digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gizmodo: Digg Spam Sucks

gizmodo.com — A new Digg policy here, out of respect for the Digg community. -No badging of articles unless they have original content, new reporting, treatment, or photos. It's not fair when we get the Digg for someone else's work. Let's keep the signal-to-noise ratio high, dudes.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MrBabyMan, on 10/11/2007, -23/+801Dugg for "And btw, Digg user "Iwanttodiggthis," can you stop submitting almost every story we have?" hehehe
    • iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -101/+952If you don't want me to Digg your story, then don't put a "Digg This" button on it. Honestly, the nerve of some people.
    • AzDraon, on 10/11/2007, -61/+18HAHA, omg that is just to funny. Dugg for obvious reasons that MrBabyMan pointed out.
    • M3RCINIAN, on 10/11/2007, -55/+6This is stupidity at the top of its game.

      I say pair the story with a digg down train.
    • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -46/+10@Iwanttodiggthis

      Nice. I wish I were mentioned on Gizmodo. I don't see the problem with you finding it a great site.

      Hmmm, maybe I should start submitting every story.
    • gharding, on 10/11/2007, -73/+21@iwanttodiggthis:
      Because since the button is there, you MUST click it, right?
    • iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -30/+343Why would they put a button there if they expected nobody to click it?
    • saralk, on 10/11/2007, -10/+152So instead, we'll just get blogs hosted on dreamhost that go down after 4 diggs?
    • krellor, on 10/11/2007, -19/+1@M3RCINIAN

      Sure, you can be the first and last car.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -6/+168Take a hint, engadget!
    • duhblow7, on 10/11/2007, -37/+12Dear Digg Users,

      Step 1: Please subscribe to the RSS feeds from the following sites: arstechnica.com, gizmodo.com, lifehacker.com, engadget.com
      Step 2: Stop submitting stories from said sites.
      Step 3: Profit!!

      The Undersigned,

      -duhbLow7-
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -37/+253"Why would they put a button there if they expected nobody to click it?"

      The same reason they put lots of buttons on elevators. Just because they're all there doesn't mean you have to hit them all.
    • TheKricket, on 10/11/2007, -5/+68i dont think they said "can you stop digging our stories" - they said "can you stop SUBMITTING" the stories...
    • orelses, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36I've been saying this for a while, digg needs a top 5 related articles area above the comments somewhere. This way people can see other better related or originating articles about a topic.. articles that may have not gotten the luck of the draw with number of diggs.
    • TheKricket, on 10/11/2007, -17/+207@iwanttodiggthis

      out of the last 15 stories youve submitted - 11 are from gizmodo -

      you know whats lame? sitting around waiting for someone to post stories on a blog and then submitting EVERY SINGLE ONE to digg - regargless of the content

      lame to the nth degree...
    • TVisdoG, on 10/11/2007, -7/+105Let me be the first to admit ignorance and say that I have absolutely no ***** idea what this article is about.
    • iownsomuch, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7lol and I was wondering if "iwanttodiggthis" had seen this yet....
    • ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -14/+37this is a joke right? blogspaming an article against blogspam...
    • PRlME, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13@y iwanttodiggthis you can digg that bit of content cause its original content
    • Ireland, on 10/11/2007, -5/+64Much respect to Gizmodo for this, they actually had the balls to reduce their traffic for the sack of quality.
    • HOTM, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2@thekricket

      Yea, clicking that button makes you submit it if it isn't on digg yet.

      @thekricket(second douchbag comment)

      Uh, if you notice, they are put on in lumps. Its not like hes there pressing F5 all the time and just waiting for a new article. Why you gotta be such a dick?
    • phantom_mullet, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4@iwanttodiggthis

      I'm totally gonna beat you out to submitting the next Gizmodo entry...it's on!
    • Dolomite, on 10/11/2007, -10/+106hahaha dugg for someone finally telling iwanttodiggthis to basically get a life. lol
    • mikew101, on 10/11/2007, -13/+28@dolomite

      Anyone on digg including myself needs to get a life
    • webmasterjoe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12@hotm: "Uh, if you notice, they are put on in lumps. Its not like hes there pressing F5 all the time and just waiting for a new article. Why you gotta be such a dick?"

      Some of us DON'T notice the timing of how new stories are added to websites. We choose not to devote all of our time to that sort of thing.

