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.
685 Comments
- vtmn, on 11/25/2007, -5/+794Is this from the same guy that blocked Firefox?
- Four20, on 11/25/2007, -22/+773That is messed up. I agree that a webmaster can block any traffic they want(or at least try). But saying digg, reddit, stumble and the rest 'endorse' ad blocking software is bogus.
- Sirocco, on 11/25/2007, -8/+557Now we simply all visit the site and send his bandwidth bill into the stratosphere via the Digg Effect.
- gbarberi, on 11/25/2007, -18/+530I'm stealing their bandwidth? First, I pay an ISP for my bandwidth and it looks like they can still tell me what I can and can't do with it. Now because I don't want to look at their silly ads, I deserve none!?
- topperstone, on 11/25/2007, -15/+501"Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers" bla bla bla
- MasterThief117, on 11/25/2007, -7/+425"Digg Users 3 Times Less Likely to Click Ads Than Google Users"
Most people on Digg usually have a higher intelligence than the average Google user, thus more unlikely to fall for the "You have won a free laptop" ***** type ads. - Shananra, on 11/25/2007, -5/+336Oh god, why do you guys give this guy so much attention? There is absolutely nothing worthwhile on his websites, he is a terrible blogger and even worse designer, and he's dumb enough to block users who are smart enough to use a real web browser. What's more, he actually thinks that his opinion somehow matters, and by giving him attention your are feeding into this delusion.
I'm not giving up my adblock, so if that's what this whole thing is about then he is not worth my attention and he should not be worth any of yours either. - funknjunk, on 11/25/2007, -15/+334Ad Block Plus FTW!
- OpenFuture, on 11/25/2007, -8/+314I wonder if whoever registered this site realizes that they are infringing upon digg's trademark by using the logo on the site.
- arbulus, on 11/25/2007, -13/+290This ***** pisses me off to no end.
Just because I see an ad, that doesn't mean I'm going to click it. And my visiting a site is in no way a guarantee that I will; I made no promise nor signed any agreement that I would click on your ads because you "allowed" me to visit your site. You should be ***** happy I'm there, because if I'm there, I might tell others about your site, and someone else just might click an ad.
Saying that software blocking ads is an infringement on the website's rights is the most asinine ***** i've ever heard. You don't have a right to profit or make money on ads - you have an opportunity. Saying that my vising your site and not clicking your ads means i've violated your rights is like telling someone that going to the mall to compare prices but not actually buy something is infringing upon the store's rights. It's complete *****. Furthermore, saying I'm "stealing bandwitdth"? I paid for my internet access, and you paid your hosting fees. You put up a site that is free to visit. If you think people are "stealing" then you need to charge a fee to visit your site. I haven't stolen a goddamned thing and have done everything according to proper law and guidelines.
You wanna talk about rights? I have the right to choose when I want to see advertisements. I have the right to decide if I want products and services shoved down my throat 24/7. I have the right to decide that I don't want to see ads every single place I go. I'm tired of this advertising culture we've become. Ads are everywhere you go: on you coffee cup, in your online games, before movies, hell even clothes are ads: go to PacSun or Hollister and buy one of their Tshirts and all the shirts are covered in big logos of the companies who make them. It's revolving door marketing - like pyramid scams and envelope-stuffing "businesses." You can't escape the ads anymore. And goddamnit, if I can control when where and how I see ads, then I am damned well going to do it.
I understand your site needs to make money, but blocking and entire segment of the population will only lessen your chances for revenue. You are only hurting yourself. And if you as a business can't comprehend my right to choose when and where I see advertising, then you are not a business I want anything to do with. - vtmn, on 11/25/2007, -2/+265Hm, both domains were registered by the same company, so I'm gonna assume so. I guess he's pissed about last time and/or wants more attention.
- Avor, on 11/25/2007, -15/+245Ads that ***** all over my screen are an infringement of my rights.
- TRUEPATRIOT, on 11/25/2007, -4/+233i get his point but with or without adblock i have never clicked on an ad on ANY site.
- betterth, on 11/25/2007, -6/+198Yeah it is, which is why no self-respecting site will block the traffic. What's better, trying to optimize for Google and getting say 1000 hits per week, with a 10% ad click ratio or getting a nice burst of 30,000 users in a single hour with a 3% click ratio? It sucks we click less but theres a ton more of us.
