What is Digg?43 Comments
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29According to Newsweek, the use of excess exclamation marks makes one look like an idiot.
- FitFinlay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"Will its users Digg Britney-Kevin stories?"
Ummm...No - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16He's not the only one that is annoyed by the general lack of respect for rules of grammar, punctuation and capitalization coming from some posters on Digg.
If we, as a community, want to continue to have credibility and influence, we need to project a better image than TyPiNg L1K3 THiS!!!!
It's ineffective to write the same way that you talk (or text). - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12If you want to communicate so people want and care to read what you have to say, write it properly and not like a spam message or teenage girl on MSN Messenger. It greatly reduces the quality of Digg. If you passed grade school, you should be able to put a sentence together properly or else the school system has failed you.
- Jonty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Well done. You just discovered the overhyped but still revolutionary Web 2.0.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12This is not a double post. If you think it is, give me the other link.
- Quarks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yup.
The web is not a singular application, it is a fluid interface.
A means of information distribution, of functionality, of user-interoperability.
It does not constrain to any idea of what an application is, because it is the combination of individual applications that make it so fluid.
New coding techniques are constantly created, new hacks and workarounds for non-standards-compliant browsers.
New ways of putting together existing code are being thought of and put into use every day somewhere on the millions of web pages the internet is home to.
We aren’t yet on web 2.0, or internet 2.0, or computing 2.0. This is a dynamic change that will continue to happen whether or not we apply version numbers.
The mass of netizens has triggered the implementation of web based applications, not a developer meeting that decided on the version change. - cprincipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh christ, here we go again. "Web 2.0" soon to be followed by "DotcomBubble 2.0." Same overhyped BS as the first dotcom bubble, all kinds of ideas, very little that make any kind of business sense.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What's amazing, though unsurprising, is that all of these incredible tech success stories are combinations of ease of use and awareness of human nature. Think iPod, Digg, iTunes, Amazon...they actually provide a small amount of annoyance roadblocks while encouraging human involvement, all the while with a clear schedule of increasing improvements.
You can throw scads of money at something (hello, Microsoft), but you can't force people to like it or have use for it. These things tend to arrive stealthily and getcha when you least expect it because they've improved on something significantly (DVDs, iTunes) or the product is already virtually perfect (Digg, iPod, Google).
Unfortunately, spammers also appeal to human nature and profit from it. As technology gets more amazing, so too does it get more effectively abused. - norick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I didn't know Plum. It looks a perfect tool to collect informations about something, perfect to organize informations like for example to help you write a book.
- tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just wait until the word gets around. It's just a matter of time before digg gets into a People Magazine story and "those people" make it over here.
- Moose_Head, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Please don't say Web 2.0... oh you went ahead and said it!
Bad Digg, bad! - truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think when Digg expands from tech they should branch out to DiggEntertainment and DiggSports. Dont know about other people but i love sports and entertainment news. But not sure if geeks on here will like it so much. Kevin may have to advertise to a different audience
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why is it that these articles never link to the sites that are talking about? I mean, if they had been talking about a business wouldn't they give information about contacting the company?
Instead the reader has to google all the information - I immediately leave their site and usually don't come back. - Discourses, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it's almost definite digg is going to expand by having different news categories to choose from. There will be links on the home page for "tech", "entertainment"...etc. I like it the way it is now, the stories are unique and interesting and there is enough variety. But growth is inevitable in order to attract the most people.
- Loyaleagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i dunno, jajah.com seems a little sketch to me....their service isn't explained very well
- spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow, they need to rethink their design. Each one of those headings should have been a hyperlink to the site. I don't see links to the sites anywhere for that matter.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most of the sites listed in this article really have something going for them, though. I seriously doubt you'll see VC funding for organizations without any sort of business plan this time around. For one thing, people have a better understanding now of what the internet is capable of. Also, the VC guys are probably still a bit scared from last time. Hopefully this "bubble 2.0" is actually just a levelling out after the crash.
- fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Digg is nothing more than /., updated. The only real difference I can see is the presence of somewhat competent moderation at /.
