What is Digg?82 Comments
- DarthDaddy, on 02/05/2008, -6/+62Does this mean that spammers could "down-rank" a site if they don't like it? Ahem...Scientology sites.
- chris9902, on 02/05/2008, -0/+44I hear they're also using Digg style voting to choose the next President. I don't know what the world would do if digg didn't invent voting.
- MrSarcasm, on 02/05/2008, -2/+45Yes, because digg invented user-contributed promotions.
- sundancekid503, on 02/05/2008, -1/+26Get ready to see a lot more LOLcats in your search results.
- corevette, on 02/05/2008, -0/+20i get my hopes up every time...but this is probably the zillionth time i've seen that screenshot
- IEatHamburgers, on 02/05/2008, -0/+19Too bad we didn't have this a few years ago, we could have buried Bush as inaccurate.
- beatniak, on 02/05/2008, -0/+18Direct link to info on google: http://www.google.com/experimental/a840e102.html
This experiment lets you influence your search experience by adding, moving, and removing search results. When you search for the same keywords again, you'll continue to see those changes. If you later want to revert your changes, you can undo any modifications you've made. Note that this is an experimental feature and may be available for only a few weeks. - epohs, on 02/05/2008, -0/+14It looks like your vote only applies to what you see yourself, not what others see.
- briantech, on 02/05/2008, -0/+13***** buried. Hey you arrogant digg retards, the concept of "voting" on things was not invented by ***** DIGG.COM. People have been upmodding and downmodding things on the internet since Kevin whats his name was still in ***** diapers. Get off your high horse, other sites are going to employ the use of "voting" on things and it wont be "kind of like how digg does it".
- Sharky35, on 02/05/2008, -0/+9Roaming hordes of idiots will bury anything that doesn't agree with their POV.... Just like Digg! No thank you.
- stratmancj, on 02/05/2008, -0/+9ok ... so how do i sign up, when i am at http://www.google.com/experimental/ ... the voting experiment isn't an option there
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Porn would top the list for every search result.............
- ABBiek, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6So, wait, is this digg-style voting like the subject line reads, or is it just that you can influence YOUR OWN search results? Seems like a big difference.
- EtherGnat, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6"any story with any mention of Ron Paul will never see the front page because of those that autobury based on content."
Really? I count 234 non-buried front page stories for Ron Paul in the Digg search engine. By comparison "Clinton" also has 234 (including some stories about other Clintons), and "Obama" has 205. Compared with Ron Paul's support in the real world, I'd say he's "group dugg" far more than he's "auto buried".
If Google does implement such a system it won't be their only ranking criteria. I'm also sure they'll use something like PageRank to give more weight to users who rate well and attempt to filter out spamming. - inactive, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6as long as it would allow me to actually find informational search results instead of 3 pages of people trying to sell me crap, then i'm all for it
- broknman, on 02/05/2008, -2/+7How many times is this going to be on the front page?
- woodcoxcb, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5i'm pretty sure the votes only effect YOUR searches, from the way the page reads.
- GRTWHT, on 02/05/2008, -4/+9I hope that the reason this is a VERY experimental process is that Google is looking for a way to use the power of all it's users without falling prey to gaming (good luck on that - digg still hasn't quite got it right, but they keep getting closer).
Look at it this way: here on digg, any story with any mention of Ron Paul will never see the front page because of those that autobury based on content. In addition, any story that is 'group dugg' by friend networks can reach the front page, no matter how useless or spameriffic it may be. Now apply this to a search engine. Imagine that every scientologist on the planet is told to 'bury' anti-scientology sites...no more negative information appears when a search for scientology is done.
Social media can be fun and useful, but it's far to easy to game for the biggest/best (arguably) search provider in the world to allow this sort of manipulation. - ArchAngel21x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5I hope not. This is an idea that is just begging for abuse.
- Sharky35, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Second thought, this could work if it were specific to each user. Think Cookies from Hell!
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4buried as inaccurate - voting is nothing like digg at all - google wouldn't be this stupid
- ionut, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4This is at least the third time when this story hits the frontpage:
68 days ago - http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Experimenting_Wit ...
16 days ago - http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Experimental_Sear ... - EtherGnat, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Not necessarily, it all depends on how the algorithm works. I suspect newer votes would be weighted more heavily, making it easier for worthy new sites to rise to the top. It's a matter of balance. Sites should be rewarded for a long history of providing a positive experience, but you want fresh new content to get exposure as well. Google isn't perfect, but they seem as competent as anybody at working out such issues.
- SRSco, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3I guess we need it on here many more times till people finally get this is for YOUR OWN SEARCH RESULTS...not teh Internets. That makes it nothing like Digg.
- chris9902, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3you mean it isn't?
- theOster, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3i keep hoping to see a little "sort by date" button...
- aqzman, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3The idea is great in theory, but there are too many flaws with it as a whole for it to work properly.