- megaton, on 11/25/2007, -7/+187The circular argument he uses is laughable:
"Digg...users [are] a somewhat small and insignificant percentage of the internet...[and] ending [their] resource theft has tremendous financial rewards..."
If they're insignificant, then isn't their "resource theft" also insignificant?
Additionally, there's gobs of evidence of fringe users and early adopters (like diggers) can make or break a product or service. I'd like to see some financial data regarding the actual "harm" diggers and the other ad-block using populace cause websites like this. (Unfortunately, it's impossible to measure the unrealized value of early adopters.)
Frankly, this sounds unjustifiable and prejudiced to me... - Universal, on 11/25/2007, -6/+169"Digg users who don't click on these ads are stealing bandwidth without paying for it and website owners deserve a method to block this unauthorized bandwith theft."
Bandwidth theft?! Seriously, *****, whether I block your ads or not, you can't justify that *****.
Google Ads are not there because you HAVE to ***** click on them or else you are committing a crime. The real crime is telling people that they are "stealing" if they don't click on your ads. People have free will, and will click on an ad if they want. It's not up to you.
And, if you do block people who don't click on your ads, isn't that the same as someone not clicking on one of your ads in the first place? What kind of ***** logic is that?!
It's people like this who should never be allowed on the internet. - theblueprint, on 11/25/2007, -8/+150Damn... sour grapes, anyone?
- VanD, on 11/25/2007, -10/+149***** your ads
Just cause you can't find a real job. - deviouskoopa, on 11/25/2007, -5/+124Is it going too far to say Digg users (such as myself) are less likely to click ads because we actually know how worthless clicking flashy ads for a "Free iPod!!!!!!!!!" is? ABP or not, I wouldn't click any ads and I bet that many Digg users wouldn't either. So comparing Digg users to the much larger population of Google users is just plain wrong. Just a thought... feel free to add yours too!
- NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -7/+125Oh, that's rich. Sent to abuse@digg.com.
- NicksVideo, on 11/25/2007, -7/+110http://www.gigaloader.com/
- inactive, on 11/25/2007, -3/+100I like his stupid blocking code, he stores the $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'] in a variable called $userAgent. Not a huge deal, just shows he's a tool. Then he goes on to block any URL with 'digg', 'reddit', 'stumbleupon', or 'netscape' ANYWHERE in it. So his own site would be blocked, an article with a URL like /why-digg-sucks.html would be blocked, etc. COMPLETE tool. Then he forgets Netscape's social stuff moved over to Propeller, and that StumbleUpon is nothing like Digg or Reddit. The guy is just so great on so many levels.
- ben_nushmut, on 11/25/2007, -2/+90Ads that ***** all over my processor piss me off. If you decide to use Flash, you deserve to be blocked.
- Nerfdude, on 11/25/2007, -6/+88sounds like some webmaster ordered a waaaaahmburger with a side of french cries.
- RollFizzlebeef, on 11/25/2007, -2/+76Dugg to raise this tool's bandwidth costs.
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 11/25/2007, -2/+74What they're really lamenting is the fact that Digg's readership is too smart to fall for the "You have spyware! OH NOES" ads. Digg isn't directing a high enough percentage of gullible morons to their site - I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
- affanjam, on 11/25/2007, -3/+70and run this image
http://whydiggisblocked.com/head.jpg - shad0w, on 11/25/2007, -4/+69If digg endorsed ad-blocking why do they run ads on their own website?
- Leonffs, on 11/20/2009, -2/+66Yes it is. Another publicity stunt that seems to be working pretty damn well.
- EvanVolm, on 11/25/2007, -6/+68He's craving for attention. Everyone, just bury this and move on.
- Bviper, on 11/25/2007, -6/+67Ok, so I won't visit any site that does this... like I'm really dying to anyway.
- rodbibeau, on 11/25/2007, -3/+61The is from the same wacked out ass-clown as whyfirefoxisblocked. He needs to learn how to generate traffic. Oh wait...
