What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
192 Comments
- Coolaborations, on 11/29/2007, -10/+190It should be interesting to see if Google is able to build something like a community of spammers out of this.
- junkyinny, on 11/29/2007, -4/+168heard a rumor once about ... digg did not invent voting..
- NathanielJ, on 11/29/2007, -3/+124...except that this is nothing like Digg, since your votes only influence what YOU see, not what anyone else sees.
Digg didn't invent voting, eh? - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -5/+73So every searches top ten results will contain at least 1 page on the iPhone?
- geminitojanus, on 11/29/2007, -9/+74Just like Digg!
- HUKI365, on 11/29/2007, -13/+71I prefer Google deciding what I see rather than a bunch of Ron Paul spammers.
- goerg, on 11/29/2007, -5/+61as long as they dont copy the fckd up comment system...
- Haecceity, on 11/29/2007, -1/+54Given that your vote only affects the results you see, and not anything anyone else sees, it's not at all likely.
- haentz, on 11/29/2007, -3/+51Will they add comments in search results as well?
- Jacob3d, on 11/29/2007, -5/+49I think Google's search mixed with human voting on results is the best search solution out there. There are many times when you are searching for something and there isn't a good result within the first few Google results, these could still be ranked at the top however it would be nice to have a dialog saying how many people found this article helpful for the same search so that I automatically know not to even try those first couple of results to get at the stuff I want.
- Po0py, on 11/29/2007, -5/+46I think the whole point is to bury the spammers.
- cr3ative, on 11/29/2007, -1/+39I encourage this change - I can then get the chance to vent my frustration at Experts Exchange.
- Pooley, on 11/29/2007, -2/+39This isn't Digg style voting at all. Your vote only influences future searches from your own account. Can you imagine how people would game Google if this was every to be fully implemented. Companies would be hiring people to create new Google accounts and vote themselves up and rivals down. It would be chaos.
Besides, Google's success is in the accuracy of their search algorithm. It doesn't require human approval on top. - loof, on 11/29/2007, -4/+41Why is it that every voting system is now referred to as digg style. Digg didn't invent voting.
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/29/2007, -2/+25Right, so that companies can bury their competition in the search results.
SEO companies will have a whole new lease on life as they push their clients up while digging everyone else down.
While it sounds like an interesting idea. the potential for abuse is enormous. Google hasn't figured out how to stop PPC fraud; how could they possibly stop this from being abused? - PatrickA, on 11/29/2007, -4/+26I think it's a great step forward. Who wouldn't like the ability to permanently stop certain sites ranking for certain queries? Maybe you hate Wikipedia and want it to disappear, now you can.
Personal search already alters results based on your history, this is just a way to give it a helping hand. - spuddy, on 11/29/2007, -7/+26So, is it time to flame google's blog posts like so many did for yahoo for a very similar event? (http://digg.com/tech_news/Yahoo_Shamelessly_Rips_O ...
- Hase0, on 11/29/2007, -4/+21What do you mean dig didn't event voting???
Next you'll try and tell me it was invented in ancient athens LOOL NUBS - tymme, on 11/29/2007, -0/+17Bye-bye expertsexchange.
- saigumi, on 11/29/2007, -3/+19Crud, if this was global.. that would be horrible!
( dijkstra algorithym ) [Google Search] [I'm Feeling Lucky]
Ron Paul - +23,593 Gigs
Vote for that one guy...
http://www.ronpaul.com
iPhone - +21,649 Gigs
Buy this because you don't have a soul without it.
http://www.apple.com/iphone
Tasers suck - +19,572 Gigs
The man is holding us down again, fight the power!!!!!!
http://example.com/taser
**Shudder** - Batiu-Drami, on 11/29/2007, -0/+15But, how can you hate Wikipedia?!
Oh, the humanity! - orangysb, on 11/29/2007, -3/+17Oh stop kidding yourself, digg's voting system definitely wasn't original, people flamed Yahoo simply because it's the cool thing to do, just like how people flame Microsoft and laud Apple, and Google happens to be Apple in this case.
- Genma, on 11/29/2007, -0/+14rtfa poster is confused, congratulations you got the buried inaccurate prize
- Haecceity, on 11/29/2007, -1/+13Inaccurate. The voting isn't "Diggstyle" because a voter's choices affect only the results he/she sees.
- Azimuth1, on 11/29/2007, -1/+12Or just, you know, type -wikipedia.
- rudy23, on 11/29/2007, -0/+11have you been to youtube recently. try visiting the comments section.
