What is Digg?23 Comments
- pjsk8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well, usually if you know how to use a search engine effectively, you should be able to find what you're looking for.
- mikegioia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7the article makes a argument that the more page clicks and links a site gets the higher its placed on googles search results. this is bad? a) how could you implement an effective search results algorithm that didnt seed its results based on popularity and b) why would you want to see results for a query that no aren't popular. if im writing a report on some animal, like the author says, i want the most popular and linked to articles and info about my topic. ive also looked through upwards of 15 pages of results for queries.
bad analogy, bad argument. - DephexTwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm confused by the headline of the article. Which thing is good and which thing is bad between the words "googlearchy" and "googlocracy"? Going by the roots (since these terms are made up), a googlearchy would be a google-based form of government, and a googlocracy would be a google-based form of government.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Maybe you and the people knows technology probably will know how to search efficiently. But to the average Joe, he only knows to type in a word and hit search. That is why I made the comment on the top.
- mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Rich get richer sounds bad only in the context of limited resources, that is in a literal sense. When applied to knowledge and information, which is what Internet, scientific journals, etc. is about, is is not bad.
It is true that pretty much every scientist wants his paper to be published in Nature or Science, and this fact alone contributes to high citation index of these journals.
What happens with knowledge and information area is that it is always progressing. If you invent something completely new for Internet or in science, your page will be number 1 in corresponding search or you will find a new exciting scientific journal.
If you created 1000th page devoted to Googleoarchy or blog impact on Civilization in XXI century then you rightfully be on the bottom of the list, because you are unoriginal.
Resume: the article is bs. - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Is an information monopoly developing the same way as the software monopoly of the recent past? Is Google the next Microsoft?"
No. The Big Three search engines (Google, MSN, and Yahoo!) all return results of approximately equal quality. If Google started sucking, we could all go to MSN or back to Yahoo!. There is no monopoly here. - albinoMithos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3googlowhat now?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they can advertise minollo food on google and show up prominately, they just lose the free advertising that comes with search engines... I dont know about you but i have to pay to be listed in the phone books yellow pages... i personally am glad that google doesnt charge me to be listed.
I think people will coimplain no matter how they do it.. if they dont do it by popularity, the popular sites will surely complain as well. people like to blame there site problems on google..I tend to blame the site creators - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But they own the search *engine*. That's what differentiated Google from the pre-existing search engines: its superior engine.
But now all the engines are pretty much equal; the only reasons to continue using Google are (1) the non-sucky UI and (2) the fact that they're not Microsoft or Yahoo!. - 3lite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of the people who read the article: Did anyone also think that the effect of new users was not taken into account? The authors claim that search engines help unknown sites to be found (using specific search queries). But new users (who don't know the "important/prominent" sites won't enter a specific query. So, search engines help unknown sites to become more known with the sophisticated web users, but increase popularity of prominent sites among new and not technically inclined users. Don't you think?
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, now you understand Google's plans.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.oozm.com/*****
The least you could do is stop pretending that piece of ***** site isn't "yours", given that it's ***** obvious when you look at your comments.
*****. - Ozymandias42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Stupid comment...i parsed for words like stupid to justify my opinion but then i realised its a stupid comment written by someone with atrocious grammar and punctuation with a biased opinion so why bother?
- creamycoffee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Excellent, interesting article. I am astounded at how poor many of the above comments are!
- Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Is it even possible to have a monopoly on something you don't own? The information they index is freely available, and if they decided to close up shop tomorrow, 50 others could come in and take over where they left off.
- racter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"popularity" as a default index of value is something that a lot of the web uses unquestioningly uncritically, including digg. i think this is because it's a very simple index to track, it's already being tracked for financial reasons (bandwidth & ad sales), and it has some more or less vague resonances with loudly valorized political ideas like "democracy."
but there are other important organizing forces in operation on the www right now - tag clouds, FOAF networks &c. - that allow minority voices to propagate & flower. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2what did you call my mom?!
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Why does the rich get richer? Maybe because a lot of rich people invest wisely....we should tax the hell out of them! They don't deserve it!!! Make sense?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Stupid story...i had a few paragraphs to justify my opinion but then i realised its a stupid story written by someone with a biased opinion so why bother?
- everfresh59, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Whats Google?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5Well the rich gets richer is always right. 50% of the people don't find the right information through search engines. This is shown through Yahoo's own research. This is why we need to get people involved and I give big up to http://www.oozm.com for trying to do that. Even though the site sucks in design, its the first step.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1wow.. got to the front page fast.. 27 diggs, 2 comments..
- Eldoo77, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4I agree about the rich getting richer... look a Google story makes it to the Digg Front page with only 26 Diggs and 1 comment. Ridiculous!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is