What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
84 Comments
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Personally, I'm undecided. I do think that digg is an extra click before you get to the "real" content, however, digg does give a story exposure it wouldn't have gotten otherwise...
It's a tough question. - ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35I think it's good that digg comes up in googles search results because usually digg has some awesome stories that might be hard (or nearly impossible) to find without searching google through and through.
Also, usually the titles in digg created (sometimes) by the user is more precise and has key words that the linked website doesn't state...makes finding what you want a whole lot easier I find. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Does someone have sour grapes?
"If you look at Digg, from a true standpoint, what does it really offer? It offers a link to the actual story, a 1-2 line overview of the story and sometimes comments from Digg users"
And I'm grateful for it, thanks for asking. No more getting duped into visiting spam blogs, recycled news, fake news, "blogosphere" infighting, embedded YouTube videos masquerading as someone else's content. Not only that, but I can check the Upcoming Stories queues in specific categories, and sometimes I see something really neat that never hits the front page.
So yes, it belongs in Google. You're just going to have to deal with how convenient it is for everyone else. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15i could have swore 9 out of 10 times it links to a blog which links to a site
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21ldavid...USUALLY? No way. Most of the titles submitted to Digg are just copy/paste jobs. Same with teh descriptions. Of the small percentage that aren't, I would guess there are far more whose descriptions are far LESS accurate or concise than the article they are linking to. Especially the political ones where the submitter intentionally makes the title misleading. Same with any title blasting Microsoft, Sony, RIAA, etc.
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I dunno... just google it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=does+digg+belong+in+google+results&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18No more getting duped into viewing Spam blogs?
What are you talking about? I GUARANTEE you have visited far MORE Spam blogs since you joined Digg than before you did. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17People need to drop the whole "google should rank these pages the way I want" thing.
PageRank is an algorithm. The fact that digg results rank highly simply has to do with the fact that digg itself has a high page rank. There is no "should" about it -- a google search simply tells you how highly various pages rank for your search terms. Nothing more. - sakabako, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Offhand the only times I've seen Digg high in the results is when it really helped me. Usually when I'm looking for some software and the Digg description describes the software more concisely than the developers page.
I think Google has done a good job in this respect. I've only seen Digg articles when they were helpful. - halfran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13This wasn't about why Digg itself is useful, it's about if it gives any value to Google users. No, not really. It would be like Yahoo search result pages showing up in Google results.
- yevkasem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7since digg's search, well, sucks, i very often use "site:digg.com" along with what i remember about a story to find something.
- Snoopsor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've noticed digg coming up as one of the first few results in google a lot lately for the various things I search for, and personally I find it invaluable because of the comments. For example, say there's an article on digg about a new piece of software.. I can go to the link, and read the comments, and with any luck (and 99% of the time there is) there will be links from other users mentioning other similar software (which may not have been found with the search terms I used in google) and also, they can bring up points I didn't originally think about.
In a way it's the community becoming human search engines.. We consume information, and then give it back for others to benefit from it. - tekmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It isn't like digg is the first site to ever link to other sites.
- TitoJackson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've used Google to find an article I remember seeing on Digg many times and with far more consistent results than using Diggs lame searching alone.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can we get a Digg category so I can remove it from my profile? This isn't tech news. It's yet another self analysis pseudo news piece.
- TOndrej, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5please submit that URL as an article so we can digg it ;-)
- cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't know about you guys but I sometimes add "digg" to the end of my search terms in google to get a relevant link from digg. Especially if i am searching something tech related such as uhmm.. the best internet security for win... If there is a story and it has a lot of diggs then most of the time it is better than the first link from google without the term "digg". The digg community sometimes isolates the best article/site beautifully. Not to mention some of the excellent comments with further info.
It's also faster than searching from within digg. - ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I never thought about this either. Perhaps as a compromise, the listings can stay the same, but the primary link will go to the original source, with secondary links (like cached or translate) linking to the Digg page. I like it being linked somewhere to the Digg page because the comments are useful in some cases.
I do find it useful that Digg is listed on Google. This is because Digg's searching algorithm is quite poor, and at times it is MUCH faster to just pop up Google, and search with a "site:Digg.com" filter.
In the end though, Digg has the final say in what is done. Google can't just force such a decision onto Digg (they could, but it could get ugly and it would be out of character for Google). If Digg were to offer Google a compromise however... - MrObjectional, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, Google is better at searching digg than digg's search engine alone, so yes.
- ionut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hey, Digg is just a site. Why do you want to be treated differently? You really need to learn how a search engine works.
- DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sometimes things disappear and links go dead, and sometimes a Digg user is kind enough to lend a mirror... so I say yes.
- schleppy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I feel that the comments are usually more useful than the digg story itself. More often than not one can find some great supplementary information/links/data about the story via diggers comments. The other side of that is you can find a lot of really ignorant and utterly useless trash as well. The nice thing is that diggers have been moderating those down via the "thumbs down".
