What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
69 Comments
- tomr1458699, on 09/02/2009, -4/+43A much needed update to the Digg platform.
- seandfeeney, on 09/02/2009, -1/+25A running problem with digg is that since it is so big, people actually will submit articles to try and drive traffic to their site and improve their rating with search engines. It is a way to game the system to essentially make their site seem better (more popular) than it actually is. Hopefully, by adding the nofollow flag, they can ward off spammers and improve the content within digg and search engines by rendering their little game practically useless.
- sirducki, on 09/02/2009, -0/+24cheak out my website www.hamsterflu...... nooooooooo
you cannot stop me forever!! - rossnyc, on 09/02/2009, -1/+20Search Engine rankings are determined by a lot of factors. One is how many and who is linking to your site. Generally, the larger a site is the more valuable a link to your site is. Spammers submit their links to digg and until now, google followed those links. Adding nofollow to a link tells google crawlers to ignore it thus hopefully reducing the amount of spam that's submitted here.
- seandfeeney, on 09/02/2009, -2/+20Maybe this will help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
- cport1, on 09/02/2009, -0/+16why didn't this happen sooner?
- rossnyc, on 09/02/2009, -2/+14Get rid of ***** spammers. Sounds like a good plan.
- MtheoryX, on 09/03/2009, -0/+12It matters because 99.9% of the stories submitted to digg are complete and obvious spam.
Spend a little time in the upcoming section, sort by submit time, and watch the trash crawl through.
It makes complete sense to cut off the "google juice" to these spam submissions.
That non-power users have trouble getting promoted is an entirely different problem, and the nofollow should very much still apply to stories with, say, under 60 diggs or so.
Besides, you're supposed to be submitting all kinds of good content, not content from your own site, so who gives a ***** if it's all nofollow up to a certain point? - yocouchdigga, on 09/02/2009, -2/+13super cool site, man! check out mine: http://www.attemptingtoleechurcomment.com
- junkwheel, on 09/02/2009, -1/+11Buried.
just testing - ShellShock11, on 09/02/2009, -0/+9Finally. Glad they added this.
- Inceptious, on 09/02/2009, -2/+10http://www.TESTINGifTHISisTRUEorNOT.com/roflcopter
- Eminemdrdre00, on 09/02/2009, -4/+11I don't know what this means....
- maximilen, on 09/02/2009, -2/+8John Quinn said, "This includes all external links from comments, user profiles and story pages below a certain threshold of popularity."
I'm not an expert on this, but doesn't that statement completely invalidate the whole "solution?" In other words, to submit a story and have it get a decent amount of Diggs (let alone go first page) means you have to be pretty popular, and only the popular diggers have a shot at soliciting their Digg submission services (for themselves or others). If this nofollow thing only applies to spammers (who have unpopular, ***** accounts that can't get stories dugg in the first place) than what does it matter?? - MtheoryX, on 09/03/2009, -0/+6Now to fix that jumping comment box thingy...
- spooniep, on 09/03/2009, -1/+6So does anyone know what criteria Digg is using to decide a site isn't trusted? My blog is a completely legit venture and has been on the front page of Digg several times, but for some reason all of the links to my site are now NOFOLLOWed from Digg.
- Fixhotep, on 09/02/2009, -1/+6that's the first thing that came to my mind too
- rmxz, on 09/02/2009, -3/+7I did notice that editing comments seemed to show the tags. Let me try it here. Here's a link in my comment: http://digg.com ... and now I edit my comment.... cool. they fixed the bug where the html attributes became visible. nevermind.
- BenRT, on 09/02/2009, -7/+11And yet it took somebody less than a minute to actually do it.
- DeathRay2K, on 09/02/2009, -0/+4nofollow was never meant to keep search engines from indexing the link...
And as for what Google does:
Google states that their engine takes "nofollow" literally and does not "follow" the link at all. However, experiments conducted by SEOs show conflicting results. These studies reveal that Google does follow the link, but does not index the linked-to page, unless it was in Google's index already for other reasons (such as other, non-nofollow links that point to the page).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow - FXNGLAS, on 09/02/2009, -3/+7This is awesome.
- aguywhoeatspie, on 09/02/2009, -2/+5http://digg.com/jobs
- MtheoryX, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3Oh, did they REALLY??
Exhibit A:
http://vimeo.com/6415712
Just because you don't see the error for a while does NOT mean they fixed it. This has been happening at least for the past 9 months, and users have been complaining about it for that long as well. - MtheoryX, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3I dunno, man. I rather like being indecisive about making decisions. You know, just kinda hangin out and floatin around... maaaannnn.
- marcb83, on 09/02/2009, -0/+3nope they have a line through them not seen by google
- junkwheel, on 09/02/2009, -1/+4You just can't beat the feeling when you find out that it was a really good decision to make a decision.
- cosmiccarl, on 09/07/2009, -0/+2Digg caves into Google.
- str3ama, on 09/03/2009, -1/+3Stupid move, spammers will still submit because they're not after links they're after traffic. What this does is make it possible for all big sites that make it to the frontpage to benefit, while ensuring that smaller sites remain small and no longer get attention. Bigger sites can spend money on building digg armies and getting their site popular, while smaller sites will simply struggle to get their quality articles dugg.
