What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
56 Comments
- PacoDEmu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+47As long as it is original content and not just a blog pointing to the submitted article, then it's fine.
- str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Here's what I say, even if its a dupe submit it. I mean I'm seeing the same stuff that appeared 1 year ago, being rehashed and posted again - because it's made its way around the Internet, and comes back to where it became popular. And that's ok - because there are new users on Digg who may not have seen it. It does get a little annoying when you notice 2-3 of the same things hit the frontpage at the same time, but again it's bearable.
The only thing that we can avoid is when spam sites that had no right being frontpaged the first time, make it there again (used to happen 1-2 years ago, not so much now). - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22i agree, everyone should feel free to submit anything on the web, oldies, dupes and their own work included. if the content is good, people will digg it, and if the content is good, nobody should care where its coming from (unless its plagerized).
if it sucks, nobody will digg it so nobody will see it... - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20and everyone, that doesn't mean its cool post to links to your blog in your comments. thats a whole other issue.
- crackedplastic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Blogs with ads aren't necessarily bad - as long as the content is original and substantial.
The problem with Digg are sites that simply paraphrase someone else's content - many of the popular sites do this (Engadget, Gizmodo, Joystiq, Spamwad, etc.). That's a damn shame.
Now Digg is community driven - what this site needs is a way for people to change submission links to point to source links (i.e., if enough people corrected the link, it becomes changed). If this was implemented, EVERYONE benefits: 1) people get linked to the source, and 2) this forces paraphrase/clickthrough sites to write original content. - listrophy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Now hold on a second. Unless it's a mirror to a dugg website, pretty much everyone assumes a link in a comment is spam. This is not true. I've been buried as "spam" before in a comment when I've posted a link to a (greasemonkey) tool I wrote. The tool was obviously apropos to the conversation... no ads on the page, not trying to sell anything. It's ridiculous.
- soapergem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I think he's just pointing out a common woe of submitters: that too much content falls under the blanket of "blogspam," when some of it is really legitimate. There are notable differences between blogspam and original content, but oftentimes original content is shunned as blogspam for no real reason.
There's a difference:
* Posting a YouTube video in your blog, and then submitting your blog to Digg is blogspam.
* Posting a link to another article in your blog, and then submitting your blog to Digg is also blogspam.
* Posting original material in your own blog and submitting it to Digg is NOT blogspam.
Just because something's written in a blog doesn't make it blogspam. And I think what the author here is getting at is that often times good content with a lot of potential is shunned as blogspam by the community as soon as they see a single Google ad on the side, or as soon as they recognize it as anything other than the New York Times, or Washington Post, the Consumerist, or Crooks & Liars. And that means a lot of good content gets overlooked, which makes the rest of the crowd here seem elitist, and so on and so forth. - danielrm26, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's not a duplicate.
- econofast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well, he didn't try to PS out the watermark - the image is being pulled right from iStockPhoto's server. Which is... even worse, actually....
- crackedplastic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Word of advice: People don't like comment spam. Cut the URL out of your comments from here on and all will be well.
- tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12Buried as blogspam.
- Daniel591992, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think it's okay as long as it's related to the article and you don't try to make believe it isn't your site. For example, this comment of mine ( http://digg.com/programming/CSS_layouts_for_those_who_want_to_start_a_css_driven_website_quick?t=7111293#c7113167 ) got 16 diggs because it was related to the topic. Plus, I was providing free stuff. There was another related article where I did the same thing and got dugg up. I got over 3,000 hits from those comments alone.
So I guess it's okay. The one thing I do hate is when people include the link as a signature. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if you responded to a comment and then buried it the comment won't show up when you do expand full tree.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why does he credit iStockPhoto when he obviously didn't pay the $1 for the image and tried to Photoshop out the watermark?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think the number one difference between blog spam and good blog is originality of content. In other words no one cares if you made up a blog based on a digg story you saw. People car even less when you barley change the text from the article to your blog. And people get pissed when you then post that freshly made blog to the comments section of the digg story you ripped off.
- an7agonist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some of the best and most useful content on the internet I found is by myself.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The massive majority of Digg users see as irritating? Really?
Gee, that must be why it just hit the homepage :) - Magillicutti, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Here is what bothers me though. Some people I've seen just submit their stories, never digg other stories, and never comment on any stories other than their own. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be what the site is for, and their domain should be banned.
- jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Maybe a year from now, I should dig this as new content
- pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Like the Blog It feature? I use that a lot. But My blog looks like spam, when in all reality it is a picture blog with links to the pictures instead of the pictures.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no like your own blog space on digg. just so you can write your own articles and opinions. but then it might start turning into a type of forum so maybe not?
- UtahApocalyse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't dupe thing that are personally written, even if its a story I have read. Where I think dupes come into play is if its a EXACT copy of a article.
