digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Integrating Digg Within Your Website (w/digg icon pack!)

diggtheblog.blogspot.com — "With today's latest code push we have enabled two new methods for integrating digg directly within your website: submit to digg, and digg story button"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • asiaeroticacom, on 10/12/2007, -72/+9NOw I DIG this! Ill start implementing this into my blog right now!
    • curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Awesome way to expand digg, and allow users to digg stories from within other websites! Nice official icon pack as well to implement into other websites! Thanks Kevin and company!
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22It would be nice if it detected if the story had already been submitted, and then redirected people either to the story submission or comment page, depending on the outcome.

      I know some people have their blogs set to automatically check whether it's been submitted or dugg every so often, but it would be nice to have that built in.
    • Ray_Justice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4good suggestion, who knows maybe they have already thought of that. At the end of the story it says there will be updates to this feature when they upgrade the API.
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3O RLY?

      * looks like armbar feels the same way...
    • rsteinke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5It sounds like, according to the post Kevin made, that the digg button can be made to track the number of diggs the story has. Does this perhaps mean that once someone submits your story the button BECOMES the digg button and adds diggs to the story? Because that would kick some knid of special ass.
    • SkipDivided, on 10/12/2007, -17/+0Glad to see this added to digg, I introduced this feature on dotnetkicks.com a few months ago:

      http://weblogs.asp.net/gavinjoyce/archive/2006/05/22/Add-a-dotnetkicks.com-kick-counter-to-your-blog-.aspx

      That is one of the three new features that I would like to see on digg:

      http://weblogs.asp.net/gavinjoyce/archive/2006/07/04/455537.aspx
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19What's the pay out. If i'm going to be advertising digg on my site I want to be paid.

    • kodek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"What's the pay out. If i'm going to be advertising digg on my site I want to be paid."

      Traffic.
    • SCHNOZAGIZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"What's the pay out. If i'm going to be advertising digg on my site I want to be paid."

      ....uhhh the payout is they advertise you on digg
    • beelz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5icons rock. Kevin's new pic doesnt.
  • p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31The roots of Digg should spread yet still further with the new API tools. It'll be nice to see that continued expansion...

    BTW: Nifty icon pack.
    • 3monkeys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This looks good and actually if implemented right should cut down on duplicates, by allowing a page to show that it "has" been dugg and that you can simply "digg" it directly. Now when someone dupes an article with this new API it will be much more apparent.
  • JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3A lot of us have been waiting for this! Thank you Kevin!
  • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26Interesting, but I have to say that I honestly HATE when I visit a site and see a bunch of "digg, delicious, etc" buttons. Look - just because you put something up on the net doesn't mean it's diggworthy. So stop putting your "digg this" on EVERY damn thing you ever create!
    • latour, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6YOU'RE SO RIGHT
    • Inbal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How are people supposed to decide what is interesting and "digg-worthy" for everyone else? If something has been written, the publisher probably thinks it's interesting enough. I do agree that it's annoying aesthetically, and frustrating to always find the same buttons (like Digg and del.ici.ous are the only social websites that will ever be).
  • liquidice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This is going to create a lot more dupes, unless it's done correctly. It could be possible to disable the button once it's been submitted. But if it gets submitted more than once, it will create a lot more dupes.
    • kilps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It would be cool if it could be part of the release but you could just look at refering webpages until you get from digg and then replace 'Digg this' with the actuall digg module - it could also then look at multiple articles and display the one were most of the references are comming from should there be a dupe.

      Just don't look at me to make it - I'm busy :)
    • jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22We check for dupes in the process. You'll see.
    • curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@jayadelson
      Nice to see that this feature will account for duplicate stories, as dupes have been filling the digg queue lately. Awesome feature, can't wait for the new API! and other features you guys having coming soon!
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh, yeah, like we can trust a guy who hates kittens!
  • WeeklyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So I don't have to use some crazy movable type plug in anymore? neat!
  • brucebeh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Nice!

