What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
138 Comments
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -7/+186Dead celebrities aren't what I'd consider "major breaking news events". Be it Russert, Falwell or Anna Nicole.
So you had to wait an extra hour to find out they were dead, do you really feel cheated by that? Whether it's 5 minutes or 5 hours, either way, you're not missing out on a change in their condition. - inactive, on 06/25/2008, -4/+79Digg isn't any better than Google News in delivering major stories. It is late by the time it make it to Frontpage. And NY Times is Google News revival, I'd understand why they'd write a like this. Furthermore that article is so biased, it's like going to Fox News to get a story on CNN (not that CNN is any better).
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/25/2008, -0/+63So they too can mix breaking news with content that is years old?
- sjug, on 06/24/2008, -19/+69Probably a good reason why one shouldn't rely on Google News.. for news
- choopie911, on 06/25/2008, -3/+49So? It's their system, and it does what it's supposed to. Why is this a problem?
- ElbertF, on 06/24/2008, -15/+59Perhaps this is why Google is interested in buying Digg. :)
- Darmichar, on 06/25/2008, -1/+38Submitted: 12 hr 4 min ago, made popular 11 min ago
Thank God Digg is here for expedited news service.
Oh, the irony. - kenvsryu, on 06/25/2008, -3/+37No one important better die when the iPhone is released.
- FFXIfrohike, on 06/25/2008, -2/+32Whoopadeedoooooo!
Buried. - inactive, on 06/25/2008, -1/+27"Asteroid to hit Earth in 1 hour!!!" is the only kind of news that matters RIGHT NOW. Ninety percent of what passes for news could go unnoticed forever and it wouldn't make much difference one way or the other.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/25/2008, -2/+28Too true, they'll all be dead for a quite a while, after all.
- inactive, on 06/25/2008, -2/+26Google News just gathers feeds from other news outlets and puts them onto one page, and it isn't loaded live, either.
It's great for reading the news as if it were a newspaper. For immediate news, it's not the right tool. - mretx, on 06/25/2008, -1/+25The author seems to be pissed about not getting a job at Google.
Agreed, Google News may not be the best place for the "breaking" news, but getting the news of a dead celeb one hour later is hardly a big deal. - dtd00d, on 06/25/2008, -2/+25At least it doesn't have dupe articles from years past.
- zbor, on 06/25/2008, -3/+25To say that Google is bad at detecting major breaking news is "because Google News depends solely on software" is absurd. It's bad at detecting major breaking news because they haven't built a good enough algorithm. The solution is a technical one, and it's not that difficult – by analyzing the graphics and text that sites like nytimes.com and cnn.com use for breaking news, you could pretty easily figure it out and elevate those stories to more prominence.
And, by the way, the whole premise of the article is that Google didn't react quickly enough to Tim Russert's death, so it's bad at breaking news. But here's the thing: nobody but journalists cares about Tim Russert's death. It makes Google News look more reliable in my eyes that they didn't engage in the ridiculous week-long mourning session like the rest of the MSM. - benologist, on 06/25/2008, -0/+15We're talking about news not pictures of kittens and videos of idiots.
Digg's not the best mechanism for really breaking news. Over at mixx they have a thing where 2 power users can escalate a story to the front page as breaking news, here it depends on who submitted it, how many people the submitter swaps diggs with etcetera, and takes at least a few hours.
Google isn't either because (correct me if I'm wrong) it's entirely automated. They can determine 'big news' by the number of sites writing about it but they can't determine 'breaking news' until there's a sudden influx of articles on a very narrow topic. - LinkGCN4, on 06/25/2008, -0/+13Google News is my homepage. Discuss.
- Farik, on 06/25/2008, -0/+13Breaking stories rarely make it to the front page faster than 2 hours.
- mkling176, on 06/25/2008, -0/+9*rival
/sorry but it sounded awkward - sonofashoe, on 06/25/2008, -0/+9Google and Digg don't report news; they report on others who report news.
- Julik, on 06/25/2008, -0/+9If you think Digg is the place for breaking news you are wrong. When breaking news happens, CNN , MSNBC, Fox News, ect... would have it an hour before it hit the front page on Digg.