Digg's user-moderation scheme is nothing more than an experiment in the ability of excitable mobs to make intelligent decisions (evidence the many diggs of anything with "apple", "google", or "AJAX" in the title). - greenbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so digg is expanding to new topics huh? sounds good.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. The comment +/- system here on Digg has already been abused multiple times for people that don't agree with popular opinion. No system is perfect, but there are a lot of people out there with less than honest motives. Take every post with a grain of salt.
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Prosper is one of the best ideas I've seen in a long time. It will either be a gigantic success or a huge flame out. Gtting my popcorn!
- taxicab, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree!! what were these MSNBC writers thinking? Did they even visit digg to see whats it's all about? digg is NOT one of thoes celeb driven mags you see on news stands at a wal-mart store.
- asdren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love how the article doesn't provide a link to any of the websites they mention.
pity cause I really wanted to check out that digg site. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But Cprincipe - you say:
"Most of the sites listed in this article really have something going for them, though."
Does that include a great profit potential?
Here's the problem: just because it's useful and people like it doesn't mean that it'll make money! And that's all that's gonna matter if tech is going to be sustainable. - goettel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yup, "Web 2.0" and its many synonyms are fashionable catchphrases being 'memed' by vocal non-geeks to make up for the fact it took them so long to catch on to internet in the first place. Blogs, podcasts and link collections like Digg might add a twist here or there, but they've all been around for almost fifteen years, in various guises. Don't be a pretender and a nonce by spreading a word which only marks you as an ignoramus. The internet is still in its infancy, and it's evolving pretty nicely without the need for the fashion militia, thanks very much. If you fashion victims won't behave, you can install and support your own damn software =P
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok this is lame. Lame. Lame.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Web 2.0 is crap. It's still the same infrastructure, just with different application methods and models.
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google will buy them all up and we won't be able to use them cos they will be in permanent beta phase. Plum already looks like they are fishing for an offer. Web 2 seems about uncluttered nicer websites to me. Possibly too minimalist. Not sure if any of these sites will catch on except for the nice new look. Online storage will make plum obsolete ?
- yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I thought digg cannot be one of them.
- jbond03, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Who's building the future web? No its not the corporations, its the people. Thats the whole concept of the new web... people driven internet.
- jimbo92107, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Predicting the web's future is a little like a simplified weather report: Expect more of what you're seeing now.
We can all see a gradual, piecemeal shift towards more online capabilities, and it's obvious that being online will become even more important in coming years. "Web 2.0" is a fairly bogus attempt to capture all this stuff and put it into one rhetorical bag.
Who's building the future web? Corporations, of course, and they'll want a chunk of your money for whatever services they provide, of course. They'll want to know your personal details, and they'll share all their information with very curious, very secretive government agencies. They'll also sell your information to other corporations.
All of this is already happening. In "Web 2.0" it will happen a lot more. - rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0they need to sell stock right now!!!
- locorooster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Got to love web 0.5 as brought to you by online versions of print articles. Here are the links if anyone had trouble guessing them or was to timid/lazy to type in the obvious urls:
Digg - http://www.digg.com
Plum - http://www.plum.com/
Sharpcast - http://www.sharpcast.com/
Jajah - http://www.jajah.com/
Prosper - http://www.prosper.com
Lala - http://www.lala.com/
Filmloop - http://www.filmloop.com/
Mercora - http://search.mercora.com/index_search.htm - Vaslo, on 10/12/2007, -23/+23According to mankind, jerkoffs who take them time to waste a post to complain about excess exclamation points are idiots.
- captainjy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2First of all, Web 2.0 is hyperbole and as much as I hate to say this here, but Digg is nothing revolutionary. Maybe the code is, but the concept is a basic system filled with petty arguments and recycled news stories. Quite honestly, it's overhyped and nothing overly impressive.
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Its unusually addictive though. probably the most addictive.
- Fowz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5It's funny that you now talk of spammers when 2 extra exclamation marks warranted such a rude and childish slur. Either grow up and have some respect for someone for their efforts or simply bite on something when you next get the urge. Pathetic, really pathetic.
(Digg is one of them!!!) confirms nothing about a teenager girl or someone that uses MSN. - yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I wants to respect spelling and grammar when I am writingg a commentt on digg.
- Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1No Wikipedia no digg >:(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -32/+5to mark1372 //
Why don't you mind your own business?? - TonyBlack, on 10/12/2007, -42/+3why did you double post? no digg
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is