    This is pretty cool, anyone have an example they can post? I just want to see what it looks like
  • hypnotiq, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"he easiest way to get your articles on digg is to encourage your visitors to submit their favorite stories directly to digg"

    actually, the easiest way is to submit is yourself like 1/2 the crackers on digg do.
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It doesn't have to, but it always does.
    • hypnotiq, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I modified my comment. But yeah, I do assume that Kevin submits it like normal :) Just thought if anyone had opinions about it.

      But the one feature I do not like about digg is that so many retarded users post their blogs as if anyones gives a rip. The good thing is, this feature can be great with more mainstream companies if they implemented it. But as it stand now, I could build a blog that was simply submitting stories every time someone posted to it, and then essentially spamming digg.

      I have a question, whether at some point or not enough is enough as far as story submission. I have been discouraged the last few months from really looking for new stories, it's difficult to keep up. Although it sounds as if they are working on some site design to help with that.....
  • MrHolla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Very useful features.
  • tcooper185, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Very good...very useful. Now, to find the time to include this into my blog!
  • bouche, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1yep, I'm going to need to figure out how to hack that into my site.
  • granny2k5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21preview of icon pack so you dont have to download the zip...
    http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diggbadges1mh.jpg
    • dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I was afraid when I heard the word "pack" considering Google completely disappointed everyone... But this Digg pack is well thought out and doesn't include crappy software!
  • eigh, on 10/12/2007, -22/+1YOURE THE MAN NOW DOG


    BECAUSE I WOULDNT CARE IF THIS BUILDING WAS FILLED WITH EAGLE SEMEN
    • eigh, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1GET IT ITS A REFERENCE TO THAT GUY THAT WANTED G4 TO FILL UP WITH EAGLE SEMEN
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I wish your momma would've swallowed you...
  • Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I would like to be able to submit a story without having to have a person enter the anti-robot image. Hopefully the complete API will allow people to generate API keys and use them to submit like 5 or 10 stories a day automatically.
  • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Now all I'd like to see is make the "undigg" function work -exactly- like the digg function, and instead of changing "digg it" to a grayed out "dugg!", make it turn into "undigg", and make it clickable with the same updated dugg count as the "digg it" animation has.
  • gafasiesornivek, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Thanks Kevin! I'm confused as to whether I love you or Steve Jobs more. Awesome bit of code this.
  • cosmotic, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Why the hell are the specifications in a PDF? I can *instantlu* think of 4 better formats to publish those specs. .png, .doc, .txt, .html . I coulqd think for a few seconds and come up with a whole slew of other formats.

    There was absoulutely NO reason to use PDF for those specs. Amatures.
  • Koncept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14ehh and if anyone wants to see - http://digg.com/api/diggthis.php?u=http://digg.com/tech_news/Integrating_Digg_Within_Your_Website_(w_digg_icon_pack!)
    • lonelycanuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So is it possible to implement this into a blogger post that had been submitted to digg?
    • lonelycanuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just a quick update - this script doesn't seem to work within blogger. If im doing something wrong, please let me know.
  • WildBil2Me, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I've been scrounging around for these for quite a while now, especially the digg guy and the digg logo. Any chance we can get some SVG versions in a future release?
  • largobargo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2How much is digg going to be paying for adding digg links to your site? Is it going to be a pay-per-click ad system?
    • KF6BBL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For a decent story that makes it to the front page, maybe you sent 100 clicks from your site to digg, and in return you get 1000s of clicks from digg back to your site.

      You don't see their hand out asking for pay per click, do you?

      So if you don't want digg links on your site, and the potential large volume of traffic that results from your story making it to the front page, than don't add it!
  • tunac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I think it would be nice to have this thingy (digg counter) added to personal site i.e.

    [Story Title][123 diggs][-->] 1)clicking on nuber will digg story
    2)clicking on [-->] will get you directly to site
    [Story description]
  • mikepanic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I forget the site, there is a super easy set of like 3 lines of code to add to blogger.com blogs as well for this.
  • timing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0The geeks from digg are fast! I requested this feature on the 3th of July (at least something like this). and right now it's here!