- S7aind, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8When I look for breaking news, Digg isn't where I go. Usually I've heard the story a day before they reach the front page.
- Gatesophile, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails actually make quality music, and I was listening to both before they did the whole internet thing.
- haobaba1, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7Ok lets recap, a mainstay and lifelong defender of the status quo in politics kicks the bucket. All the major MSM outlets roll out the coverage as if the pope died. Google didn't copy them.
That makes Google news worthy in my book. Bye Tim. - runCMD, on 06/25/2008, -2/+9Google isn't a breaking news source. It doesn't pretend to be.
- IllBeBack, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6No one will care when you die either.
- clickwir, on 06/25/2008, -3/+10Exactly. Only people in the news cared. I think Google did a good job. It's not "news" and I don't want to see it.
- LinkGCN4, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7Huffington Post and DailyKos aren't news.
- imightbewrong, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7This is so true, but digg is also slow to promote breaking news..except when its a a new ipod/ iphone
- inactive, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6good. software = no bias.
- ansecos, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7Nobody gives a toss.
- estvir, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7And their lives will still amount to a certain level of realistic nothingness and shallowness.
- slythfox, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6digg these days pisses me off for sure front page stories that take over 24 hours to make the front page. The algorithms are outdated imo, as they don't seem to expand towards the user base properly.
I find it rather ironic that this story is on digg. - Versh, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7This article read like a poorly contrived observational comedy routine-- "Hey, did you ever realize why it takes so long for Google news... I mean, what's the deal with algorithms? Sequence of instructions, I could of used those, last night... with your mom!"
:[ - Tenoq, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7I'd still rely on Google News. I'd prefer the opportunity to look at a few news sources rather than one, probably biased one. This whole article is ridiculous - Google is an aggregator of news, not a publisher. If the news hasn't hit the front page yet that's because it really ISN'T that important to everyone.
FFS, even the writer admits it's a personal article. The whole thing reeks of some sort of vendetta - perhaps the writer was fired by Google because software did his job better than he could? - KlogereEndGrim, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5But what if they died MORE?! or got deader...
Think about it. - Harbinger67, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5But when they do, you know. The BREAKING: in front alerts you immediately. Thank god for capslock.
- deadbaby, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6I actually kind of like the laid back pace of Google News. It's more like a news paper to me. Less updates but better quality stories and less bias. One thing they do which is very good is display the same story from different news organizations. I don't know if this is by design or defect. If you compare all the different reports you can easily spot what is subjective and bias from what is factual.
- dggeek, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Hooray, another successful internet fight.
- FaceDog, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Why would you even compare Digg and Google news? …not any better than Google news? What? They’re not in the same league. They’re not even playing the same game. The top story for the last 24 hours on Digg is currently some non-extraordinary girl spinning on an escalator. It is not news. It is not even funny or entertaining. If you were to compare Digg to some dude getting his nuts bit off by a dog, you might have something… otherwise…
- inactive, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Yeah, well how come this took 12 hours for this to make it to the front page, smarty-pants?
- chrissku, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5I'm sure Google will have a software program to respond to this article as well.
- IllBeBack, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5Oh yeah, Digg is good if you want your news hours or days after the actual occurrence. Otherwise, no way in hell.
- RMSzero, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Breaking News: Apples are not Oranges.
- inactive, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Heaven forbid that Google takes a small break from innovating practically everything on the internet for once.
- kipmartin, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6Digg isnt much better. They will post a story about Amy Winehouse, MacBooks, or a Linux-based cellphone almost immediately, but when the day comes, it will take 24 hours before they post anything once we invade Iran.
but i still read Digg constantly. - wikwam, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4considering they rely solely on software, i'd say that slight delay is pretty good.
- RMSzero, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Who gives a ***** about "standing with the site?" If I want someone with standing to pick my news, I'll read something picked by an editor.
- prth8machine, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3I think you kind of missed their point.
- clickwir, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Or it is really good and new that Tim Russet's death.... wasn't anything I wanted to see.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is