What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
73 Comments
- leszek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+131i think the best way to deal with the 2 kinds of users is to have the possibility to view all categories in one page (digg.com/all).
It should then be possible to change your default first page in your profile. - ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -4/+108The video section has been, comparatively, very unsuccessful.
Videos, when they were in the news section, were often some of the highest dugg stories, with 1000+ diggs and an active comment thread. Now, it's rare to see them go past 400, and the comments become stagnant quickly.
The obvious solution, in my opinion, would be to display news, videos, and picture stories all on the front-page, but allow them to be filtered out (or in) freely, pretty much like the regular sections are now. And of course leave the new in-page video playing functionality as is. - koregaonpark, on 10/12/2007, -11/+88I agree with you guys, but I don't come to Digg for news, I tune into BBC World or check Google News. What originally attracted me to Digg were all the interesting and unique links, not news.
I think breaking Digg apart into separate sections with separate RSS feeds is a mistake. I almost never visit the Videos and Podcasts sections. But maybe that's just me. - radicaldementia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+49I agree. The two new sections added, Microsoft and 2008 Elections, are news categories and rightfully belong in the news part of digg. The reason videos were given their own place was because in most cases videos aren't news. The same goes for pictures. Most pictures that are submitted are along the lines of "cool pic check this out", which are often interesting but shouldn't be placed in the same area as news.
- msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Exactly. And that is why they should have a segregated area of their own. With the mentioned category options of Humor, Optical Illusions, and so on...
- ifoundgodot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28That sure must have been hard mock up to do! Jeez who'd have thought to put a "Pictures" button next to Podcasts, and in the same font! Wowee.
- jmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"With the help of my friend Steve Searer we managed to design the following mock-up for how Digg may potentially factor in the 'Pictures' section into Digg.com"
There's no way he came up with that on his own. A "Pictures" link right after podcasts? That has just blown my mind. Very imaginative. Brilliant, simply brilliant!! Bravo! - neave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Digg was better before "videos" was separated off into its own section. Articles can contain news *and* video, and dupes now appear all over the place. A new "pictures" section won't help either.
- chrisbarr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15well, the fact that Kevin Rose dugg this story seems to make me think the speculation is true.
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17this article is useless. isn't his "mock-up" what everyone is talking about anyway? he thinks he is adding something unique when he says digg chose to forgo the picture category and instead add a "picture section." uh...no one was talking about a picture category dude.
- Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The fact that Kevin Rose dugg this probably shows something
- JaceMO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Kind of an obvious article. I think adding a main section for pictures is what we all had in mind.
- dominic2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't understand. The post was called "why digg didn't add a pictures section" and they didn't say why digg didn't add a pictures section, instead they said digg could add a pictures section next to podcasts - a little bit obvious
- wphj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'd be all for the categories, but I hate that videos can't be grouped into the main front page. I liked seeing them.
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"we'd be able to find out exactly how many digg users are female"
Uhhh... not necessarily. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5[quote]Most pictures that are submitted are along the lines of "cool pic check this out", which are often interesting but shouldn't be placed in the same area as news.[/quote]
Yes, like those "OMG HDRI!" and "OMG Panorama!" pictures. Please stop the front page whoring, all of you submitting this junk. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There ought to be a "Religion" section under World & Business too judging by the amount of religious debate that gets filed under political news/opinion.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/205a4436ca.png
I think we have a winner. - kwulf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6kevin rose also dugg this...so i'll take that as a hint.
- stepnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Can someone explain why we have sections instead of "tags"?
That would eliminate the invariable duplicates that occur when a story belongs in multiple sections. - verifex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think there should be another section on Digg: Meta-stories! We have so many damn stories about Digg it's only fair.
- coldskool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How bout a porn section?... well call it pigg.com and you oink it if you digg?
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So there are digg rumor sites now?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Most of the pictures submitted (I submit a lot of pictures, so I should know) really fall well under the Offbeat News category. So I've kind of had a hard time accepting the idea that a standalone category is necessary. Although it would be nice. I just think you'd have to add too many subcategories, as opposed to the video section, which is pretty much just a "funny videos" section. News videos always go in the news category.
Here's where I spam my most recent submission, which again, is under offbeat news, where it should be: http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Jenna_Jameson_Plastic_Surgery_Nightmare
Maybe a broad comedy category is what we need? - knowicki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No pics, it didn't happen.
- Branden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They would probably just change or remove it.
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"With the help of my friend Steve Searer we managed to design the following mock-up for how Digg may potentially factor in the 'Pictures' section into Digg.com."
Holy *****, no way! How'd you "manage" to do that? - ChewMyFootOff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One whole f**king article just to say "Pictures" alongside "Video" and "Podcasts" ? Buried as lame.
- Jeffler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah man, we subtract the diggers from the registered users, duh.