    Of course it could be the case it's not because of my request. maybe they planned this change earlier. However, when it's because of my request, a thank you would be nice!
  • tunac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0http://www.freewebs.com/tunac/mydiggGoogleMod.gif here's the image ...
  • j3one, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Twas nice of them to include the PSD in the pack, makes integration with layouts seamless.
    very smart. Very open source of them... it's rare to see somebody sacrifice uniform branding for user based artwork, even though it makes great sense. They will see allot more of their logo AI allot more site because of that.
  • jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yay, another way to get more worthless spam on Digg. What good will this actually do? This just means that some people will put a "Digg this" button on every piece of crap on their site, and every piece of crap will be submitted. May as well make people actually visit Digg to submit something.
  • Poco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm confused, why not just make the "Digg Story" button show the Submit option if the story hasn't been dugg yet (instead of the error that it returns now)? With a couple of extra variables, the http://digg.com/api/diggthis.js could return a link to the submit page.

    In fact, I'm tempted to make a php script that checks if a story is already submitted (using http://digg.com/api/diggthis.php maybe?) and return either the contents of the diggthis.php (which it already has) or a link to the submit page (with the appropriate icon) . This is possibly slower, but has the advantage that it doesn't require an iframe and uses one area of a page.

    This could be very easily turned into a Wordpress plugin just to make all that Blog spam even easier to add.
  • jukhau, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4People doesn't seem to realise that this new digg-technology will only lead into massive amount of digg gaming and it will finally ruin whole idea of "digging" articles.

    Over 750 diggs? This article should be buried and quickly. ;)




  • whoatemydigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1A don't think this is such a good idea right now. By making it easier for people to digg stories directly from the source, you are encouraging digging as a "whim" behavior rather than as the passionate act of sharing stories. You've essentially broken down a "filter barrier" to the upcoming story section. The upcoming stories section will become even more congested with 1 and 2 dugg stories of mediocre quality because of this. And as it stands right now, digg has not implemented any new means by which users are able to sift through the upcoming story section to find meaningful stories.
  • benw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Wow, another way of linking to news stories. Huzzah. Maybe there'll be some sort of "comments" section, too.
  • j3one, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I whole hearted disagree.
    Firstly, people will not be submitting all their blog posts and crap, because its up to their readers to click on "dig this" to submit the article. Also it will make a nice visual aspect of relevance and popularity on sites to display dig stats at the end of an article or post.

    Secondly... YES the volume of digs may go up, but that does not mean quality will go down. Quite the other way actually. Say a story is submitted that would normally get around 700 digs in the first few hours. Well with increased ease of digging, it might get 1,300 - BUT the volume will be spread around the board so it will still be accurate.

    If your interested in this more check here to see how I added it to just one page.
    http://joplan.com/dig/index.html
  • naeboo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0is there a button somewhere we can use to bookmark sites to be read later instead of digging them 1st?

    and i like to knw if ur frens can still see the topics u have read in ur dugg list. and after they r burried? also, if we can juz mark sthg as read after u r done?

    thanx
    im new here. :P
  • hrdcregmer808, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2thanks kevin this looks awesome...
  • kweee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The digg button is completely useless. The horrible layout of the button forces it to a new line with a big gap after it. It also doesn't work as is in Wordpress posts, and the fix for it causes it not to work in Internet Explorer and Opera. See for yourself on this page:

    http://www.punny.org/money/no-fax-machine-send-faxes-online-cheap-or-free/

    The digg button should appear at the bottom of the post before the Related Posts section.
    • WildBil2Me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What exactly are you looking to do with the button?

      The display I'm getting from your sample page is exactly what your HTML code is calling for. If you want the button floating next to your "Related Posts" section you'll need to enclose it in a tag and apply some floats appropriately. (At least at a quick glance that what it looks like.)
    • kweee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Okay, looks like I finally got it to sit where I want it to. 'Twas easier than I thought.

