What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
72 Comments
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -5/+84Submit your own stories. When properly placed according to subject, and provided with notes making it clear the author of the content is also the user submitting the story, it is a good thing for Digg.
I'd certainly rather have a user submit their own material to Digg than use the common method now of generating another Digg user to cover your tracks. There's nothing wrong with submitting your own stuff. Think Progress is a group blog where the authors submit their own material.
What counts in the long run is that a story gets dugg by your own readers. However, one hopes that your own readers aren't merely digging the story because they're your readers, but rather that your readers are also digg users that participate in the wider community beyond your own personal digg submissions.
Note: I wasn't aware of the fact how easy it is to get on the banned digg list. That's a terrible model. A handful of digg users could cut off a site from the ENTIRE COMMUNITY? Bullocks! That's got to change. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26I don't have a problem with people submitting their own content. I think the majority of Digg users don't either. The thing people usually take issue with is when somebody submits a 'story' on their blog that consists of 2-3 lines of text and a link to the real story. (ie. blogspam). This happens way too much.
Here's a hint to blogspammers: Diggers don't click ads. We all use Filterset.G or our own methods. Don't even bother if you're just in it for the cash. - Lungkisser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23If someone discovered a cure for cancer I would hope they would share it right away with the community rather then waiting to be recognized by someone else.
An extreme example but I think I make my point.
Besides, there's a difference between submitting your own well-written, thought-out and thought provoking article and blog spam. - interval, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20For whatever reason, I always felt a digg post about my site or content just seemed more legit when posted by someone else. Flattering, as well.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I have a blog that I started a couple months ago. I get around 10 visitors a day, thanks to getting my blog in the search engines via Pingoat. I've Dugg a few of my stories, but only the ones I thought would be worthy of being dugg. I don't put ads on my blog, since I'm only interested in people reading what I have to say.
I don't understand why it's such a faux pas to Digg your own material. Small-time bloggers like me just don't very many means of viable promotion. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If people don't like my Digg stories, they can not digg my blog entries. If my writing's not good enough, it they can wallow in obscurity forever! Social Darwinism, people! Otherwise, if people think my blog is interesting, they can digg it up. But how else would other users know that I'm there if I don't put myself out there? I don't have any alternate accounts or doppelgangers; what's wrong with self-promotion when it's done honestly?
People probably wouldn't be so concerned about the whole thing if Digg had a section solely for blogs. - flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I hate when people whore out their own site on digg, and submit it multiple times.
- RonaldLewis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14My experience has been that the digg community doesn't like authors submitting their own content. This shouldn't really matter, but it does. digg doesn't have a policy against this; However, because this is a 'community' based site, users dictate how things are ran here, which is unfortunate for those who are trying to build out their presence.
One of the things I've always been irked by is seeing a major story on the front page that is my own (and I've had several over the past few months), because users chose to ignore my submission in favor of a third-party covering my content. It would be nice to receive all of that readership directly, rather than having to settle for filtered views (1,500+ uniques vs. 30,000+ uniques for the third-party). - RonaldLewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Burke,
So what do you say about diggers who mark blogs as spam simply because they have ads, but are submitting original content that doesn't link to anything? Mashable, TechCrunch, and similar sites make regular appearances on the front page here -- and they have lucrative ad deals displayed throughout (TC gets 10K per ad -- 60K / month), and they also regularly report on stories which link to original content which isn't there own. Why isn't anyone complaining about these guys?
I do have Google Ads on my blog and throughout my website -- yes, I do want to monetize my online efforts, however, having a larger and consistent online audience is priceless -- and I've submitted a lot of original content from my blog and others since joining digg, but given the high school mentality of having to be "popular", I've yet to get anything of my own promoted to the front page. Yet, a popular digger who has discovered my work and is kind and fair, can submit my content, and it goes to the front page? Explain that ...
About a month or so ago, I broke news about having almost 16GB of storage in my GMail inbox. I blogged about it (with pictures, too), and the digg community ignored it completely in favor of popular Google bloggers who covered my story. Additionally, these bloggers couldn't even give proper attribution to me, while they enjoyed thousands upon thousands of unique visitors at the expense of my own work of distributing the story.
So, you tell me, where's the fairness in that?
"I don't have a problem with people submitting their own content. I think the majority of Digg users don't either. The thing people usually take issue with is when somebody submits a 'story' on their blog that consists of 2-3 lines of text and a link to the real story. (ie. blogspam). This happens way too much." - Junkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Why not? If you suck people will let you know.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Dont YOU want to learn the SECRETS of how to become A MILLIONAIRE?!?! In just TEN DAYS!?!?
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I get around 10 visitors a day"
Watch your traffic spike for the next few hours now you've mentioned it. :) - firepig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm new to Digg and have submitted several items from my own blog. I didn't know there was a "rule" against it. No one has complained.
I will say the majority of my submissions are from other sites.
It is easy to get around the "rule" of posting your own stuff by having it dugg by friends, so I agree with the poster who said it's better to be above board. I also agree with the other who said that lame and inappropriate submissions will be dugg down and abusers eventually removed.
