digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Of Course Digg Should Be In Google Search Results

themulife.com — Center Networks has declared a wtf alert on results from Digg appearing in Google search queries. I call wtf on Center Networks declaration. Here’s why...

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 4, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

62 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • hsoj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33It would be nice if by default you could add this to your google search preferences (without having to type it into the query every time). Personally, though, I love it when I see digg in my search results... Between all the dead links and spam, I know I can go to the digg link and see what other people are saying about whatever it is I was researching.

    What annoys the heck out of me is experts-exchange.com in my search results. I get so excited seeing someone asking the same question as me, only to see that big ugly "CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE SOLUTION" button at the bottom. Gets me every time :(
  • tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35Digg is on the web. Google indexes the web. 'Nuff said.
  • ionut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25You can add this to your query:
    -site:digg.com
  • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I say keep Digg, adds to the discussion and most of the time you find a lot more information in the comments.
  • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It would be nice if Google added a sub-result, beneath the Digg link, pointing to the originating article.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Considering the community in this case...the machine
  • benw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14There's no original content on Digg -- other than these comments, which are utterly worthless -- so what use would this serve? All Digg does is provide (a) links to news articles on other sites and (b) sophomoric and semi-literate commentary thereon. Exactly like Fark, which has done exactly this for years, only with a big side order of insanely delusional self-importance.

    If I search for something I might well appreciate the *article* that happens to be linked from Digg, not the page of tiresome, uncomprehending schoolchildren's chatter. You are not important, you are not interesting, you don't contribute anything, you don't write anything people want to read. You just share links to articles written by other people.
  • digi7al64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@hsoj
    Couple of options to beat experts-exchange
    > Turn off cookies, or
    > Change user_agent to googlebot, or
    > View the cached version.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Wow...some whiny blog gets to the front page simply because it defends Digg.

    And people wonder why Digg's credibility is shot?

    This making the front page is a good argument AGAINST Digg's inclusion on Google.
  • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'd prefer a community to rank websites - but it would be nice if a few of them were about something other than the latest video games, OS wars, or "AMAZING" videos.
  • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Because a search result just isn't a search result without 30-40 (sometimes)asinine comments attached to it
  • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It's quite simple really:

    Would you prefer a machine to rank websites or would you prefer a community to rank websites?

    Essentially the Digg community is influencing the Google search results, but for the better IMO.
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here's an analogy:

    Let's say I want to search for a process I find running on a Windows machine, because I don't know if it's legit or not. So I type it into Google. My search results are invariably a huge list of forum posts of people's Hijackthis logs, which I now have to parse through to see if any are relevant to my interest. Comparatively, I don't know that I would want to see a zillion Digg posts littering up a perfectly good search.
  • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This is the third time this week I've read about someone complaining about Google and they give their recommendation on what Google should do to make Google better. STFU, the teams at Google are geniuses that are paid to do waht they love, and they're #1 right now. I dont think they need some piss-ant bloggers cheeto-flavored-breath telling them what to do.
  • ear1grey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If I could save my thumbs up for the rest of the year I'd heap them on this one comment. (a) because it's brilliantly insightful and well written and (b) because if it's correct (and I say it is) then paradoxically it's wrong. and (c) It therefore has irony. So it works on another level, making it even more wrong. Now my brain hurts.
  • cpbrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No. Use the Co-Op module which is located in Digg tools.

    then you can have digg results separately at the top of each page, like i do. nods*
  • benlong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The author of the article is advocating exactly what the Digg community despises, and that is linking to a Web site (a blog with yahoo ads) instead of the source. In many cases, one of the first few comments in Digg are a link to the source referenced in the article.

    What if Yahoo or Google linked to their own community (engaging and commercial) instead of the source? Up in arms, you will be.

    What I find interesting is that Digg or Reddit may be increasing the relevance of documents by shining light on something that might be obscure (and the resulting blog buzz, increasing links, etc.) and affecting the way Yahoo or Google would index them. Yagoogle could then not link to Digg, but use Digg, Reddit, et al to improve the relevance of their search results. And it would look like a magical improvement (for the people who scream the loudest). In that case Digg might not want to be indexed by Yagoogle, because what Digg knows, Yagoogle knows plus one.
  • 08x359, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Not only should Digg should be included in Google search results but it makes sense that it is ranked higher than the actual article. This is because content on Digg is not derived from a single source, rather the popular content is often from hundreds of entirely different sources, each of which doesn’t produce content of good enough quality with enough consistency and regularity to warrant a PageRank higher than Digg."

    *****. 1) Digg doesn't produce the content it links too, 2) Author clearly has no idea what Pagerank is / how it's distributed, 3) His argument makes no sense in the first place (Digg should be ranked higher because it links to good content - so you are saying it's a good thing users have to click a result in the SE, then click the link on Digg - because Digg links to better content? What?)

    So basically, if site A writes one good page, and site B links to good pages, site B should rank higher because it links to said page? Uh, no. If I search for widgets, and Digg links to a site about widgets, that tells me that site is probably a good source for info on qidgets - As such, that site should be ranked higher than the Digg article.

    I think people are missing the whole point: Search engines are supposed to return information relevant to a query. Which is more relevant - The page itself or the Digg article linking to that page?
  • Vinthian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i actually found some useful links from digg, from google, when i was looking for it, so there's no harm to it.
  • kafka47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh yeah?? Well I call wtf on your wtf of digg's wtf of centernetwork's wtf! So wtf!
  • Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats not the same thing. I link to a forum post in a google search could be original content on the topic and of relevance to the person searching.
  • nextbigthang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3disagreed. why should the original website not get as much credit as the digg preview for it?
  • Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hsoi:

    Or you could just scroll down... That button always goes to a signup page, but I've never once tried to find a result on that site that wasn't on the page already, just 2/3s of the way down.
  • contentpig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3QUOTE: People come from Google to Digg, read the snippet in the initial post, read the comments (some of which copy pieces of the author's article) and then post their comments and leave.

