What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
44 Comments
- megapeg, on 01/20/2009, -1/+28Maybe because About.com already did what they were trying to do, and in this day and age, innovation is key. Surprising that Google was so non-innovative with this rollout - they're usually ahead of the curve.
- Izacus, on 01/20/2009, -0/+20Knol was a glorified blog anyway. Just because there's a name written under the article it does not mean it's credible.
- novenator, on 01/20/2009, -0/+19Wikipedia is non commercial FTW
- gasoline, on 01/20/2009, -0/+9Not once has Google search brought me up Knol, so no wonder.
- Bloake, on 01/20/2009, -1/+6Wikipedia basically just has an article on everything, so people have no need to look for quick information elsewhere.
- MacHarborGuy, on 01/20/2009, -1/+5only thing Wikipedia has to worry about is itself.
- Godlike, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Gmail owns every other mail client by leaps and bounds. Picasa and it's web albums are pretty awesome. So are Google Docs & Spreadsheets.
Google also does web platforming insanely well, and couples it well with search.
It is very unfortunate that we need gmbmg.com - ithejosh, on 01/21/2009, -0/+2wikipedia is non profit
- bitterbug, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Google is not about doing things first. They are about doing things better.
They launch projects, they observe, and improve. - hasansexy, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Exactly, example: the Scientology pages made by,,,,,,,Scientologists.
- Chairboy, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Who's worrying? The more knowledge sources to cross-reference, the better. Wikipedia and Google Knol need not bite at each other to the death, I hope they both prosper. It should keep both of them honest, if nothing else.
- techdever, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2wikipedia porn ftw!
- Bouncer169, on 01/20/2009, -1/+3Another Google Beta which seems to fail. Why don't they just focus on improving their other "Beta"s instead of creating new ones?
- radiofrequency, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Google only does one thing well: search. And they're getting worse and worse at it.
All these other projects from Google are merely demonstrations of its arrogance and disdain for the intelligence of people. - HonoredMule, on 01/20/2009, -0/+2Wikipedia start on a much smaller internet as a revolutionary concept. There's no correlation between the two starting growth rates. Wikipedia, having already reached critical mass, has enjoyed aggressive linear growth for years, with no end in sight. That you can take to the bank. Knol, on the other hand, is as successful as the quantity of effort and funds being poured into making is so--and will never be able to light a candle against the volume of contributors Wikipedia accepts.
Knol's sole purpose is to claim authority where wikipedia cannot. But since Knol really can't either (and will probably never be authoritative), all it has is exclusivity hampering its growth and setting a ceiling well below the point wikipedia has already reached. - Leitcheee, on 01/20/2009, -2/+3Bloake is right, they really do have an article on everything!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukake - Korberos, on 01/20/2009, -1/+2This story comes two days after another story was on the front page outlining how Knol was farther ahead than expected, given that when they came out everyone assumed it would immediately flop, and now they have over 100,000 entries.
Is the Digg community always so stupid?
Let's try to put this in perspective. Yes, Wikipedia is currently the dominant force in this area and there seems to be no need to look elsewhere, but considering the growth rate of Wikipedia* (found on Wikipedia, no less) was not as fast to grow as Knol, and that could represent a large problem once exponential growth begins to make a larger affect on Knol's base. We won't know for another year or two, and if anyone here is paying attention, you might note that Digg is effectively giving attention to Knol, something that could turn the tides a bit at Knol's crucial growth point.
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_W ... - inactive, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1The only way Knol will win is when Go Ogle gives it preference in search results
- punkcat, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1just glancing at Knol, you are right. what i saw was more blog like than actually informative.
plus the page views,comments ratings, all serve to stroke an ego more than the being solely informative. - CyberBeast, on 01/20/2009, -2/+3Another born dead Google project.
It seams that Google better stick to what they are best in - online advertising :) , and stop trying to show that they are innovative.... - OutpostNetwork, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1"Horniness; a spreading epidemic that must be stopped." It is written for "the young people who are just coming of age and those who are heading towards horniness, those who are border line horny and those who are already stuck,"
Ummm.... doesn't that cover just about everyone? No thanks... I'll stick to Wikipedia to gather my information whether it's credible or not. - orion846, on 01/20/2009, -1/+2google wha?
- 6minuteabs, on 01/20/2009, -2/+3Unlike Netscape, Wikipedia isn't a crappy product with a broken business model.
- nbabasketball, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Google is really a one-trick-pony - they mastered search and montized the hell out of it. But other than that, while sometimes their products are useful, I can't name a single one that makes any money.
- SteveMax, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Yeah, their business model is fantastic. Wikimedia is making SO much money......
- totalnet, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Yes, we all know that reality is left leaning...
- acteon29, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Knol is GREAT. I haven't used it because I didn't know it existed. A combination of information contribution (write), information search (read), and information search-contribution (structuring) is the FUKKEN future. But, as I've seen Knol, it still has to do very important improvements, in particular regarding search-contribution and document organization. But Knol is a higher level than Wikipedia.
- Godlike, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Why doesn't Google just buy Wikipedia?
- Shananra, on 01/20/2009, -0/+1Well, anything that has enough "notoriety" anyway. Oh, and don't put in a trivia section, usually the most interesting part of the article, or they'll bite your head off!
