What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
44 Comments
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15That's like saying Ballmer tells Bill Gates what to do.
- str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19interesting side of net neutrality would be to not just hold ISPs accountable, but also content providers like Google - who are increasingly controlling what is and what is not available or accessible.
The lack of transparency in Google is alarming, I understand they wish to keep out the riff-raff, but I increasingly feel that Google will eventually start censoring competition. Yahoo was the Google of the 90's, and when they thought they had full market power - they engaged in censorship. - gunbuster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Easy to scoff at tens of millions when you're worth billions. No need to worry about Larry or Sergey. It's the guy who's a bit further down the totem pole who owes money to the wrong people that you gotta worry about...
- synystar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Larry and Sergey must be a couple of the most ethical people on the planet. What amount of bribes they must turn down on a daily basis. Seriously there are people who would kill without question for 1% of that amount. Someone offers me 10 million dollars and a competitor then doubles that amount. And the only thing I have to do is slightly alter some code? I certainly wouldn't kill for that kind of money but I might possibly think about maiming. =)
- aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A very unfulfilling article that doesn't tell me anything I don't already know, (Google has an algorithm, big news!)
The article sets it up with the interesting hook of "Can you get into the top five gambling sites using only legitimate methods of search engine optimization, this group got offered ten million to do the impossible"
And Concludes with, "We would have to neglect some other clients to try and get the site into the top five, and even then its not very likely" - op12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The print version, with the whole article on a single page:
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9012943 - alamko1999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7my firefox didnt have popups.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm sure money loses meaning after a while. What good would more money really do them?
- DrMic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Goggle is not a content provider.
- JBagley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That site is littered with popups. 2 per page! Spammers.
- netexplorers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2SEO - yes, pay attention to it, of course. But do not over value it & do not make it the single focus of your online marketing strategy. Big mistake. SEO is time consuming, expensive and there are no guarantees. Lots of unhappy clients, lots of companies who make big claims, but fail to deliver. It's a risky business.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why your thinking that after Google's plans to anonymize their logs... I don't know.
- XTheEliminator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google Analytics?
- Linguino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People are still arguing about this?
Here is the list, in order of importance, that will make you rank high...
[from my experience in the last 5 years, and that of others]
1) Incoming links, from high ranking sites, with keywords in link text
2) Keywords in URL of site
3) Keywords in title tag of site
4) Unique content
5) Meta keyword and description keywords
[You would be surprised how many people think that Meta is dead. They are plain wrong. I have tried it with and without. It helps.]
Everything else is just icing on the cake, and IMHO not worth the time and effort.
And you ask, how do you accomplish #1? Simple. Search Google for key terms, the results are always in order of highest relevancy, regardless of given PR value. Figure out how you can "add" value to that site and get a link back to yours. - esotericguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5i thought the secret was already out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_sauce - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I love the conclusion at the end of it... "make your site worth visiting"...
don't bother with those SEO scumbags that try to trick Google, they're ***** that need to die a painful death for ruining google for the rest of us... just make a good site - jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2so what is the "secret sauce"? my guess -- make your site worth visiting. over and over. in other words, word of mouth.
If Google could somehow figure out number of unique repeating visitors for the sites and pages it would be even better. - bongchitis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't Jesus be above them all?
Seriously, I think Eric merely does their bidding. - rdewsbury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I got #19 for texas holdem poker with what I hope is all whitehat... and #2 or 3 for free texas holdem. Is there a $1 million prize for page two?
I won't post the link.... would that make it black hat? Is there such thing as shades of gray hat... google blogoscope thinks so: http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2006-11-01-n72.html - str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well to our knowledge they haven't fully outright removed a site based on political/social concerns. However they have tried to stop warez/crack sites by using those "may contain spyware" to scare away users - they're acting in the interest of the content cartel
- alamko1999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Google is ambiguous about their mulitple ranking algorithms and wouldn't we like to know what they are."