    I just don't get it. There is no reason for the discussion to take place on Digg. :END QUOTE..

    I've never come across your blog or whatever it is before. I saw it because of Digg, and I'll probably never see it again. I should take the time to register at your site to tell you how silly you are? I'm already registered at Digg and I'm here every day. How do I bury all the useless comments at your blog/whatever? I don't see the "bury" button. Otherwise I would bury your main article and mark it as lame. But I'd rather do it on Digg where people will actually see it.
  • TangentThought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ChrisPikula

    Comments are useless? You're kidding me. To me, comments says a lot than what the article could say providing a deeper insight to the material it was linked to. Sometimes these comments themselves link to other websites or interesting articles that are relevant to the one commented about, which is a major plus to me.
  • tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What annoys the heck out of me is experts-exchange.com in my search results."

    There used to be a "Remove Result" option ... I don't know if it's completely gone or just buried a bit, but I can't find it anymore. Maybe someone knows? ...



    /argh, that was supposed to be a reply ... freakin' Digg UI
  • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You could use a greasemonkey script to add it in for you.
  • ogre2112, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you wanna discuss Digg then do it on Digg. I don't want to have to click to your stupid ass blog to do it.

    Obviously, no digg.
  • allen074, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Alright, I started a new post on CenterNetworks - "Should comments be on Digg or on the original post"
    http://www.centernetworks.com/wtf-dept-why-does-digg-allow-comments

  • tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ha! Classic comment. the Mu Life blog constantly gets bashed for being anti-digg. Here's something pro-digg.. and still taking heat. The fickle masses.
    Glad to see this on the front page, though. I agree with titlesaysitall's simple and perfect comment above.
  • ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I completely agree. Plenty of times digg has come up in Google's search results which have helped me with what I was trying to find.
  • doktorrocket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"So, the 2 people who actually bust their asses and write about this get close to no traffic and none of the discussion."

    With all due respect...tough *****.

    The public is free to discuss these articles in the forum of their choosing. Maybe they don't want to bother with logins for a hundred different sites. Maybe they like the digg community better. Maybe they like the comment system better.

    And while blogs, flickr, and youtube have comment systems for the comments, a lot of dugg sites DON'T. So for consistency, some people choose to keep their comments on the social news site that led them to the article in the first place.
  • ChrisPikula, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Well, there is the fact that digg is only really useful for the links. The comments are pretty much useless.
  • damentz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"and sometimes comments from Digg users."

    hahaha so very understated, explain the 500 comments on some stories

    it should be "and always useful comments from Digg users."

    Usually I use site:digg.com to search for some things because mass diggs dont lie (well, not so much).
  • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Why would a site that just leeches off of other sites' content without having any of its own need to be indexed by google?"

    By that definition, Google itself leeches off other sites. Google itself isn't predominantly a content generator.
  • allen074, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2kafka - well said.
  • h0zae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yet everyone is posting their links on digg to re-direct traffic to their spamblogs - then complaining after digg generates all their NEW traffic -- STFU (to centralnet) and take your digg traffic so people click your ugly ads
  • Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like Google, I like DIgg, but this blog post is wrong. The point of a google search is to get you to the exact information(hopefullt) as soon as possible, not another site that you then use to go to the content. its pointless.
  • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why would you bother going to the page then?
  • moebis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg this: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/How_Digg_gets_bought_for_1_25_Billion_USD
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2google is nothing without digg! w00t!
  • contentpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Unless the Google link points to a Digg link. w00t! backatcha!
  • silentdud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I usually hate blogs but he has a point.
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Always useful" ... ? You're kidding, right?
  • EEBaum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's so hard because digg isn't the only digg-esque site out there.
  • pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I also prefer the digg censor over the censor of the owner of the content.. you know?
  • g0rdy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1der - just google search with the minus:
    "process" -digg
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=process+-digg&btnG=Google+Search
    whaa that so hard
  • contentpig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes I understand when we use Google we want results not Google links to Digg links. But what you're forgetting or omitting is that BECAUSE of Digg the article is at top of Googles results, when it never would have gotton there on its own had not some enterprising Digger found and submitted it.. . If it wasn't for Digg the results would be on Google search results page 49. Also when I'm thinking of buying anything or considering anyone's point of view... I appreciate the Digg mindless banter on the subject. Oftentimes they tell you something is a piece of crap and why, or advise on better or even free alternatives, or different points of view, opposing view's propaganda, or that the primary site's ad-copy link wouldn't have told you, and doesn't want you to know. Granted though its mostly mind-numbing banter.

    Besides if you don't like Digg just add -site:digg.com at the end of your Google search string (which I'm sure you could setup automagically in your Google preferences... thereby allowing you to keep your head blissfully stuck in the sand to your heart's content. (censorship..you know kinda like China...)
  • moneysaver67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't want to see a specific comment? Then bury it.

    Don't want to see ANY comments? A simple FireFox Add-on (Stylish: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2108/ ) and this CSS does the trick: .comment{display:none}
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The fact that there is discussion on said link/topic provides a reason why digg should be implemented in Google's website. Should we ban discussion boards too? Nope.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.