      And submitting every story from one website to another website is pretty lame. If a person is asked to pick their favorite articles from a list and the person picks "all of them," then that person is has done nothing to help narrow down a large set into a smaller one (which is a big function of Digg).

      Calling someone a dick and a douchebag because that person said someone else's actions were lame? I don't think I need to express my opinion of your contribution, but it sounds like you just started learning profanities. Wait until you get to the "F's," I think we'll all have a lot of fun.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3can we have a new policy where we don't use semicolons in topics?
    • CornStarch, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3***** Gizmondo they are digg spam. Remember the bogus story about 1up being sold to dell.
    • Pottersquash, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3MAJOR PROPS to iwanttodiggthis having the balls to come forward and state your reasoning, you sir ARE A PIMP!!!!

    • 0ceanic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15im digging this because more sites should follow this lead.

      gizmodo just jumped up a notch in my book.
    • Cputerace, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4Blogspam is the reason i started http://www.YouPickTheNews.com. Its like digg, but if you post a story that is not linked to a real news site (i.e. post it to a blog that does not add any content to the article) the story gets deleted and your domain is then banned from posting to YouPickTheNews.com again.

      It has RSS, Feel free to try it out:
      http://www.YouPickTheNews.com
    • gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2This is just a blow at Engadget's initiative. Everybody knows that! And so the rivalry continues...
    • imdeanlabouty, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2duhblow:

      Step 1: reference an old, obnoxious internet meme
      Step 2: actually designate a 2nd step
      Step 3: FAIL!
    • Baconn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@robbh66

      "The same reason they put lots of buttons on elevators. Just because they're all there doesn't mean you have to hit them all."

      You just saved me a good half hour off my commute!
    • geoff1210, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@robbh66
      "The same reason they put lots of buttons on elevators. Just because they're all there doesn't mean you have to hit them all."

      Oh *****. Really?
    • megarobotguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@robbh66

      Comparing a multi-story building's elevator buttonS to a ***** article that has only ONE button is LANE! Don't you people have any common sense? Why are you digging him up?
    • faz9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4iwanttodiggthis said: "If you don't want me to Digg your story, then don't put a "Digg This" button on it. Honestly, the nerve of some people."

      I think they'd rather see people submitting their story's because they liked them and found them interesting rather than someone submitting them to get an e-boner for having his profile have a large number next to "News & Videos Submitted".
  • canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -10/+90bra-f/ing-vo. i wish more sites/users would take this to heed.
    • digidigg, on 10/11/2007, -10/+60can you say......engadget?
    • iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -63/+14endagget?
      egg maggot?
      en-gad? get.
      inglehoffer?

      Sorry no.
    • Hipple, on 10/11/2007, -4/+56it took me a little while to figure out what "bra-f/ing-vo" was supposed to mean. My first impulse was that it was some sort of language that I didn't understand. I had to sound it out to get the intended effect. That slash really threw off my game.
    • crackedplastic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+132***** yes. Kudos for Gizmodo for taking the initiative for original content.

      Now, if only the following would follow Gizmodo's lead:

      - Engadget
      - Autoblog
      - Engadget
      - Filmwad/Tubewad/Whateverwad
      - Engadget
      - Filmschoolrejects
      - Engadget
      - Joystiq
      - Consumerist
    • ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+191My favorite is when digg points to engadget, which links to gizmodo, which links to the original site.
    • virtualball, on 10/11/2007, -12/+12Oh c'mon, they're just saying this. They have an f'in Digg button!
    • laplacian, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8I've always used Engadget, but i'm going to switch over to Gizmodo now and give it a try.
    • BLAM8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8There's a tiny digg submission button to make things easier, but Gizmodo is talking about not using the big yellow badges unless its really new in some way.
    • Arkonnan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26@crackedplastic

      You forgot Engadget.
    • philz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27@Arkonnan

