What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
103 Comments
- j1337, on 12/14/2007, -5/+50Search Google for a topic and the first result is an article on a Google-run site with Google advertisements? Well, there goes the internet.
- drewolanoff, on 06/10/2008, -3/+36Googlepedia?
- itail, on 12/14/2007, -3/+17They have a lot of ground to cover competing with Wikipedia's 2M+ online articles...
- jellygraph, on 12/14/2007, -6/+19sounds awfully like wikipedia.... c'mon google. really...
- marshallk, on 12/14/2007, -2/+14except it's an unfair playing field! maybe google 85% search market share wasn't such a good idea after all!
- diggeddugg, on 12/14/2007, -3/+14I'm all for competition, but this simply won't be any competition for wikipedia. Why even bother?
- vemerge, on 12/14/2007, -0/+11Google Reader? GMail? Come on now.
- matters5, on 12/14/2007, -1/+12Google Maps?
- Incidents, on 12/14/2007, -5/+15Google is having way too many beta products that end up dying or being forgotten about.
When was the last time Google updated GTalk? 2006? - maloventevil, on 12/14/2007, -3/+12how about instead of reinventing wikipedia --- google just donates the money needed to keep it afloat!
- shazbot, on 12/14/2007, -1/+9Not really. You can download their entire article database and host it yourself.
- dn11, on 12/14/2007, -0/+7google controls the search results - google can be competitive with whoever they want to be competitive with..... catch my drift?
- jeffness, on 12/14/2007, -1/+8I find alot of these posts here funny because I think they must come from people who simply use wikipedia rather than contribute. For almost anyone who's ever been involved with Wikipedia at a level above reading/making minor edits, you know that the site has major social problems. At Wikipedia there is a clique of admins that run the site with an iron fist. Disagree with something they say and you can be banned. It's not a democracy and it's run by the people who can socialize and spend WAY too much time obsessing over the COMMUNITY rather than the content.
There have been numerous articles written about Wikipedia publicizing these problems and there has been absolutely no movement from anyone on fixing them. Wikipedia is a severely flawed and doomed project. I welcome any competitor to it, especially googles. - freehunter, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6It seems more like About.com or WhatIs.com than Wikipedia. From the image, it looked more like a normal encyclopedia than Wikipedia, which strives to put everything ever known about the subject on the page.
- dn11, on 12/14/2007, -1/+6from techcrunch: "Google has already said that Knol results will be in Google’s index, presumably on the first page, and very possibly at the top: “Our job in Search Quality will be to rank the knols appropriately when they appear in Google search results.” Google wants Knol to be an authoritative page: “A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read".... ultimately if google wants it to be on top, who's going to stop them?
- tybris, on 12/14/2007, -2/+7"by a company that's arguably the most important in the last 100 years. "
Arguably more important than Boeing who helped us win WW2?
Arguably more important than Coca-Cola and McDonalds who drove Western culture to the farthest reaches of earth?
Arguably more important than Microsoft who brought the computer to every home?
Arguably more important than Standard Oil who reshaped the global industry?
Arguably more important than AT&T who triggered the tele-communication indusry?
It's arguably the most important for the next 100 years, not for the last. - AceTracer, on 12/14/2007, -2/+6Yet another project that will get started and abandoned before it reaches any amount of viewership. Google might as well let its employees leave early with that 20% time.
- goblindegook, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Between Star Wars fans and Lord of the Rings fans, those two million articles will be a piece of cake.
- ElephantHunter, on 12/14/2007, -0/+4Competition much needed! With any luck, Wikipedia will spawn some new features as a result. By the way, I am NOT impressed that users are burying comments because they represent unpopular ideas. Bury comments because they do not contribute. Do not censor.
- Murdats, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4already done :P
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/251 ... - terminal157, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3That's because a lot of their products are made by employees in their "20% time" (they spend %20 of their work time on personal projects), or are just technology tests/jumping off points for other things.
- jdpalite, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Right, because you've read "most of" Wikipedia's 2 million+ articles, and have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter of "most of" them?
- fkr3, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3aready done :P
http://www.wikipedia.org/ - dn11, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4the issue isn't whether it is a knock off - the issue is that the primary indexing service of the internet is going into the business of also hosting the info that is to be indexed and giving it priority visibility above the competition. i've stated my opinion and a possible solution below
- Jugalator, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3"Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it."
And it's invite only now, without any info given that it ever won't be. So I think having it be written by experts on the subject makes it more akin to Citizendium. - boyakasha, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Sure, they're copying Wikipedia, but they might be able to do a better job. There are definitely areas that could be improved. See http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 for an article by the co-founder.
- nbulp, on 12/14/2007, -0/+3Yeah, Google. Come on... and, while we're at it: that search engine of yours reminds me an awful lot of that dear old AltaVista. Bad, bad Google. /got sarcasm?
- kazamx, on 12/14/2007, -1/+4Gmail?
- raynar, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2you have to be smarter than what you're working with.
