do* know that not even Office2k7 fully supports the OOXML standard, don't you? - PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6It's a kind of meat that you cook in a toilet
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4lol, best comment ever
- qwuinc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Or even worse, the blog article is copy-pasted from elsewhere with no added content, and no citation. This tends to happen a lot with blogspam.
- strabes, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3If a company doesn't release the specs on a particular format or piece of hardware, it has to be reverse-engineered. It is not lying.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It has less to do with requiring it to be from "mainstream media" and more to do with people wanting to get to the actual source, rather than a two-line comment (+18 ads) on a linked four-line comment (+12 ads) on a linked two-paragraph comment (+8 ads) on a 4-page news item (with little or no ads).
- drmsucks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dugg for obfuscation!
- electricalen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Too bad this release probably won't make it into Ubuntu 7.10 when it comes out next month. Makes me miss the days when I ran Debian unstable and had stuff realtime.
- OnymousHero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"misunderestimated" .. ??
- Coldkill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, it will be in
- fishrjv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The only problem I have with Google Docs is that the formatting is terrible. Other than that, I would personally be tempted to switch.
- azprofessional, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6say NO to chrismgtis
- electricalen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Looks like I misunderestimated Ubuntu, but they still passed on the new xorg 1.4
- monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe the new version won't even make gutsy. Its already frozen except for bugfixes, you may have to wait till Hardy.
- stalefries, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2I know that Neooffice has docx, xlsx, and pptx support now, but they are basing their work on an unofficial branch of OOo made by Novell, I think.
- strabes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22.3 is already in the gutsy repos. I'm using it right now.
- Malachai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's a dumb reason to bury.
- MadOgre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Been using it since I got it yesterday. Very nice.
Wait. What's different from 2.2? I don't see anything new.
/Huge Open Office Fan. Open Office allowed me to give up Piracy. - spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Before 9/11 America had a huge industry in offshore data storage. Now the world is pulling all their data out of the US because it is in jeopardy of being spied upon by law enforcement and the government. Google Docs will never be taken seriously outside of America until Google builds local data storage centres and removes compliance with US law from the EULA.
- mehigh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6for the romanian readers http://labzine.ro/stiri/open_office_23/3428/
- Sushubh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1he mean like http://gears.google.com/.
- FKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Until Google (or someone) comes up with a way to allow you to edit documents offline through a browser applet and sync up to the server when you reconnect"
You mean like Office 2007? Oh wait, no one wants all those bloated features, right? - coit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5NEO Office FTW
- toxicredm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1MSOffice users get *all* the babes.
- boilerplate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You should demand your money back.
- mcrules, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Someone is posting news on their Blog and is linking to the blog and not the original site.
- kaiwai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pardon - and what is wrong with that? why didn't you remove 2.2.1 in the first place? I have StarOffice 8 and OpenOffice.org 2.3 side by side on Solaris without any problems.
You problems speak greater volumes for the 'wonderfulness' of Windows more than anything else. - masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1iWork the way to go? Too bad Pages doesn't have as rich a feature set as OpenOffice.org, and forces you to use a multitude of tabbed toolboxes rather than traditional toolbars. The tab design is nice for hiding the really complex functions you don't generally need (font shadow light source angle, for instance) and thus making the workspace tidier, but because the single toolbar included has no real customisability you can't customise the workspace to display all the functions you want at once. This means that using it for anything more than a text-only document takes an artificially longer time than it does in competing software.
A font drop-down? Nay, that Windoze heresy shall never again pollute the Mac! Thou must open the font toolbox and click the correct tab before choosing a font, mere mortal! Behold the revolutionary toolbar-free screen concept that Micro$haft is already stealing with their inferior "ribbon" system!
Go ahead and digg me down, fanboys. You know I speak the bitter truth. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Perhaps for some, but I see the word blogspam used all the time for original articles on someone's blog. Either way, having to click one extra link hardly seems worth the effort some people put into protesting it.
- ilgaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks to them not releasing 2.3 for OS X along with all clients, I finally made myself sure that "iWork" is way to go. The Windows port is the hard part, OS X has FreeBSD/POSIX foundation along with a real X11. That simply shows they don't really care or listen to couple of mac fanboy loudmouth idiots who doesn't do anything but whine about default GTK theme.
I decided "lets check the packaging systems" and both Fink, Macports doesn't have 2.3 too. Of course how can they have without support of Sun? That is a gigantic thing to compile, it is not a "helloworld.c" program.
So feel free to call me "maccie", I have chosen a product which actually cares about my platform. - Pixelpaws, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you can't get online every day, it's a pain to not have access to your documents when you're offline. Until Google (or someone) comes up with a way to allow you to edit documents offline through a browser applet and sync up to the server when you reconnect, Office suites such as this are necessary.
- strabes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It already is.
- mik3pass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow. Most Ubuntu users won't get to see this hitting their feisty repositories anytime soon, if ever.
I can understand if they think that most users won't want bleeding-edge software; but I think that I shouldn't have to upgrade my distro just to use the most up-to-date software without having to compile it manually. Oh well. I guess I can just wait an entire month (to the day) to wait until Gusty's released. Hurrah. - qwuinc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Should be maybe?
- FKnight, on 11/05/2007, -4/+4Obviously, you're unfamiliar with Open Source Zealotry.
1. Write application
2. Lie to everyone and claim that it's impossible to support the format used by the most widely used package, then intentionally not support it, even though there are dozens of other packages that support it.
3. Bitch that it's Microsoft's fault that no one is using your package.
4. Talk about Steve Ballmer throwing chairs. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1kudos for being an early adopter. While they are feature lacking I do use them myself heavily merely for the convenience. Google constantly works on their apps so Im sure its just a matter of patience. Lets not forget its free to.
- hagbard72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Slow download.
- monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Maybe the new version won't even make gutsy initially as its already frozen except for bugfixes you may have to wait till Hardy.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm glad I have a rolling release based distribution. pacman -Syu and I'm done :)
- Topher06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'll definitely have to try this out again, as I fell out of love with version 2.2. Its like they get 90% of the features of Office, but then the last 10% is just horrid implementation and just doing things the wrong way (particularily with their Calc product which is FUBAR in my opinion compared to Excel). Hopefully rather then making sweeping product changes they start working on the small particulars that make Microsoft Office excellent and keep Open Office as simply adequate.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is