      No only that, did you see that he also forgot Engadget?
    • estvir, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Don't forget Kotaku and Destrucoid (Whatever the hell the spelling is). Oh, and I can't believe you freaking missed Engadget, I mean, come on.
    • gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1There is a huge rivalry between Engadget and Gizmodo. They would never ever link to each other. Seeing as the "digg this" buttons were Engadget's initiative, and Gizmodo followed as an easy way to increase traffic, I'd say this is a blow at Engadget. Also, it's not the submitters that control what gets to the front page -- If you don't wan't something on the front page, don't digg it -- and vice versa. Also why we haven't seen an Engadget article up on the front page in the past few days.
    • floodyberry, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1If they were worried about quality they would done this a while ago, not once they were already nice and bloated with traffic.
    • MatttK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You know, I think another source of the problem would be to give some of the top diggers (not saying who or how high up - are the rankings even available anymore anyway?) a good thrashing. If you read through the history of some of these people some time, you can see that they actually resubmit other people's submissions but at a different URL, often ripping off the subject line and/or description. Basically, they know they'll get the story dugg but need to find a URL that hasn't been submitted yet (although, I've even seen one guy result to putting a pound sign at the end).

      Disclaimer: This hasn't happened to me, so don't think I'm whining. :p
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Here's a good way to crash a site's traffic from Digg: submit all of their stories, moments after they're posted, with titles like "Wow! This looks amazing. Headline says it all."
    • MacBigot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Here's hoping ThinkProgress.org editors will also follow Gizmodo's lead.

      http://digg.com/politics/ThinkProgress_org_is_pwning_Digg_com_Netscape_com_Reddit_com
  • airiox, on 10/11/2007, -5/+49Dugg out of spite. It's one of the few blogs I visit everday and I'm sick of seeing Gizmodo articles on the front page.
    • AZTriGuy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25And so, by digging this, you help get it to the front page . . . I'm confused :)
    • ippersiel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Agreed. I read LifeHacker on my own, then come to Digg to see almost all stories repeated here.
    • soe219, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0dont forget Poland!
    • Cerebral, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey not fair. In all honesty almost all of LifeHacker's posts are front page material :)
  • FerrisYJ, on 10/11/2007, -2/+69amen. I hate reading a tagline, clicking on the link and seeing a blog about the story...

    just send me to the story/picture/video, i don't need your recap or your opinion, thanks.
    • Iconwolf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12"just send me to the story/picture/video, i don't need your recap or your opinion, thanks."

      I do admit it would be nice if most people just linked to or added RSS feeds to most of the popular sites themselves, but one of the main reasons I like sites such as Digg, Slashdot, or Techdirt is not so much the overview/recap as it is the comments (OK, yes a lot of them are weak most of the time, but you can find some really classic one-liners and some excellent discussions/debates). True, it's annoying for those people who already frequent such forums or who have ADD and just want those sound-bites, but sometimes the commentary can be more important and/or interesting than the actual article.
    • mink78, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@iconwolf

      I agree. Digg comments keep things interesting.
    • HUKI365, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Then dig down the "blogspam"
  • rushco, on 10/11/2007, -14/+10idontwanttodiggthis
  • redstarlanding, on 10/11/2007, -9/+26oh, the irony!
    • Ireland, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1This story originated on digg sh'ur.
      /sarcasm
  • gafasiesornivek, on 10/11/2007, -56/+4Why? So Gizmodo can spam Digg with it's garbage even more? Who died and made you content provider to Digg?
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25The entire idea of the story is apparently lost on you.
    • championchap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24@gafasiesornivek (#7167299)
      So you didnt actually read the article then?
  • franksmith, on 10/11/2007, -4/+89I think it is wonderful that "iwanttodiggthis" has finally found something to do with his life.
    • Ireland, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5He was waiting for someone to create a site called digg since he came up with that username, hehe.
  • felch, on 10/11/2007, -17/+9Dugg down for spam
  • someguy9, on 10/11/2007, -31/+20do you see who submitted it?
    Iwanttodiggthis
    lol
    • arnar, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15Yes.. we did. It's right there, just scroll to top - just below "Submitted", prefixed with "Submitter:", see it?
    • championchap, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18@someguy9 (#7167405)
      Probably everyone that read the post checked that immediately afterward.
  • macpro2006, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Digg.com is a really useful site. Gizmodo gets 90% of there storys from us or from other blog web sites that work hard to get those storys. Giz........Nope...They just copy others most of the time. I still love Gizmodo!

    Iwanttodiggthisforgizmodo!

    That should be the new name! lol
  • rptcalyptos, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7"Let's keep the signal-to-noise ratio high, dudes."
    • webmasterjoe, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2They must be talking about some other website then, because there's a lot o' noise over here.