- isaactwito, on 12/14/2007, -1/+3Oh come on. I use GTalk all the time when I'm checking my email and my friends are checking their email and we notice that there's a friend in the little chat box. Also Google Sets, gotta love that one. I use that like... at least once every 3 months. No sarcasm!
- estacado, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Smack the word "social" on anything, and it will get the green light. Bubble I tell you.
- FiveDollarWiki, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Yeah, if they wanted to, they COULD take out lots of companies, but I think they are just aiming their cannons at the big 3.
- EvilDude, on 12/14/2007, -3/+5You obviously don't know that the Internet uses Gmail, Google Reader, Blogger, Picasa, Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google News. You are way off if you think Google only has 2 successful projects. Not only are those products successes, but the service they provide is usually the best on the net.
This idea does seem like a wikipedia competitor, but it's not meant to be a full article, it's meant to be the basics. - esc27, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Competing with Wikipedia is fine. Competition is almost always a good thing.
Artificially putting your proprietary site above Wikipedia on every search, when you are the worlds most dominant search engine...
is monopolistic and illuminates a clear conflict of interest. That would be no worse than AT&T using their status as an ISP to "promote" one of their services over another... - redlock, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Knol isn't only an encyclopedia it covers all range of knowledge. It also has some distinct features such as competing articles on the same subject, authors highlighted, revenue incentive for writers (through adsense), article reviews, Q & A, and a more aesthetically pleasing page (relative to wikipedia).
- FiveDollarWiki, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Hmm... that IS true, Wikipedia has no support for RSS Feeds, Videos, or anything Web2.0 other than massive online collaboration.
- RyeBrye, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2Google updated Gtalk a few weeks ago when they added in the AIM integration - so although your point is valid, your example makes you look stupid.
- dicklogan, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2It's a great idea by Google because authors can not only help others in the world with their information but also make money, according to http://knolmoney.com
- thailand1972, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2The truth is this: if Google didn't exist, nothing much in modern life would have changed. We'd still have search engines, free mail etc. There'd still be PPC advertising. Google do some things better than others, but that fact alone doesn't make them "arguably the most important company in the last 100 years" - or even the most important company THIS year, or even in the top 100 most important companies this year.
- andyd273, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2As stated on techdirt, this is just another way for google to organize all knowledge in the world online.
it kind of reminds me of the Asimov story where knowledge keeps increasing exponentially.
People creating so much information that there arent enough libraries or fileing cabinets to hold all of the paper.
So they create a new storage medium like microfilm and are able to squeeze all the information into a single room, until it expands again, and they have to create a new way of storing it. In the end it basically took up some planet with the insides hollowed out and turned into a harddrive. (Its been a long time since I've read it, so forgive me if I got the plot all wrong)
If google really tries to store everything, I can for see their servers expanding exponentially until they end up causing the heat death of the universe. - ahpro, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2So basically its just a copy of wikipedia then?
- tuzziel, on 12/14/2007, -1/+2This could backfire on Google. Wikipedia, there is thousands revisions and corrections going on.. how can you expect some individual can be better then thousands? or trusted? Even worse, if such half assed articles get a boost and better, verified and editable articles (Wikipedia) will get a back seat than this is really bad news for Google. This will only encourage Wikipedia or some related crew to create their own unskewed and free search engine to replace Google.
- terminal157, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Except that such edits would be immediately reverted, and if Google kept it up they would be banned from editing pages. Also, everyone would hate Google, it would be a PR nightmare. In short, that's a terrible, terrible idea you just had.
- Disparity, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1This was already done years ago (even before wikipedia, too):
http://everything2.net/ - gweedoz, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1This could be good if it maintained the identity of who made the article. Wikipedia has been suffering from insider bias, unprofessional back room antics, and lack of transparency. Without some fundamental changes, I'm not sure how it will last. Google's approach could be quite powerful, and could surpass wikipedia with quality sources and information.
- inactive, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1And they are doing this because.... wikipedia is so *****? Oh no, that's not it... its because they can't serve ads on wikipedia. My bad.
- raynar, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1who cares? Do you HAVE to be instantly notified when an article by some pimple faced 15 year old is updated?
- raynar, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Because its 2.0, baby. You either add an "i" at the beginning, remove a letter (flickr instead of flickEr), and add some shiny buttons and Ajax. Throw in some Adsense, post on Digg and try and get people to ready your crappy blog where you steal content from other sites, and you're golden.
- thailand1972, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I don't think you got amnezia's point - they index the content, they can copy it and label it as their own under their new encyclopaedia. Not saying it will happen, but it would be easy to do.
- natenovs, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1its actually really frustrating. all of those things you mentioned were really going to REVOLUTIONIZE their respective markets. google has great plans, and they stated them. unfortunately, they havent been coming through with too many promises. gtalk could have been awesome (a real good jabber client) but it hasn't improved in a long time. google docs COULD be amazing (and very well might be) but they still aren't even close to what they could and should be. google books is the one that disappointed me the most. i really wanted entire libraries online, i really did.
maybe i need to be more patient. or maybe google needs to stop acting like some ADD kid and actually take one of their products out of perpetual beta... -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 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