      But yeah, those who've noted that this will have a highly negative impact on Digg are probably right. Soon only high-traffic sites will hit the front page.
    • lonelycanuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The display I'm getting from your sample page is exactly what your HTML code is calling for. If you want the button floating next to your "Related Posts" section you'll need to enclose it in a tag and apply some floats appropriately. (At least at a quick glance that what it looks like.)"

      What "tag" would you use? Im trying to get it to float so the text wraps around the buttom. I cant seem to figure out how to do it...any idea?
    • kweee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I ended up sticking the whole thing in a div with style attributes float:left and padding:5px.

      Also just noticed this still doesn't work in IE or Opera. I'll submit a bug report.
    • WildBil2Me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lonelycanuck,

      A quick and probably dirty way of doing it would be to enclose the JavaScript provided in this article within its own DIV tags. You then "float" it using CSS (style="float:left" or style="float:right"). Without seeing your code its hard to give a really definitive answer - who knows your existing structure may call for a different method, this would just be my first try.

      This method, though, would float the JavaScript into one or another corner and then allow text to wrap around it. If I was using WordPress I'd probably put it right before the function to make it appear right at the start of the post - but under the posts header.
    • WildBil2Me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In WordPress I meant the "the_content()" function/call.

      And yeah - things can be a bit wonky with floats in IE sometimes a line break will fix it, sometimes no.
  • gkoberger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is the end of Digg as we know it.

    Everyone's first reaction is "Oh, cool"... But it will leave smaller sites with no chance in hell....

    Think about it this way... Wired News adds this to every page on their site. According to Alexa, Wired.com gets 3,350,000,000 page views every day. I'm going to assume I'm reading the Alexa info wrong, but still it's safe to assume they get their fair share of page views.

    That means that they have 3,349,999,999 more chances to get dugg every single day than my site does, rather than the current equal amount of chances every link in the queue now has.

    Still not convinced? In the past months, it takes about 30 diggs to hit the home page, depending on the amount of time it takes to aquire diggs. This gives sites a chance to bypass the queue others have to wait in for our moment in the spotlight. As the average diggs/minute of stories goes up (such as a Wired story, using my example) due to the extra chances a heavily trafficked site gets, little sites will get lost in the queue, with their 30 diggs no longer being enough.

    So, I think it's safe to say that we can mark July 12th as the day that Digg began digging its own grave.
    • whoatemydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does the system work where non registered user are able to digg stories directly from the source? because if so then I would agree with you. If not, then it simply makes it easier for registered users to digg stories directly from the source.
    • gkoberger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Obviously you need to be logged in... But my point still stands... How many times to you read the queue? I do it once or twice a week, and only the newest two or three pages. If stories get to skip the queue, then they are getting an advantage that smaller sites don't get...
  • Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great stuff, as always!
  • kweee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How to make the digg button work with Wordpress posts:

    http://digg.com/tech_news/Make_Digg_s_New_Integration_Tool_Work_With_Wordpress_Posts
  • hollywoodone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If only a digg firefox toolbar with a nice button to submit the current address to DIGG.
  • halibut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This loads a load of unnecessary JS by just viewing the page with the embedded digg button (it even loads javascript for the spell checker and lightbox).
  • netMASA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it sucks because visitors have to leave my site and go to digg to digg. That's bs and I lose visitors that way. So until digg figures out how to do that, this gets no digg
  • whoatemydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a question. Exactly who is submitting the story through this link. Is it the first person who dugg the story or is it the website owner? Because one of the security feature on digg to prevent spamming was the ability to report the submitter of the story. If its the website owner who is submitting the story then this rescinds this security feature. Spammer can simply hide behind the website owner and the website owner can be like "Hey Im not responsible for whomever dugg this story. Of course, users can simply view who dugg the story first but reporting spammer is really now a more time consuming process.
  • myDiggDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The link to "URL submission specifications" (http://videos.revision3.com/diggnation/digg_submission_062506.pdf) isn't working for me. Anyone else having problems with it?