The only advantage that Wikipedia has is that they're large. If Google, or anyone else, were to come along with a site that allowed for more comprehensive articles, more obscure material (even obscure stuff is relevant to someone!) trivia sections and other interesting but useless facts about the given subject (even if you have to click a link to view them) then Wikipedia would get slaughtered. - Godlike, on 01/21/2009, -0/+1LOL trust me that doesn't mean that they can't be bought.
- Kolbeck10, on 01/20/2009, -1/+1It's still listed under top articles:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Knol_Reaches_100_ ... - serif69, on 01/20/2009, -2/+2Comment on Digg
I completely agree with you comment. It is insight like this that is needed more on the internet. Also, poop.
by serif69 - ACiDGRiM, on 01/20/2009, -1/+1Maybe if it didn't have such a ***** name people would use it more. It's all in PR.
- nawab123, on 04/05/2009, -0/+0Dear Outpostnetwork:
'Ummm.... doesn't that cover just about everyone?'. No it does not cover everyone. Right now if we can wake up then this trend of spreading horniness can be reversed. Fortunately all those who come of age do not fall into this trap. Those who are heading towards horniness are still are a small but increasing percentage. And the ones who are border line must be warned of the coming disaster if they don't take steps to free themselves from the initial trap from which it is easier to get out. You are perhaps taking it as a joke but this is serious.
Also if you really want to get insights on your own self and want to answer the question 'Who am I' then read the knols on wisdom by Sajid Khan. - nawab123, on 02/12/2009, -0/+0Wikipedia and Knol; Rivals or Partners?
There is a lot of buzz on the web that google created knol to wipe out Wikipedia. The goals of both is the same: to provide knowledge through the internet. Wikipedia's goal is to spread established knowledge. Knol is looking to take this established knowledge into uncharted territory to expand the frontiers of knowledge. Though knols are not research papers in strict scientific terms, knols are hypothesizes with the potential of many turning into theories. While Wikipedia is the 'theory board/platform' of the internet knol is the hypothesis board/platform of the internet. Both are essential and while the goals of Wikipedia are quite clear a clearer function is emerging for knol: to post new hypothesis in a collaborative manner and let the wheat rise to the top and the chaff eventually cast aside.
The time has come for both to work together. Knol writers can research topics by also including knowledge from Wikipedia (which many knol writers are already doing). And Wikipedia can expand their articles by including the knowledge from the top knols that make scientific (common) sense.
The Knol Author Foundation has been pushing knol creators to start recognizing the star knols. They are now doing it. However it is an algorithm that decides the quality knols. The human factor is missing. We at the foundation have created our own stamp of approval.We will have two categories of star approvals: Knols that are speculative and need to be considered for acceptance and knols that need to be stamped with the 'star of need to be in the category of established knowledge'. We would like to see Wikipedia to start mentioning relevant 'established knowledge star knols' at least in the reference section.
The time has come for both to work together. Today's top star knols should become part of the collective human knowledge and should become part of the Wikipedia data base as well.
Knol is different. It has many original, cutting edge articles. Check out knols, 'Wisdom' and 'How to live your life' tell me if you see anything like this anywhere else. - LinkStarbureiy, on 01/22/2009, -0/+0Some changes have to be in order here. I'll continue to use the product because I like its openness, and the integration with other Google products such as video, images, and documents . However, there needs to be some structure to the Knol entries. For instance, browsers/users can search for topics in the standard search bar, but content holders/generators must browse through pages (e.g., 1, 2, 3, ... x) until they find their own entry for updating/editing. There should be folders or a folder-creation system in place (much like with Google Docs). In that spirit, there also should be a topic tree node, for getting to certain subjects quickly. That's something the likes of Wikipedia hasn't implemented grandly yet (you can, though, search for topics of Mathematics, or People, etc. on Wikipedia). Lastly (for now!), and this is more of a personal or niche request, there could be some implementation of a scientific equation editor in-place. Food for thought.
- dtpollitt, on 01/20/2009, -5/+4i *thought* i followed google pretty closely, and ive never heard of knol. in a rare loss for google, wikipedia ftw for the win!
- inactive, on 01/20/2009, -3/+2You'll be saying wow every time you use this towel.
- GooeyBattles, on 01/20/2009, -1/+0OnTheKnol has been tracking and providing RSS Feeds for Google Knol since day 1.. http://www.ontheknol.com
...It certainly shows the material on Knol is not on par with that of WPedia :-) - Dmilla16, on 01/20/2009, -1/+0there was just a story on a day or two ago about how Knol was doing well...its the election season all over again
- inactive, on 01/20/2009, -4/+1Wikipedia is a great because the articles can cite reliable sources like Brittanica.
- MrViklund, on 01/20/2009, -6/+1DiGG me UPP!
- inactive, on 01/20/2009, -7/+0The liars in wikipedia should worry more about conservopedia.
- michaelpinto, on 01/20/2009, -13/+6Wikipedia better be worried - Google has the cash and time to get it right. Just like IE crushed Netscape the folks at Wikipedia shouldn't be falling asleep at the wheel thinking that they own the world. And also other folks have Wikipedia in their sites like Mahalo.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is