Hell, I'm willing to bet that companies would start popping up which would get your site ranked first for a certain fee. - Topher06, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2And Google is saying its Microhoo that will ruin the Internet? Voting is all fine and dandy for a social comment website, but not for web searching. So I am going to have to wade through 100's of artificially promoted open source and Linux and Apple and Nintendo websites in order to find references to Microsoft or Sony because a slew of fanboys are ranking Google searches? Base web searches on the amount of ACTUAL traffic going to a website rather then on fanboy fiction.
- patrickxbateman, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Oh no. Now every search result is going to be a link to a Ron Paul website.
- OpaqueMurdock, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2As long as its optional and off by default, then it may be an interesting way to refine searches. As many have said, the potential for gaming results makes it something I would not want to be on all the time.
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Oh great, give the Digg Elitists another source of Viagra.
- poidh, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Unfair and unworkable I would think.
- Freddy36, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, that's the question. The description says that you can influence just your own results. Which is not that useful. A cross-user rating would be much more interesting (A kind of StumbleUpon + Google Search).
- Elliuotatar, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3"Imagine that every scientologist on the planet is told to 'bury' anti-scientology sites...no more negative information appears when a search for scientology is done."
That would only work if the masses didn't do the exact opposite and digg those sites up.
As for the Digg effect... Google is not Digg. With Google, you search for specific keywords. So you would search for Ron Paul on Google. With Digg, people get annoyed at seeing Ron Paul mentioned constantly. So they digg stories with him down. (YET HE STILL MAKES IT TO THE FRONT PAGE REGULARLY!) But with google, the only people that would see Ron Paul sites would be the ones searching for his name. And generally the only people that would do that are ones actually looking for useful information on him. FEW people are going to go out of their way to search Ron Paul just so they can digg down every site on him, compared to the masses which are doing it to find out more. So the useful sites WILL make it to the top of the results.
Just cause something doesn't work for Digg doesn't mean it can't work for Google. - Coffeedemon, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2You got that whole bury thing from plastic anyway.
- Innisskillin, on 02/05/2008, -3/+5This would make it difficult for websites that launch after the system has been in place for a long duration. Unfair IMO.
- digjam, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2That is no where like Diggs voting.. Everything that has a small icon/arrow beside the article isnt Digg style..
- Elliuotatar, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I think what google should do is this:
Each unique IP address gets one vote for a site.
When a user clicks a link on the search engine, it gets a vote of +1. If they use their browser's back button to go back to the main page though, the site's vote reverts back to 0. And if the user deliberately clicks on a little X or something next to the site, then their vote for the site becomes -1, and like Digg, the site dissapears from the results. They could also have a little thumbs up or something to deliberately vote the site up without you needing to go to it. A user should also be able to browse with the voted down links displayed so they can correct their mistake if they need to.
I think this setup would prevent spammers from voting their own sites up easily, and it would result in all those damn pages full of keywords and ads getting voted out of existence.
It also would not prevent a new site from going up in the search results, because you should have to advertise to get that to happen anyway. Sites shouldn't be put at the top just because they used all the right keywords and split one page of data into six. They should go up because they match your search request more, according to whether users think it matches those results more. - NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1that would be sweet, although if they really let the reigns go 100% advertising would be dead. The worst is trying to look up a part or brand name and getting 20 links to BS industry databases that have that keyword but have no content on what you were actually looking for.
- sgtpppr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1And your willing to do Google's job for them for how long each day?
- arma, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1This is kinda old, but on the bright side, if I missed the first time I'd read this one. Thanks digg.
- Bamborzled, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1And Ron Paul, and anti-Scientology sites, and Barack Obama, and Apple, and anti-Apple sites, and annoying ASCII art.
- sgtpppr, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Google just likes to place a portion of the burden on users. That's what they did with PageRank. Instead of Google hiring humans to weight sites and provide them 'value', Google assesses who all links to you and gives you a value automatically based on that. That is why spammers hammer on the inbound links so much. It's a voting system. A really really really corrupt voting system that rewards those who have huge linking budgets and PR campaigns.
- dtzitz, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I think while they are at it they should throw in slashdot's tagging system
whatcouldpossiblygowrong - joelhardi, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1That's because this is *old*! It hasn't been running for months, the Google folks have moved on to other experiments.
- nova9, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Google has their cross-hairs on Digg, and is not the buy trigger...
If google has it good I'd be forced to be outta here...The commenting system and voting system sucks here. Not enough stats on votes, especially the total amout of people voted. A news/comment could have had 1 digg but if 5000 voted up and 4999 voted down, digg makes it look insignfigant. - xoineg, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2what is a Ron Paul?
- joe57spike, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1*affects
- kidcodea, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1digg is 2 weeks ago news, now?
- philodygmn, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Control spam by validating results by trusted, explicit friends networks that set your influence from only others you allow. No one can make you friend a spammer.
http://web.mac.com/dynamist/iWeb/dynamist/ideas/A0 ... -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is