It is scary, however, to know a relatively few people could get together and in effect blacklist anyone. Being new I really don't understand Digg's policy/procedure, but I hope it isn't as arbitrary as has been suggested.
I've spent many hours building my credibility, and I'm barely on the map. It is chilling to know if I post something controversial all my work could go down the drain. From the discussions I've seen I can only hope Digg isn't subject to the rule of the mob. Maybe I need to start looking at alternatives to Digg now. That would be a shame, as I've committed myself to improving Digg.
Readers of this need only browse my profile. There you will find an extensive list of people who post quality material. I've also read and dugg a large number of items in a short period of time. I encourage everyone to take a look at my dugg items. One area I really like is quality photos and graphics. I've dugg a number of these.
Actually I spend more time reviewing member profiles than scanning and reading Digg news items. There are a lot of people doing good things out there. Many are mostly invisible as to date they have been digging but not submitting articles.
Apologize for the length of this comment, but this discussion is important to all of us. Thank you for making it to the end. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't see why its a big deal if people submit their own content. Thats why we have the digg system in the first place. If its spam regardless of who submits it, it should be dugg down. If someone submits something bad from their personal site then who cares cause they more then a couple diggs to get it to the front page and the odds are against them unless its actual good content. The only concern I have is if someone buries something old as spam. Thats BS since the person submitting it probably didn't know and neither did the owner of the site if they differ from the submitted. People who bury original content thats old as spam are a problem.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have also submitted links to my own blog a few times, but never recieved more than 2-3 diggs for it. I don't have any ads or other commercial promotions on my site, I just like to pontificate to as many willing ears as I can find.
I agree: a "blog" section is a needed addition to Digg.
Perhaps we need a new meme: SSP (shameless self-promotion). - misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5burke and freff (above) nailed it:
1) "The thing people usually take issue with is when somebody submits a 'story' on their blog that consists of 2-3 lines of text and a link to the real story. (ie. blogspam)." - burke
2) "It's all a matter of frequency...If you're a submission whore who tried to link the entire archives of your website in a 12 hour time period, then you'll be a spammer." - freff
Those things--lack of original quality content and using Digg as a blog post database--are the two main problems with people submitting their own content. - jamble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's a faux pas to do this because so many people are just using digg as a means of promoting their blog rather than using it as a means of sharing useful and interesting content.
The problem with most self submissions is that the content isn't an interesting or informative article. It's just some jibber jabber posted in order to get people to the site so they might click around.
I mean how many mac fanboy blog "articles" have we all had to endure about "how I switched to mac" .. there's an apple page about switching, re-hashing some copy just to generate visits is the sort of thing that should be stopped, not sites where the authour has written something that's actually informative, those ones I have no problem with. - anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10[undeleted]
- Digcraft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4[farted]
- CornStarch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I use Google page creator sometimes because there simply are no other sites with the story I've found.
- samuelcotterall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I encourage it in certain instances.
For example, a user might discover something in his/her garage, take some pictures and throw the story on a website. It might not be the sort of thing that people are going to go searching for (like "exploded macbook", for example) and they aren't going to stumble across it, and subsequently no one is going to submit it to Digg.
It gives the small bloggers a chance to get noticed. - yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8[deleted]
- CmbJo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't care if story submitted by the author if it's worth reading.
- TimDub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If one simply does a lot of blog-spamming, then there's a problem.
However, speaking as someone who has submitted one of his own sites, once, with a disclaimer that the site was my own project, I don't feel that there is anything wrong with digging your own stuff if you are proud of it, you actually think it's somewhat Digg-worthy, and as long as you admit that it's your own.
What's wrong with a little shameless self-promotion? If the Diggers agree with you, then it truly was worth submitting. If not, back to the ol' drawing board.
For the record, my project which I submitted, to this day, has two diggs. One from myself and another which I call a "pity digg" just because it came so quickly after my submission. - brianboyko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My name is Brian Boyko, I'm a professional blogger.
I submit maybe around 60% of the stories I write to Digg; partially because there's no guarantee anyone else will. That said, I never submit a story to Digg that I don't think is worthwhile, I never submit a story using any account other than this one - which is my real name - and I never use proxy accounts to digg up a story - nor do I ask other people in the company to digg the story for me.
So far, my highest digg count is "8" for a story on Windows Vista.
That same story, by the way, got linked to on Slashdot's front page, which goes to show you that Digg and Slashdot's methods are very different - neither better - just different.
It's more important to me to be a good "digg-citizen" than it is to get traffic. Besides, my content can stand on it's own merits.
-- Brian Boyko
-- Editor, Network Performance Daily. - KyleMistry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7[posted]
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't think there are many people that really care if you submit your own content. It's all a matter of frequency and the type of content you link to. If it's a blog that has a couple of hastily written lines that only recap some AP article, or worse a blog that links to another blog as it's primary source, then people will get annoyed. If you're a submission whore who tried to link the entire archives of your website in a 12 hour time period, then you'll be a spammer. But if you have decent content that you spent some time on and submit it to digg, there's no problems. We all win.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have submitted my own content in the past. I make no attempt to hide the fact that it is my own content as my user name here on Digg contents my website address.