      BEEEEEP BEEEEEEP BEEEEEEP BOOOOOP!

      See? Or was that a signal?
  • BLAM8, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5"Let's keep the signal to noise ratio high" Why are we digging this? Keep this off the front page.
  • jessicass, on 10/11/2007, -3/+33Dugg because everyone needs their 15 e-minutes.
  • subat0mic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1wtf... they're complaing about traffic to their site? don't they get advertising revenue, that would be skipped if people didn't digg them? WTF?
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Yes, but they only want advertising revenue for their own work.

      If you can't see why some people don't want to steal the revenue from content other people created then you're going to make a great swindler someday.
    • mikew101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4digg traffic helps with pageviews, but if you read the comments here it seems most people have adblock which makes their clickthrough ratios really low. They are probably trying to increase clickthrough ratio for their advertisers.
  • HomieG6189, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Dugg for irony haha
  • MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3This is lame. I'm going to see what if Iwanttodiggthis has an new articles
  • bjwaggoner, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Takes a certain kind of smugness to complain about having your articles submitted to high traffic sites.

    Dugg just cause prissy editorials irk me.
  • rptcalyptos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"wtf... they're complaing about traffic to their site? don't they get advertising revenue, that would be skipped if people didn't digg them? WTF?"

    not when every story they publish is submitted to digg via one user: "Dugg because everyone needs their 15 e-minutes."
    • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3What does the user who dugg the article matter to their advertising revenue?
  • josefresco, on 10/11/2007, -32/+2Buried as lame. Gizmodo can suck it.

    http://www.engadget.com/
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -4/+33Engadet is by far the worst thief of content ever and can suck my peg leg.
    • ahhell, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Enjoy sucking my blocked list, you spamming piece of *****.
  • punkisnotdead, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3I wonder if they got a spam warning from Mr. Rose himself?
  • jccalhoun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I really wish that the sites that keep taking a press release, posting it on their blog and submitting the story with a link to their own site would stop it. I also wish that people would take 10 seconds to look at a submitters submission history before they dugg a story. If a person only submits storys from their own site, never diggs or comments on any other stories, then don't digg them. They are lame spammers.
  • withoutashovel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1gizmodo shows the highlights of different websites they go to. same with digg. both link you to the original page. but when people have to give you the gizmodo link instead of the original link, then they're lazy and stupid.
  • orlyfactor, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3No.
  • RationalAntaxia, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5all gizmodo does is take content from engadget and put it on their site, so how are they any better?
    • mikew101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I like engadget too, but remember engadget copied gizmodos idea. Gizmodo was around longer, and engadget even stole the original gizmodo writer in the beginning.
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Which is why they're telling people not to digg those stories. Idiot.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7You DO REALIZE that Engadet steals 98% of their content from other sources, right?
    • PacoDG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Endgadget, owned and operated by AOL
  • geekchic, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5I do wonder if the complaint about "iwanttodiggthis" submitting the stories due to the fact that the he/she doesn't (currently) have a very high sucess rate at getting home page submissions - and Gizmodo would prefer submissions from the likes of MrBabyMan, which are more likely to hit the front page?

    Which means the comment by Gizmodo was quite nasty and aimed at actually boosting their Digg traffic, not decreasing it.

    • BLAM8, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15"Which means the comment by Gizmodo was quite nasty and aimed at actually boosting their Digg traffic, not decreasing it."

      Geekchic: Uh, No.

      You're somehow overthinking it, and yet not thinking enough.
  • arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4***** Gizmodo
  • NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Someone should copy this site and submit it again.

    edit:
    but with more ads, oh and after the first 1,000 users we are going to need it to crash
  • BLAM8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10BTW, Engadget and Gizmodo have tons of original reporting that people don't credit them for. That is as much of a problem as it is when the sites get credit for ***** that isn't theirs. Comes down to thinking before digging.
    • crackedplastic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The root of the problem is with submitting. All it takes is a few seconds to see if the Gizmodo/Engadget article is just a paraphrase/clickthrough blurb and submit the source link. That's all.
  • BLAM8, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Come on, people, bury this story for the principle! I can't believe this ***** got dugg.
    • calyx1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2So you made the post on gizmodo and you don't even want it dugg, ahh this is kind of humorous. Sorry, I did digg this, but in order to give props to you guys for trying to cut down on the bad linkage.
    • crackedplastic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4People want source material, not a watered-down paraphrasing of the article. This needs to be dugg.
    • iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Believe it. Over 1300 idiots think they're being "ironic."
    • nexus420, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Believe it. Over 1300 idiots think they're being "ironic," says the idiot who submitted it.
  • Guder, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@saralk - I'm hosted on Dreamhost and I've gotten dugg a couple times, and at one point was getting 17,000 uniques a day. Dreamhost can handle it (I'm even using Wordpress) you just have to set it up right.