Finding a way to display user's comments about a given search result from various social networks sites could prove to be an interesting way of presenting search data. In other words, next to a google result could be a "see what people say about this link" button. That would then generate a collection of comments from the various sites. As neat as this would be, it seems that it would be very difficult to prevent it from being abused. - sparkmonkeyz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg should not be generaized into the youngish geeky male. Although I do fall into that group, I have been introducing it to friends, both male and female, of all ages, and have come to find that there are many other people that use digg.
I found many of them are not apart of the "community", and do not actually digg stories, like take my father for example. I had showed it to him, and he made the politics section his home page. He does not digg stories or have a screen name for that matter, but it gets him the news that he wants to read.
Since v3, digg has been expanding to poeple outside this geeky young male. - RaysinX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4front page articles yes, otherwise no. It would just clutter up google even more, and I especially dont like the fact that when I google "raysinx" my digg account is on there.
User profiles should not be googlable - brickguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Due to the fact that people can get their own group together to digg things.. I it would just pave way for spammers.
- maccam94, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It would be good if having a high number of diggs on a page would boost the page ranking of the linked site, but Google should also put a little Digg link by Similar Pages and Cached so people can get the added info on the Digg.com page.
- ejectMedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't wait to search google for a result that says "the title says it all"
There should be a filter for descriptions like that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's hard to argue with an argument as convincing as that.
- morrislevy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6YES.
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've found several articles in Google through digg links that I wouldn't have found otherwise, and even more info in the digg comments, which can be information troves by themselves. I say keep the digg links in there.
@merreborn: It's fine to say Google should rank things a certain way. Most people on digg know that it's all an algorithm, but the point of the algorithm is to provide accurate results, which is what it should do. Plenty of times, I've googled something and got nothing but junk (especially when searching for wireless ISPs), and Google shouldn't be turning up that kind of junk. Pagerank is just a dynamic priority, not a golden ruler against which all sites are measured. We all know how it is, but that's not necessarily how it should be. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hell no. Digg is already inundated with enough know-it-all's, whiners and malcontents as it is.
- cyroxos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I would have to say the digg article should be ranked low (or at least lower than the article that is being discussed).
- Garda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My personal opinion is that you shouldn't mess with google's algorithm. If it would naturally make it to a particular spot on google, based on pagerank then it should be left as it is
my $0.02 - cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=the+title+says+it+all&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
digg is the first result... - jefree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg content should be scored by the same ranking engine that Google normally uses. Once you start adding arbitrary exceptions and conditions the fairness of search is destroyed.
- techmaster7b, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't use google, so don't care.
- Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1there are google digg results..?
google has been going down hill... the results are kinda hit or miss these days - flibisk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg is a site that promotes other sites, its purpose is to act as a medium that people can share news stories with ease and not have to spend hours surfing (although it is fun on the odd occasion). So YES it does belong in the google results, however you should also consider it a good primary source (before google) for news stories and the like.
- neutrino15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google result should be:
The Title of the Website (via Digg.com)
bla blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah - obendega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I totally agree. Digg comments are a great way to figure out if a piece software or code is what you are looking for.
I often come to digg first if I am looking for web design tricks or tutorials. - relinquish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sometimes a story itself could be a gem buried way beneath the top ten results in google. Thats the biggest reason why the stories should remain there, for easy access later when needed. They are, after all, creating wider accessibility to supposed value content on the web so why put a cap on that?
- RonAcierno, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I think its a good idea because not only do you get a link to the story but also people comments on it ... and also the people commenting on it may state weather the info. on the page is valid or not ...
than again it would suck to have to go to digg ... then to the link ... then find out its just to a blog... then go to the link on the blog - offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think fewer headlines about Digg should be making the main page of Digg. It is like Dan Rather interviewing Peter Jennings about how to read the news. Let's focus more on the content and less on the medium we use to get to the content.
- mavere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Since v3, digg has been expanding to poeple outside this geeky young male."
But would you disagree that, as a whole, the front page stories do not represent the general Google-using population?
Those stories are the ones with the most comments (digg's only advantage to the actual links), and unless those commenters (diggers) accurately/proportionally represent Google's users (which is currently not even a remote possibility), then Digg doesn't need to have its ranking modified in any way. - ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your computer came prepackaged with Digg! Really! Would you mind sharing the source code with the rest of us? I'd love to see what makes Digg tick since your computer CAME with Digg...
Also where did you buy your computer? I think I know where I'll be buying my computer next time!
/sarcasm - eN1X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like finding old stories using google instead of the search engine on digg. I seem to have a hard time finding anything with the search tool on here..
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you don't want digg results in your search, append -site:digg.com to the query
Personally I don't see the problem here. Digg does give exposure, and if a digg article makes it onto google's first page of results for a given search, then it should be there. - jonpotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Custom built PC, it had a Digg 5.0 ghz processor.
- sandersons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg is social bookmarking site and one shouldn’t compare it with search engine. Both are operated very differently. I have seen some posters are posting all kind of news just one after another. God knows, before posting it to dig, even they have read it fully or not?
- relinquish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to side with the second argument. Many times later when I wish to access a story that I did not digg, I simply have to remember a small detail of the title or story description and I can easily find the content later on google. My guess is that I'm not the only one who does this.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 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