- ForbesBingley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And I agree with you, but the attitude is such that when people post their own stuff, the reception their content receives is often luke warm at best. Which is a terrible shame...
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ronald,
I can't speak for burke, but for me the difference between TechCrunch and others is that TC is not just a blog. Arrington has his own personal blog, where he rants, raves and discusses personal issues. TC does their own research and writing about the tech industry and new tech products. In fact, most of the Gawker or Weblogs sites are more than personal blogs rehashing other's content (well, some of them at least); they write original content from their own research. I see the difference in the content and it has nothing to do with the ads about whether it's OK to submit.
Anyway, I wouldn't get too upset about your posts not making the frontpage...if you're really submitting your blog to share the information and try to contribute to the community, your quality stuff will get noticed. As I'm sure you know, it helps to have a quality group of friends and by continuing to submit good stuff, along with commenting on others submissions, your stuff will get noticed. - cdgrocott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe we need a Blog section for Digg, similar to the new Podcast section?
- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People actually check who submitted the story? I couldn't care less.
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2[rofled]
- jaybsauceda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd submit my own stuff if it wasn't so taboo on Digg. I do kinda feel like its a little more flattering if someone else diggs your stuff for you though. Personally I don't see a problem with it at all. The whole point of the digg system is for the community as a whole to tell one person submitting something (theirs or not) if that submission sucks or rocks. I don't think the creator/digger relation should really matter...whatev
- HaltingPoint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3misterpony,
This is what really irks me. TC is NOT any different than a blog. It just has more readers than most. Unfortunately, people on Digg click a story, see a standard WordPress or Blogger template and mark it as spam, no matter how original and interesting (and thorough) it may be. Apparently you can only submit articles from your blog if you pretend its not really YOUR blog and have a pretty eye-candy template.
Face it, Diggers are a bunch of hypocrites. I'm sure I'll get Dugg down for saying it, but the behavior of this crowd speaks for itself. This is really unfortunate since as I've pointed out before, a lot of the interesting content can now be found scattered on tiny blogs that would never see the light of day because they have small readerships, even if it was a story about Kevin Rose giving Steve Jobs a reacharound it would never reach the eyes of Diggers.
I also find it hilarious that people here find the big news sites, which pull in tens of thousands of dollars in ad revenue MONTHLY automatically mark as spam people who have a few AdSense ads up on their blog that pull in maybe what....a dollar a day (based on a blog that pulls in roughly 100 unique visitors a day). - invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3if someone discovered a cure for cancer, 10,000 diggers would half-ass a summary of what happened and put it on their blog to monopolize on someone else's achievement.
on a side note:
i recently did some research into how much blog spammers might be making. with adsense, i got anywhere from $20 to $30 by getting on the front page. and unlike a splog post, my content was original -- some was even interactive -- and thousands of users 'dugg' it. i would have to guess that a typical splog makes anywhere from $5 to $20 by getting on the front page. it would be a more effective use of their time to go get a friggin' job. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@consonance
I felt bad at you saying 10 visits a day. I submitted your "Digg needs a section for blogs article" to digg. lol. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2agreed. some of your dugg stories are good. I don't care where they came from.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"take it or leave it"
I'm going to leave it. Submit your own content, FTLOG, just don't expect anyone to digg it if it's crap. - Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use to always bury people who continualy submit their own stuff. Iv grown out of that now. Now I submit my own stuff even. There has been plenty of times though where I dont submit a story from my site because I had already seen it on digg. I think thats what most people who submit their own content should do. If they just post every single story or whatever even if its been on digg a billion times, then they can be pretty much considered spammers.
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hiding information on the Internets is a tricky ordeal. Many times people are too dumb to realize that having the same username as a domain is a good clue, other times, people get curious.
- adspigot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I digg my own stories, but I only digg the ones that I think are digg worthy. I probably digg one out of 10 at most.
- chadell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most of the content on the websites I manage is submitted by other people. Submitting from that domain is simply convenient. I'm just a piggy in the middle..is that a crime?
- skoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[blogged it]
- JeffS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you are submitting something interesting such as you have just discovered a source of free energy then yes. If you are submitting your blog to announce you have just discovered that Digg has just replaced their spacer.gif files with some clever use of CSS and it was unannounced then no. There are good submissions and bad. Let the community decide. If a story has 1400+ diggs and 5 comments bitching about the submitter tooting his own horn then who really cares.
- m0nkeymafia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think, as mentioned before, whether submitting your own stories was allowed or not, people would still find a way to do it.
Its just a case of whether they do so openly, or create false accounts to do it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well here's how to learn to build a PC computer on DVD:
http://www.learntobuildcomputers.com - agimat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's fine, but please submit good content and don't overdo the ads.
There will always be *****, block and ignore. - remo2012, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=ABC4D381C651900F
This guy is cool. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*this* is why Digg rules. This is quite a species we've got going here, isn't it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i believe that we should have an entire self-promotion section. That way, we can choose for ourselves. Also, we wouldn't feel guilty about self-promoting (unless you get completely bashed in the comments :D )
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is