- sickswaystop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yes, the pictures section would look like that.. and yes we are ready for it.
lets just let the website do its course, and if were patient we will get it.
so for now, we'll keep submitting pictures. - thewhitefedora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because, Unfortunately tags are very messy.
- nayr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They should make the 'Videos' part into a 'Media' section (another name would be more fitting) for all video, audio, and pictures.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Jesus Christ! More "Why didn't Digg do this?" blogs and then "Here is why I THINK they didn't." crap?
They didn't. Who cares why. Tehre is no reason why other than they didn't want to. What is hte point when ***** will purposely miscategorize their pics just to put it in a better section to get seen more anyway, like they arlreay do with videos? - tyywebb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did anyone actually think they would add a pictures category under the News section as opposed to adding a separate Pictures section? Is this story on the front page because it _isn't_ blindingly obvious??
- esc27, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps what is really needed is an additional kind of tagging based on the type of media (picture, video, text, audio, mixed, etc.) rather than different sections. This would allow people to quickly browse just the pictures if they want, or to avoid playing videos at work.
Plenty of times I've clicked a story expecting an article only to find a video site. Being able to tell, at a glance, what kind of content the article contains would be very useful. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea..please..I need to post some pics of my favorite hottie!
http://celebritytrade.com/photo.aspx?cid=47&f=05calfeb.jpg - outoforder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting topic but this articles blows.
- uberdork825, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't digg this because it's pointless. It's some random guy's rant about how he think it would be. It really had no point and I have no clue why he made a mock-up. I don't mean to insult anyone but this article didn't really help me at all or give me any useful information.
- antdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So, what happens after 2008 election? That area will be dead and outdated.
- franky76, on 10/01/2008, -0/+0Tehre is no reason why other than they didn't want to. What is hte point when ***** will purposely miscategorize their pics just to put it in a better section to get seen more anyway
http://www.adidasshoess.com - yensed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think Digg.com doesn't want to be responsible for Hot-Linking to pictures.. Or doesn't want some dude to post an awesome image, then once it makes it to the homepage, replace the image with Goatse...
- humanrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i hear all this stuff about digg, could someone respond with a link? It's like the blind leading the blind.
- betseyjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wonder when will digg change their mind.
http://www.betseyjohnsonshoes.us/ - PhrosTT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"we managed to design the following mock-up for how Digg may potentially factor in the 'Pictures' section into Digg.com:"
are you ***** kidding me? They added a "Pictures" button next to "Podcasts" like that's some kind of insightful ***** illustration for what it would look like. Dumbest *****. - jonnotjohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thank you! Maybe it's just me, but I think article titles should describe the article. Instead I got an article about how cool it would be if there was a 'Pictures' button in the header. Worthless.
- tw0k1ngs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How about a "media" seciton for Movies, PIctures, and Podcasts...
- betona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, *please* create an Election 2008 section so I can completely *ignore* the political flamewars, innuendos and accusations entirely.
Pictures? I don't care about a section, but I sure wish we could insert pictures into comments like this one. - riaanc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd like it if digg had only one section like before, or at least if I could set it to be like that. I rarely click on the Videos link and the Popular Archive only shows news, making the videos section slow to browse at work after a long weekend, so I end up feeling like I missed something. It wouldd be nice if digg could allow me to integrate my videos and news while still allowing other to separate the news, videos and pictures.
- theexp0ser4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Who is the owner of www.pronetadvertising.com? His name is Neil Patel (his digg account http://digg.com/users/webtickle/news/submitted), a black hat SEO blogger from this website: http://www.pronetadvertising.com/about/ and this one http://mashable.com/consulting. He and his group are known for gaming digg. He accepts monetary payments to submit stories to digg that promote notorious spam and SEO sites. Recently he said digg was censoring him, but it was the good digg users who've had enough of him and his SEO friends, so they bury his veiled spam.
Some of his spam stories:
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Warning_Thousands_of_Jellyfish_Invading_Hawaii (A Hawaiian tourism site)
http://digg.com/environment/147_Tips_to_Live_Healthier_Happier_and_Greener (A credit card site)
http://digg.com/hardware/10_Ways_to_Recycle_Your_Old_Computer (A 100% Spam site)
Also note how many times he submitted mashable.com or readwriteweb.com
I can provide more proof, but by doing that I will be reveling my real identity too and that's something you don't want to do with these dangerous SEO's. Your account is enough proof http://digg.com/users/webtickle/news/submitted
Yes Neil Patel, (webtickle) I know everything because I was and still am in your circle of friends. The time has come to stop you and your SEO friends from gaming digg and accusing it of censorship when sites that paid you to submit their stories don't make it to the digg home page.
The truth will always prevail. You know what you're doing but will deny it. Your credibility is on the line, tread lightly. - betseyjohnson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I never come here for news, What is want is interesting stuff. For news I think Google news is enough
http://www.betseyjohnsonshoes.us/ -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