- sgtpppr, on 11/29/2007, -0/+11Compare the two titles in the digg posts. Think that pretty much sums up biased reporting.
Google Experimenting with Digg Style Voting v. Yahoo Shamelessly Rips off Digg - Raptor007, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10You only affect your own results, not other people's. I agree that this would NOT work if it applies your preferences to other people.
On the other hand, the search results are already somewhat democratic, being determined partially by links. - Murdats, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10maybe he has a moral objection to knowledge, or the general public possessing knowledge
wait, now I think about it, maybe he is part of the administration. - sapped, on 11/29/2007, -0/+9Well, there goes my Greasemonkey script I guess...
http://www.langenhoven.com/code/gsearch/gsearchrat ...
I created this to help weed out useless sites for myself. The advantage of Google doing it for me is that my preferences are now easily remembered from one machine to another. - dansmeek, on 11/29/2007, -1/+9Digg applies style-voting that had been used by other sites before and became popular.
Yahoo applies same style that had also been used by other sites.
Digg users feel special and think Yahoo must be steeling their ideas.
This is the correct pattern. - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7Not only was the OP confused, but this is old news. It has been sitting in Google Labs for some time now. I was playing with it at least 3 months ago.
- EndersGame, on 11/29/2007, -3/+10Exactly, they should put more emphasis on burying and very little emphasis on 'digging up.' If thousands of people digg up your google result, it won't affect your placement much in the search results(the sites traffic and other factors should bear more weight). But if people are consistently burying your result, marking it as spam or what have you, it will be omitted or show up near the end of the results. Google has the know-how to pull this off right. I think the system is more likely to be abused if websites start warring and burying each others results.
- AdHaR, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7"I think Google's search mixed with human voting on results is the best search solution out there."
Human? If this digg-style voting is ever applied to the general index, there will be spam bots developed all around to *digg-up* their site, and as a result the quality of a google search will go down. - geminitojanus, on 11/29/2007, -3/+10something -site:wikipedia.org
Google's a lot more powerful than you think if you know how to use it. - ggarron, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7Yes, but I do not think that it could be a good idea to put the results of voting to work for everybody's search, I mean you votes should filter only your search, otherwise is dangerous.
Lets say:
Some people at Wendy's may start burying the result that came with Burger King when you search for Fast Food (Just an example) - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -2/+9Blasphemy! What are you going to tell us next? That Kevin Rose did not invent AJAX?
- inactive, on 11/29/2007, -6/+11Dear Google,
WE DON'T WANT THAT. Democracy has proven to be a flaw concept. Digg is a perfect example, regardless of what you may say just a few (and by few I mean like 25) users get to the front page from the millions users that Digg has. I believe in your algorithm, we all do. - gfindlay, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5Did the surgury cost too much?
- OssianHanning, on 11/29/2007, -3/+8Buried article as inaccurate. You don't HAVE to cram in "Digg" into the title/description just for the sake of it.
It's plain old-fashioned voting, for christs' sake. Nothing is 'digg-style' about it. - Bender1001, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6But who wants to always have to add a -wikipedia to every search you do?
- FutureGuy, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4Google is God. Anything it does is Divine. Even when it shamelessly asks the whole world to go "open source" while closely guarding its own sources. There may also be another reason, after Facebook decided not to be acquired by Google, Google launched opensocial thing, Digg decided to dump Google for advertising, Google fires back with this. Its a carrot stick approach, take our carrot or we give you the stick, divine stick that is.
- orangysb, on 11/29/2007, -3/+7Well i would say Google would certainly take your feedback into account in their search results, it would be extremely dumb not to do that.
- drpeppper, on 11/29/2007, -2/+6you mean Expert Sexchange, right?
- geekchic, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4The Google toolbar has had up/down voting for several years already. Admitedly, they were very coy about what, if any impact those buttons had - but the concept of "Google votes" has been around for some years.
- kahrn, on 11/29/2007, -2/+6People are inherently stupid. People will vote up things without any valid reason, just as they do on digg. Even if it's amazing content and very helpful; people might not understand it and will vote it down, again, just as they do on digg.
- Plastic3D, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4Big businesses would love this, that's who would love the ability...
I think it could potentially backfire if there's networks of people who will be able to crush the little people with a little organization and a few clicks. That's why Google has been so great, is that the little people can get some great rankings. - whatsupimphil, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4Just click the cached link from Google.
- epohs, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4A way to opt-in to these experiments
http://www.google.com/experimental/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is