What is Digg?38 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting tired of this "who copied who" *****.
- yonis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting tired of this "who copied who" *****.
- Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Originality has become a pipe dream in the last few years. Most websites are simply reincarnations of a predecessor with a few new features here and there. The fact that Google copied Yahoo, who copied Google is not surprising, but almost predictable. Look at the current Web 2.0 craze. I guess Web 2.0 means, "Same Old *****, Shiny New Interface!"
- currybet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Yep - especially when it is tagged to scandals not in the USA. I'd love there to be another scandal involving Watergate, so we could get Watergategate. Or a scandal that was just about water - watergate
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Not really. That's just lawyers using boilerplate language to describe risks for internet companies. A lot of internet companies' risk sheets have very similar language.
The idea is what while investors will read it (in theory), the people that the language on those risk sheets really has to satisfy is the SEC. If they are accused of not properly disclosing the risks, they can get really hammered. So to be safe, if the risks are similar, the lawyers are going to play it safe and use language that has passed the bar with the SEC in the past. This is particularly true for their initial S-1 filings when they go public (needing to satisfy the SEC that you have adequately disclosed the risks), and many companies subsequently recycle their risk sheet items onto subsequent filings, since the risks usually remain the same. - fishmasta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Is anyone else tired of -gate being used as a general term for scandal? Not everything's as serious as Watergate was.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I, however, love originality and refuse to be a cash cow."
good one. - Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8That is
*ADVERT* *ADVERT*
the worst laid out
*ADVERT* *ADVERT*
acrticle i've
*ADVERT* *ADVERT*
ever
*ADVERT* *ADVERT*
seen - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Look... you're in a content delivery field... the webpage essentially serves to deliver content... The originality is housed within.... The equivalent in music terms would be using a clear plastic jewel case when another artist also did it...
One TV station never complains that another uses 30 second TV ads... one Stock Trader never complains that the same san serif font is used on an eggshell white business card (well one... but never mind him)
Copying the layout of the HTML of a page which is identical in purpose, and talks about an essentially identical product is really a far cry from someone stealing your logo, your character design or your search algorithm...
Web designers: Innovate all you want... you're even allowed to get ***** when someone steals your innovation, but a few tables and button placement is a far cry from innovation... - danklogix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wow, the ads were there as part of the story for demonstrational purposes...
- monkeyrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What GATE?
where's the GATE?.. I hate people who add GATE to the end of a phrase because they think it sounds good.. it doesn't
Watergate, ok.... anything else GATE not good.. fools ...paltroons,
stop doing it or I will send my rampaging monkey hordes to your domicile and get them to force wasabi up your nose till you cry for you mummy - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7These posts (Cutts' and the earlier one) highlight something more interesting about both Google and Yahoo: they both seem to be remarkably insecure about themselves and think about themselves in terms of the other far more than they really should.
Whoever it was that said that Google and Yahoo should just stop thinking they are competitors because consumers don't think of them that way is right. It's really just Wall Street driving that view, which makes it ironic because Google's stock structure was supposedly intended to make it so they wouldn't need to care about the Street. As a consumer, I seriously don't think about Google vs. Yahoo. To the average internet user, Google means internet search, and Yahoo means internet services. Everything is incidental, and both companies need to get over their silly rivalry. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think these days people don't even realize that "Watergate" was the actual name of the hotel (now an apartment building) in DC. The way the media morons attach "-gate" to the end of everything, most people probably think it was a scandal involving Nixon and a lot of water or something.
- Amusing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It felt like I was reading an article by a drunk.
- hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If one company improves their product's usability... and then another company improves their product's usability... doesn't everyone win?
If you want to make money out of a good idea, patent it. Otherwise people will rip it off, and more power to them for doing it. - figvam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"though they might argue that two companies arriving at the same conclusions regarding trends in design style only shows that the conclusion was right, not that one was a copy of the other"
And how repeating it _twice_ supports this argument? - culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Cant they put anymore ads on this site!"
Sure, how about one for a reading and comprehension program at University of Phoenix Online. - alephsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Isnt this what I've installed adblock to avoid seeing?
