What is Digg?43 Comments
- woflox, on 04/28/2008, -4/+52burid for dum hedln
- ghostfish, on 04/28/2008, -0/+35So are the title misspellings intentional so it would fit or is the submitters spelling that horrendous?
- threepio, on 04/28/2008, -1/+22I believe he was attempting to ram more words into the headline. Headline writing is an art; the poster is sadly not an artist.
- PotatoSalad, on 04/28/2008, -1/+18I don't know what's worse: (a) the submitter's mispellings or (b) that I didn't notice at first glance.
- chanop, on 04/28/2008, -1/+13Chill out, he was trying to type with his nose
- DeMoNX4187, on 04/28/2008, -2/+11Pron efficiency will SKY ROCKET!
- jrizzo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8I think he may be making fun of the title.
- sparql, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3You realize you just explained step one of the endgame, right?
- RoboDonut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3This would have been much better:
"VisualRank: Google algorithm ranks images' similarity"
Seriously, is it really that hard to write a grammatically correct title? - loneBoat, on 04/28/2008, -3/+6So now if I search Google Images for a picture of a crappy car, will it come back and say, "Did you mean [pic of Ferrari] instead?"
- chanop, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2(c) all of the above
- revjustin2, on 04/28/2008, -0/+210 yard penalty for having to explain your joke.
- asurroca, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2OK, the article mentioned Riya... cuz I was thinking "didn't Riya do this like 2 years ago?" Prediction: They're going to use this to extend Google's AdSense crap so that if you put a photo up with no description, but it's got an iPod and an Xbox in the background, you'll see ads for those products served up...
- yojiffyskippy, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4So now I can upload a naked picture of my wife and Google will return search results of all other similar naked pictures of my wife? Nice! Is it smart enough to recognize her even if she's blindfolded and gagged?
- missingnoh4x, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2So will this mean searches will no longer just pull up several low-res copies of the same image over and over?
- CeeJayDK, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Identical hand-twins !!
Yeah baby ! - klodholz, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4Y du peeple haf 2 ceep rooning gud rtciles wid krapy titels?!?
- glinsvad, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1and buried for not containing examples of said ranked images
- jakobmakob, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3On the contrary, I'd call him a cubist. He wrote the headline to show more, but we can still tell what it means. I didn't even notice them at first.
- KirbyMeister, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1actually I just wanted to make fun of the put-no-thought-into-it-for-frist-psot comment, but a title is fine too
- fusama, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It will be, but not for a loooooong time. Image recognition is a very difficult problem.
- skywake, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I don't know if its more sad that you think your posting position is something to shout to the world or that you were in so much of a hurry to get the "second post" that you misspelled it.
- genchi, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1VisualRank(dot)info for sale! $33
- shankarganesh, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1digg needs to increase the character limit on the story headlines
- TheSabre, on 04/28/2008, -0/+110 yard penalty against skywake for being an idiot and not getting it. Penalties offset.
- shotgunefx, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Altavista had a similar feature ages ago. (~2000 IIRC)
http://aa-lab.cs.uu.nl/cbirsurvey/cbir-survey/node ...
The feature is long dead now but it did work quite well. - KirbyMeister, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"First post" is intentionally misspelled, usually as "Frist psot" and as such I misspelled "Second post" on purpose.
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Another blow for captcha?
- clesch, on 04/28/2008, -3/+3buried for it.
- chrisking1981, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0I knew this! Made a blog post about this. They can now check if you are using unique picture. So if your website has ripped pictures or images google knows this. Over a few years it can compare movies i think.
- unconfirmed, on 04/28/2008, -3/+3Dugg for title
- Murdats, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1I dont think you understand how image comparison works.
from what I understand it will merely compare images and images that have more duplicate results, or visually similar results, will have a higher rank.
beyond a dumb comparison it will not be able to tell much about what is in the picture ... for now. - int19h, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1See this video from 2006 for background: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-824646398 ...
- 96blackhat, on 01/25/2009, -0/+0this thread is so funny :)
http://www.blackhatseoworld.com - polko, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0sick of algos..
- CrazyDave303, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1I hate passwords, and I hate when bug me not can not give me a valid one.
- justjoehere, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2Google (with evil laugh): "We will now tell you what you want to search for and why you want to see the results we display"
- Flashman, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3This will be the next big privacy issue that people won't see coming: Google developing a search for photos containing your face.
- enum, on 04/28/2008, -2/+0Rankin Images? Mr. Crow gives me nightmares.
- lennybird, on 04/28/2008, -6/+1*ahem*... My first attempt: "In Soviet Russia.... Google searches you!"
hahah-... yeah I know it ***** sucks - KirbyMeister, on 04/28/2008, -13/+5Secnod psot!
- bag2p, on 04/28/2008, -13/+2Very nice, indeed.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is