This really makes the problem worse, and when Digg says it talked with top seo/sem they mean they hired seo/sem to help them build up their site. They didn't consult them on what was best for the users, but what was best for digg in increasing their status throughout the web and in search engines. I don't know why Google doesn't penalize Digg considering this is a deliberate attempt to tamper with results (they say sites they can't vouch for, meaning sites they don't have a deal with - notice sites that Digg doesn't officially work with like Cracked etc are nofollowed even on the upcoming pages, while sites like New York Times and Huffpost and Gawker get whitelisted through).
I'm all for stopping spam but this is literally a step backwards in democratizing the web - especially in terms of smaller voices that aren't backed up by large firms and the media. What about the whistleblower blogger who isn't popular enough to get their story (they submitted first) on the frontpage, but instead gets beaten by the Gawkers/NYPost et al who submit hours or even days later... - geoboy, on 09/03/2009, -1/+3Forget the swine flu. It's the hamster flu that will kill us all!
- twiztidsinz, on 09/03/2009, -1/+3They fixed that like a week ago...
- KibibyteBrain, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2Umm, that's the way most actual software engineering that matters unfolds, the implementation is trivial compared to the planning.
- Klinky, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2Thanks! I was wondering why I had an incredible urge to chew on cardboard and erect a giant cage to sleep in. I can now enjoy water not in an upside down bottle again! =)
- wolfkeeper, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2SEOs must have been submitting all the good stuff... in brown envelopes to the developers. What with the recession, it's just not so profitable anymore.
/joking - godsdead, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2But, isnt this a terrable idea for sites that arnt giants in the industry? small sites will get no traffic/seo scores :(
- expertsSEO, on 09/08/2009, -0/+1Yes I Did !! and to see, does burried stories do not reach the front page.
But this story does.. this means there is partiality! - expertsSEO, on 09/08/2009, -0/+1You need to correct your misconceptions Mr Neo !!
Yes I agree there are SEOs who have been involved in bad activities, But not all. - netneutrality, on 09/02/2009, -0/+1This is a moderately good thing.
- junkwheel, on 09/03/2009, -0/+1Yes
- MtheoryX, on 09/03/2009, -1/+2I disagree. There is a TON of stuff to see here.
Besides, once a story goes popular, they disable the nofollow on the link to the site.
It's only spammers who are really worried about the nofollow for the 50+ stories from THEIR OWN SITES that they flood digg with on a daily basis. - rmxz, on 09/02/2009, -0/+1You guys laugh now, but those domain names'll probably have enormous page-rank when google crawls this page.
- moonheart, on 10/22/2009, -0/+1This is really great information on dofollow
- expertsSEO, on 09/08/2009, -0/+1@MtheoryX hmm Might be you are right, But till now I've seen almost all the links to be nofollow even the links to those site which are considered to be reputable in their industries .. ? why so ?? oh might be I could check those submitted by Non-Power Users.. ? that means what @maximilen said stands True.. !
- expertsSEO, on 09/08/2009, -0/+1And Mr @MtheoryX let me tell you popular stories are generally from the popular users only ,, have you every seen a general user making a story popular? You need to broaden you view and you will see how digg is actually slowly ruining itself, First they cut off any way to let people interact togather, I lost several good Friends and I don't have any other way to interact with them. and now ... they think the stories that don't become popular are Spam ??
I agree with @korr - maildave, on 09/02/2009, -0/+1But most article/comment pages are unranked or 0 PR anyway. As far as I could tell, only front page articles get that sweet PR 8 Digg is rockin' ... and not much chance THOSE are going to be below the threshold, right?
- NeoTechni, on 09/03/2009, -3/+4Yes, it is.
ALL SEO is used for spam, and it ruins search engines - korr, on 09/03/2009, -2/+3Hardly... this is a lame attempt to claim credit for the content submitted. When the links to the actual site are nofollow, they're counting on people to use the digg shortened URLs to index the framed version of a site in the SEs.
Besides, nofollow doesn't stop spammers one bit. Most SEOs are too stupid to realize when their work is worthless or else they're using automated or outsourced systems that rely more on bulk than quality.
Bye Bye Digg! You've killed any influence your users had and walled the web behind your frames. There's nothing left to see here. - seanieb, on 09/03/2009, -1/+2I would have thought that this system would have been rolled out using a trust system?
As outlined by Matt Cutts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4UJS-LFRTU#t=1m26s
Surely the "threshold", even a variable threshold of diggs, can be achieved/faked by bots digging their own stories with fake accounts? These spam rings already exist on Digg.
What about a user that has an account that has submitted previously popular stories or has a long, clean history on Digg (like me), there is no good reason why their submitted stories should have the no follow tag. Even their unpopular stories, a lot of good stories don't surface due to the shear volume of stories submitted to Digg.
The no follow idea is good, but it needs more complexity in its implementation. - clickwir, on 09/03/2009, -1/+2Thank you. Wouldn't have hurt them to put a brief explanation saying that this means absolutely nothing to the end user and the only people that care about it are spammers and search engine nuts.
- Webnauts, on 09/04/2009, -0/+1These are the best news I heard since I am a Digg member. Hope we will see less spam soon!
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is