    *WHY* a PDF file?! Please redo as HTML page.
  • DarkHack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Hmmm....
  • jayadelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Honestly, Digg fans, if we find that this somehow horribly favors "high-traffic sites" and threatens Digg in any way, we'll take action to make sure the threat is removed (there are a number of ways).

    Let's see what happens. Somehow, however, I think there may be some over estimation of how common external Digg buttons will be... I'm curious!
    • gkoberger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thats good to hear, Jay, but I'm not worried about big sites... Chances of Wired or NY Times or another big source like that adding buttons isn't likely (unless Digg becomes the standard "Rate This Article", which is possible)...

      Still, though, it'll be subtle changes. Blogs with bigger user-bases will have a better chance than smaller blogs.

      Here's my reasoning.

      Lets say theres a not-so-popular (Lets say 30 unique visitors a day that also use Digg) website with a new article every day about some obscure topic (same topic every day, just a new article). Obviously 100% of the readers will like the subject, because they're reading the site. If they each Digg the daily article, it'll hit the homepage every day (or at least often). Now, lets say this same article was submitted into the digg queue. Its unlikely these 30 diggers all constantly check the queue, so this obscure topic that only 30 people in the world care about will never get to the front page.

      Sure, sites have "Digg This" links already.. But I never click those links- I only Digg things I found on Digg. I think I'd be more inclined to digg something, though, if it was easier.

      Not sure if I've made my point, but when you're watching for any changes don't look for major news sources that will take over digg- that will take awhile if it happens at all. Instead, watch the external to internal digg ratios for sites that doen't get a lot of Diggs on Digg but have a ton from the website.
    • whoatemydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Isnt this really your plan all along. Competition. By high traffic sites installing this simple digg feature, the only way for low traffic sites to compete is for them to install the same digg feature. Now everyone has the the digg feature.

      The problem is, is than not ever single story comes from established news sites. That because of this "over crowding" of stories by established news sites, there is a greater possibility that unique and interesting stories from unknown sites becomes lost in the mix and never surface and receive attention by users.

      I mean that's kind of the one of main draws of digg. That if somebody finds unique and cool stories or website, or whatever, and they wanted to share it with others, they could submit it to digg. This new feature if adopted by many established sites will kind of depreciate this draw.
  • peternl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It would be nice if the URL format accepted semicolons (;) as an alternative to ampersands (&) as is reasonably common. Otherwise the darned &'s have to be encoded in the HTML URL which is messy and easy to forget (rendering your page non-strict XHTML, oh no!), eg ...blah?phase=2;url=...
    • EoN604, on 01/19/2008, -0/+0Umm.. Welcome to standard practise on the internet. I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are by saying "as is reasonably common". & is *ALWAYS* the way to delimit parameters in a URL string. ALWAYS. use urlencoding to differentiate & in valid titls or urls. this is basic stuff, if you don't know it, you shoudlnt be trying to interface with Digg.
  • freeiconsweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great ,More free icons
    http://www.freeiconsweb.com
  • freeiconsweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great icons pack,
    More useful icons site, over 15,000 free icons
    http://www.freeiconsweb.com
  • EoN604, on 01/19/2008, -0/+0For such a massive website like Digg, you think that things would be a bit more streamlined. My two gripes are a) why on earth is that information in a PDF file? I can't fathom the reason why - absolutely absurd. And b) The available 'topics' (categories) listed are not even anywhere NEAR enough to cover all possible articles!! What's the deal with that?! Apart from that, thanks for the info.
  • accordjazz, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1That's great find
    http://www.nasavo.com
    http://www.nasavo.com/acne
    http://www.nasavo.com/forex
    http://car.nasavo.com
    http://tire.nasavo.com/
    http://www.jurugan.com
    http://health.jurugan.com
    http://www.vrid.net
    http://laptop.vrid.net
    http://projector.vrid.net
    http://tire.vrid.net
    http://hyip.ej.am
    http://car.ej.am
    http://laptop.ej.am
    http://health.bryansoft.com
    http://hyipnews.freehostia.com
    http://hyipnews.freehostia.com/hyip
    http://nano-tech.freehostia.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.