- rouben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First rule of marketing: keep the message consistent and keep hammering it into the brains of your customers. Since Microsoft is 90% marketing/sales and 9% software, and 1% miscellaneous, and since they obviously had been involved in this marketing stunt, I'm not the very least surprised that the pages look similar. I'm even more surprised that the pages don't have the Microsoft corporate logo in the header/footer and aren't hosted on Microsoft's servers...
- surfpark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They're coming from the same business model. Its in their best economic interest to copy each other. I don't know if you can claim that these two companies alone are the only ones guilty of copying. Most of what is considered Web 2.0 copies much of the Apple and Mozilla look with small alterations. I think its funny, but by not means unfair that they rip each other off. Its competition and every industry does something similar to this. The one that innovates the product beyond the glossy surface wins.
- Aninhumer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope you guys know the ads were for demonstration purposes.
- Dylan16807, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are all examples, and all are .png's, hosted on his site.
No money for him. - jcPHDEUCE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no ideas original.
there's nothing new under the sun.
its not what you do,
but how its done - barthosch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1never mind
- diggimator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yup, it's stupid. "ie7 gate": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ie7+gate%22
0 hits. - tikistyle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I can't imagine a layout that could support more ads.
- neladua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There's a big difference between following a trend -- which happens to be set by Google, because Google's really good, and outright plagiarism.
If your competitor uses their design sense to update their style to something more trendy, you're only left with two choices really -- try to leapfrog them and get just ahead of the wave or, failing that, play catch-up.Yahoo obviously played catch-up when it came to AdWords (though they might argue that two companies arriving at the same conclusions regarding trends in design style only shows that the conclusion was right, not that one was a copy of the other).
Playing catch-up may not be something to be proud of, and it certainly speaks to Google's strengths that they set the trends (and/or caught on to them quicker), but it's not the same as lifting images or text pixel for pixel / word for word. I'm a bit surprised that Matt Cutts is implying an equivalence. - shwat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would be concerned if there was news about yahoo getting with Google about that page but there isn't. Means nothing to me unless more comes to the floor about the page. Besides from the article it looks like yahoo is just as guilty. So the question shouldn't be who is guilty but who is guiltier. People are too quick to judge on topics they don't know the full story of.
Also, just because a site did it before the other does not mean the site wasn't leaked before its release. Lets face it, big companies are crafty.. - joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9Google is guilty of a much worse copying of Yahoo though,
http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2006/07/03/google_plagiarized_yahoos_risk_list.html - dmorel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's really hard not to sound too self congratulatory when writing a response like this one, but I'm going to try, because it occurs to me that using adblock plus with the filterset G auto updater really does change your web experience, so take this not as an I'm better than you are because I use firefox and adblock, but rather as someone trying to improve your web surfing way of life.
If you've ever tried to explain to someone about a tivo, and how it really changes the way you watch tv, adblock plus is sort of like that. You have to use it for a while, get used to it for a while and then NOT use it for a little while to realize how fantastic it is.
Here's the thing though, unlike a tivo, it's free. With any reasonable connection you can have firefox downloaded and installed in a few minutes, off to install a few extensions, restart firefox and boom, your life will be instantly upgraded. - livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9Remmy
That's pretty much the case in other industries as well.
For example take a look at movies and music. Originality is so lacking it's simply pathetic.
Cleverly large corporations have turned us in to cash cows where we spend money over and over again for basically the same *****. That's why trends always come back in style- no originality required.
I, however, love originality and refuse to be a cash cow.
Sorry to fall so far off topic but it's all connected. - dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"I, however, love originality and refuse to be a cash cow."
Is that a "Pompous Statement of the Month" nomination I hear? - trmoser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This article has way more advertising in it than it has words... He uses some of them as examples but I'm sure they are all active pulling in money for him...
- apache2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1wow, google changed the look of their page in a hurry,maybe someone was fired (does it make me a bad person if I hope they were fired? individuality is needed, and I would have fired someone for copying other people's work)
- cfarmer8, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Cant they put anymore ads on this site!
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Oops.
- joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2umm it's not similar language, it's the exact same thing but mildly dressed up
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