- mrASSMAN, on 11/25/2007, -3/+58Also, getting dugg means the site gets a huge bump in pagerating on google. A site that previously only existed on page 5000 will suddenly become much more recognized by google and end up on the top 10 pages with many more keywords. Google pays very close attention to digg.. search anything that has been on digg's front page on Google and you'll find digg's headline very quickly.
So my point is, a site that ends up on digg's front page, especially smaller sites and startups, is destined for success. It has been shown that it causes a sustained increase in visitors, long after reaching front page. Thusly, the rumor that being dugg does more bad than good for a website owner is absolute *****. - lohphat, on 11/25/2007, -3/+55"infringement of the rights"? Can someone please enumerate these rights on the books?
- jtbandes, on 11/25/2007, -7/+58Attracting more users who use AdBlock is NOT THE SAME as repelling users who don't.
- Kanidia, on 11/25/2007, -1/+51Maybe he's just a failed web designer.
- banmaster, on 11/25/2007, -3/+53You mean I didn't win a free laptop? Not even when I NEVER even entered into any competition to begin with?
Thats unpossible!! - versusgorilla, on 11/25/2007, -3/+53Exactly, also, anyone who mutes the television during commercials shouldn't be allowed to watch TV.
- bashar129, on 11/25/2007, -3/+53Are there people that actually purposely click on ads? wow....Even before I had ad block plus, back to my first computer I have never intentionally clicked on an ad before. Guess I am not "Quality traffic".
- TerrorByteX, on 11/25/2007, -4/+52I really hope that site goes down due to the massive traffic we can generate. CRASH AND BURN!
- NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -3/+51Well, to be fair, it says the "users" endorse it. Don't know if that's a correction after the fact or not...
But regardless. If there are sites out there getting SO much traffic from Digg that they feel this is necessary, they're going to be disappointed with the results. Those submissions that block digg will get buried into oblivion, and those sites will see a sudden drop in traffic. It's the same as when Google news de-listed some major news outlets. Their traffic dropped so dramatically that they panicked. Now obviously, the Digg user base is a LOT smaller than Google news, but like I said, if a lot of their traffic comes from digg, they're going to miss out on the users that don't use AdBlock. And besides, NO ONE, not a single visitor, is obligated to click on your ads.
I'm hoping that most sites are smart enough to never exclude potential traffic. - fredkreuger, on 11/25/2007, -6/+50'I just use IGNORE AD skill'
That is only available to those who have the Helm of Wisdom. +6 INT - Worldchrisis, on 11/25/2007, -4/+48Who clicks on those stupid flash ads for ***** anyway? I never click on them whether I have adblock running or not.
- amirman, on 11/25/2007, -2/+44people who block the ads would never click on them if they were unblocked anyway.
this guy has a warped sense of economics. - elvisa, on 11/25/2007, -3/+45"Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers."
This is hilarious. Nowhere is it written that anyone has "the right to advertise". How utterly ridiculous. Nor is any human on the planet expected or forced to read advertising. This madness belongs in the same bin as people who want to make ad-skipping technology for TV and DVDs "illegal", or akin to theft.
When does this madness stop? What next - will be it "illegal" to scroll past advertising on websites soon? Will it be "illegal" to leave the room when ads appear on TV? Am I taking away the rights of publishers when I flick past advertising in magazines without even reading it? Perhaps the owner of the site would like to stand over my shoulder and make sure I read all and any advertising that enters my household, line by line? I wonder... do they do the same when they read print media?
Advertising is disgusting and intrusive. I applaud anyone who takes electronic measures to remove it from media. And if that cuts into the revenue of the media publishers, then tough. Instead of complaining about how the market is regulating itself and how people are taking control of the media they take in, go and get a real job. You live in a capitalist society by choice. Don't complain that it doesn't work when people take their eyes and money elsewhere. That's truly their right as consumers, and not your right as a media publisher or advertiser to stop them. - NSMike, on 11/25/2007, -3/+44Oh, that's downright cruel.
I love it. - directedition, on 11/25/2007, -3/+43I started using Ad Block when sites saw fit to use ads that distract me from reading the material. Same reason I don't miss cable. Sci-fi channel was fine till they started running frequent ads on the lower half of the screen while the shows were playing, and going so far as to use ads that had sound effects. Screw that!
- bagelpirate, on 11/25/2007, -3/+40I don't think it is.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 694 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 