This is the main reason why google become successful they hide their algorithms, imagine if wikimedia's open source search engine (web 3.0/semantic web) takes place, then the SEO would have clue to the ranking algorithm within a day which makes online marketing not fun, not challenging anymore. - str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The decision to annonomize their logs is more about protecting their own hides, they can turn over information about certain searches if they don't retain that info. And by content I meant service, they're essentially acting as gatekeepers currently.
- DaDiggCode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Working with SEO I'd say it can be done, whitehat that is, though there are hundreds of factors that play in a websites high rankings.
I could tell you how to do it, but then I'd have to kill you.
No seriously, I know how to do it. - chrispen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with you there about not putting all focus on SEO. I myself got my site listed on the first page for the keywords that I wanted and all it took was some good thinking about how I can get those key words into my content and still flow with the context. I also made sure not to over do it and I definitely put more value towards making it user friendly. It isn't easy but considering I've never actually tried to get a site listed on the first page it turned out to be not too hard, though I would guess it does vary some depending on what keywords one is wanting. I really doubt there is much black hat activity dealing with nintendo and gaming when compaired to gambling
- OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Yahoo was the Google of the 90's, and when they thought they had full market power - they engaged in censorship."
What makes you think that Google isn't already engaging in censorship? I think they are well past that and just out right blocking content in order to direct to paying customers. - keitho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that article does a good job of showing the competing sides of search engines.
- gaervern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have read an interview with a consultant that works for gambling sites to improve their google ranking. They try to figure out how the algorithms work, and designs the gambling sites accordingly. It is possible to make big bucks in that market, probably because having the algorithms changed in your favour is difficult - maybe impossible.
- GlargTheKelfn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its actually pretty easy if you understand the show. i pushed my domain live 2 weeks ago wed, and it's already listed on the front page (2nd listing) when you search. it's not that hard, and no i don't do anything bad to get it.
- piratemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I will. Hi Ryan.. :)
http://gpokr.com/ - funk49, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So moral of the story is:
1) SEO stooge shoots off some BS at a conference that his ass can't back up.
2) Google is ambiguous about their mulitple ranking algorithms and wouldn't we like to know what they are.
OK...I'm seeing more and more total crap on Digg. Anyone else? - TechTraction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay, I got suckered in by the title of this article. I started reading and nearly went to sleep. I expect much more from a "traditional" technology news source. If you haven't read the article, don't bother as it doesn't say much of anything.
- kurrent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2really? wow, thanks for taking the time to post that comment. you're an *****.
- chaoskaizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0so the sandbox is true
remind me of "miserable failure" bombing - umxid, on 08/29/2008, -0/+0The article is a pure catch, screaming heading and nothing more.
- wildmXranat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bulsh*t title not relevant to article contents. my presence while reading that pointless article just proved that traffic is important so as as to justify misleading headlines.
- ipaipb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0 Helene Goldnadel said Google algorithm changes each month and I guess no matter how much somebody is willing to pay to find it out they just can’t because it will change again.
I guess you are right we have the same point of view. International Profit Associates - netexplorers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can it be done white hat? Sure, eventually. Anything is possible with the correct strategy.
Can you keep the traffic coming in? Yes, if you keep making a sustained effort. The level of competition determines the amount of effort required.
There are SO many better, more reliable ways to market yourself. SEO is inherently unstable.
BTW....I think this thread is way better than the article. - goldnadel2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I find very interesting google algorithm. Helene Goldnadel
- jriggs420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0if anyone's interested, here's google's official explanation:
http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html - aldomatic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i would want to see if they can get a gambaling site ranked high with only white hat practices.
- Bortatious, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ah, c'mon, what's the point of this article? We already know that you can't get into the top five results for online poker using the white hat techniques...
- esotericguy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Sorry for the double post, i really have no idea how that happened, but what the hecks goin on in your heads? (or clicking fingers)
check out my diggs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/85381253@N00/422793650/in/photostream/
copy/paste - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Eric Schmidt is the CEO of Google... http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html If you prefer it more visually, Eric would be the top box, and Larry and Sergey would be boxen underneith
- esotericguy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2i thought the secret was already out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_sauce
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is