- cmadach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1let me slightly rephrase: People should right whenever they can, that much i agree with. It's cathartic. It's expression. It's whatever you want it to be. But that doesn't mean it should also be public. The point i want to make is that without a form of control, there is no way for quality to improve; it will rise only as high as the majority permits it to. And when the majority of content is mediocre, mediocrity becomes the standard.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3i think digg should have its own blog type section. so you can link to your own submissions that you have wrote on digg. might be interesting and would cut down on blog spam
- hiPpymIck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2this might save you time..if your intended self submissions have existing fans (..not just your fellow bloggers)..
youll probly be more likely to get Diggs - Duncan3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1People who repost others content without citation are just scum. Sadly, that's 99% of what blog posts are, and reddit/digg links too ... and it's all thanks to Google ads and greed. Anyone who actually creates content feels the same way.
- br0ck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I notice in the replies at the following link that someone already pointed this out to you last time you complained, but you can see your comments in all their glory at: http://bleu.west.spy.net/diggwatch/comments/deathproof
- delaen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You misspelled 'comment'.
- dupeduperson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Digg submissions are also an important way to show up on google. For instance, I was having an argument about the strength of rope vs. cable. I submitted a digg story on it. Now if you google "rope is stronger" my digg submission shows up number 2. Sure no one else cares, but now it is online and THEREFORE TRUE.
- cmadach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and here's the tragic flaw:
editors are paid to be editors because they can take a great writer's work and craft it even further. Once a piece has been through the professional editor's ring cycle, it's as much a work of art as anything else.
User-submitted sites rely on the average person's ability to edit and separate the good from the bad. What the average reader thinks is well-written and eloquent could make a professional editor throw up in his mouth.
The end result is unfortunately (in this case) a majority-rule: mediocre work shares a stage with great work, thus exponentially watering down the overall quality of the content.
Just because you *can* write, doesn't mean you *should.* Leave it to professionals, they're paid to do it because they're good at it. Let me put this into a perspective most here can relate to: think about a really well put-together web site, and think about all the reasons you like it that the average person could never appreciate. Now think about the thousands of other sites out there (cough MySpace cough) that get just as much attention. doesn't this make you cry a little? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2digg needs a section for "oldies" so that those of us who have seen it don't read the same *you gotta read this* chain letter 4 times a year
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1there is
its called wordpress
livejouirnal
blogger
livejournal seems like the best choice when digg gets openid support *whenever that will be* - NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right, I heard Picasso had an editor...
oh wait.
If the blog entry needs editing, don't give it your thumbs up. Just because someone is a hobbyist doesn't mean that their opinion is worthless. For instance, did you check with YOUR editor before you posted that comment? I didn't think so, should I digg you down for it? I don't see much difference between a blog's content and a comment on digg, both are equally readable on the internet and more to the point, are meant to be read. - bhikkhu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is really interesting. I have always struggled with the idea of wanting to contribute to this community, while still abiding by the community 'rules' set-forth. Unfortunately, as in everything, it seems that the abusers have ruined it for everyone else. I do hate actual blogspam, but I'm afraid some really creative people are afraid of contributing content because they don't want to be reported as a spammer within the community.
After being a digg user for a while now, it has encouraged me to add several blogs and sites to my google reader. I never thought it would come to this, but I see quite a few stories before they hit digg -- digg always used to be a source of something new, and I still get that, but not as much. It seems to have become the same 50 sites or so that get 80% of the frontpage stories.
I think the ideas in this post, with the additional protection suggested by crackedplastic (great friggin' idea) and something to account for Magillicutti's very legitimate concern; digg could bring so much new and original content, that I would never find elsewhere. - maineman99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"The filter for good content on these sites is the voting system, not the source of the article."
Exactly. That's why it's so annoying to have people piss and moan about what gets on the front page, who submitted it, or the fact that something has been on digg before. If people didn't find the article useful, it wouldn't get (back) on the front page. - monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1oh, please don't do that.
- jeremymccurdy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2***** off, if it's good people will Digg it without you spamming.
- deathproof, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Thanks Man You Gave Me Just What I Needed.
- johnvill, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0people will digg what is great , only great things will get attention
- crackedplastic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What's almost as bad are people who repost others' content (with citation) AND submit their own link to sites like Digg. The reposter gets the hits, while the content creator's site rarely gets seen.
- andrewdraw, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0self referential friggin blogspam.right
- bxyldy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i disagree. everyone who can write should. and the more they do it, the better they get.
part of being on the internet is being able to read between the lines. - andrewdraw, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0Where can i found this??
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/119871384780 ... - twisteduo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Oh and per your argument, rope is stronger than cable. Period.
- jason469, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Biased blogspam....on Digg?.......GTFO. No way, I've never seen biased content on Digg.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's ***** ass "articles" like this that make me hate blogs and everything posted on them. Marked as lame.
- deathproof, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I think my comments are getting deleted or something. I cant find them! Digg is really starting to get super annoying. What happened to the old digg where it was fun to post comments and then see who replied now i just waste my time looking for my comment. CTRL+F works sometimes but other times it just goes to the comment box where my screen name is. Super Annoying.
- shawnblanc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Dugg by 331 self-submitting diggers and counting.
- monsterofNone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0self referential friggin blogspam
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is