    As for Gizmodo... props on the article. It needed to be said.
  • Notyavgkat, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2***** gizmodo...their just jealous!
    • BLAM8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@notyavgkt
      Jealous of what? This doesn't make sense.
  • GameMogul, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9In Soviet Russia, spam sucks Digg.
    • philz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4+1 for pun

      Finally a "In Soviet Russia" joke that I like.
  • FerrisYJ, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8anyone else wonder why iwanttodiggthis is getting some many +diggs in the comments? i smell conspiracy... watch as his friend digg this comment down.

    even his 'Why would they put a button there if they expected nobody to click it?' idiotic comment got dugg 50 times? either he has 50 friends, 50 accounts, or the world has lost it's sense of direction.
    • iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14I only have one account, Ferris. Digg just has that many idiots.
  • Jomwilli, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Wow, it's almost as if "iwanttodiggthis" has an automatic program that submits these stories everytime they come online.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Yeah. It's called "he has no life."
  • DiggHaterNo1, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2How ***** ironic that gizmodo calls for nothing but news for digg...yet, THIS story makes the front page. You people ought to be ashamed of contributing to the very thing you comment here to express your distaste for. Not smart.

    Anyhow, Digg Blows... here's why: http://www.diggblows.com
    • crazybrit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I guess irony is lost on spammers.
  • mseneschal, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2I agree…. but find it ironic that you basically DIG A NEW STORY EVERY MINUTE.

    Seriously… go into “iwanttodigthis” profile and look at all the stories he’s submitted.

    Why don’t you go outside sometime… maybe get away from your computer for a bit.
    • iwanttodiggthis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Ironic? More like "appropriate."
  • BruceBannon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1somethingawful.com is a viscious and maliscious forum community bent on changing aspects of the internet, politics, and popularity to suit their own agenda, using "wag the dog" style propaganda, and forum spamming.
    That is only the start, soon comes the hackers. Hopefully Digg will not fall prey to these attacks the way Eve Online did.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2How does this have anything to do with Eve Online?
  • steveooo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2...
  • SanTe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1In the future, corporate mergers will be caused by user communities. Sites will be assimilated like the Borg whether they like it or not. GizmodoDigg [tm] coming soon to an RSS feed near you.
  • InstantRamen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Mad props to Brian Lam gizmodo. yall got some balls . Dugg
  • boonecafe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1linkbait?
  • boredsam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4iwanttodiggthis has submitted about 100 stories in the past month, and 11 in the past 24 hours. Can I get an RSS feed of just stories he/she submits?
  • Ianki, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Almost makes a man go through to compare all dugg blog items and their linked-to originals, and bury all the blog dupes. If only for the sake of parsimony.

    I'm sure you'll find a lot of this:
    Blog: submitted 1 day 5 minutes ago
    linked to article: submitted 1 day 6 minutes ago.
  • bugninja, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I agree about the spam, but subconsciously, I think I dugg the story because you ended the description with "dudes"
  • Muzztein, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2bunch of idiots
    • poliwonk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Actually, the correct term is "gaggle" of idiots. Or possibly, "pride" of idiots. Or perhaps "flock," or "throng."
  • jamin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I'm with you. I won't digg a story that is copied or just links to another site. Especially blogs with video from sites such as youtube embedded. Link to the original damn story!
  • kingkao, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2how are we suppose to know if gizmodo's content is "the original"?
    confusing...
    whatever, give gizmodo more hits! they do a great job!
    • bestfilmofthe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2by reading the article and seeing if it says something such as "found on ..." or "source: ..." etc...
  • zinzimac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I get the point but most of these "tech blogs" bury there source links so deep,or redirect you to another affiliated blog. But on the other hand if Gizmodo submitted they're own stories that would technically be blog spam. Maybe these guys should stop trying to own the news.
  • zinzimac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2bury
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.