What is Digg?70 Comments
- Caiman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53No, I hope not... sites that get dugg deserve a bit of love from the search engines after 'the effect'. If it could be dynamic somehow, so that say... when a story is submitted, yes it has nofollow, but if promoted to the frontpage it loses the nofollow, best of all worlds... no more ***** dupes flying in, and decent, relevant stuff enjoying the fruits.
- xrisnothing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+58Nofollow on links in comments. Front page stories and stories that are submitted deserve the weight.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48Nofollow on everything but front-page stories would be a good way to implement that.
EDIT: Ooops, Caiman eat me to it, Digg Down. - icekin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46Among Wikipedia's aims is to be unbiased and spam is a serious problem there. Digg with its voting system filters out the good stories from the bad. I would like to see search engines differentiate between the number of diggs on a story when giving preference to ranking in the search results.
- dankosaur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29This is a good point, but what about links in comments? I think that comments should be nofollowed, as having them hid by down-thumbing doesn't prevent search engines from seeing them.
- PPoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Twit...
If everyone used nofollows on every site, what would SE's use to rank sites? Come on, don't be a moron...err...Twit. - remove, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Sorry, but I don't think the author of the article linked to really understands what they're talking about here.
Anybody who knows anything about the way Google works, or the way SEO works, or frankly any seasoned webmaster, knows that it wouldn't make much sense or difference if Digg "went nofollow." Individual Digg story pages don't have particularly high PageRanks ("Google Juice"), because the way pages get high PRs is by linking to a page. Nobody links to the Digg stories- they link to the actual item that the Digg page links to. Therefore, there's really no substantial reason to use nofollow: it won't make a difference in Google rankings (or Y! rankings, or MSN rankings) either way because the Digg story pages typically have a 0 PageRank.
Further, 99% of the time, there is zero direct impact from a story appearing on Digg's front page. The reason for this is, while Digg's frontpage has a high PageRank (8 out of 10 possible as of right now), the Googlebot only scans websites to see what they're linking to a few times per year (the exact times are different for each site and the schedule is top secret and constantly changing). So unless a story stays on the frontpage for most of the entire year, there is a 99% chance that they won't get any Google Juice from having Digg link to them from the front page, unless Google happens to be scanning on the exact day that the item appears.
And even for those lucky few who happen to be on the "right day," there is a good chance that Google checks twice during the same week or something like that and only registers the links that are present during both "checks" and uses them for calculating the new PR for the linked sites. Google's exact methodology is a trade secret and is adjusted fairly often, but this much we know from "leaked" information, defectors, and obscure whitepapers that some of Google's founders wrote years ago back when they were first formulating the basic template for how PR would work. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Digg makes servers go down when they hit the front page... Spammers don't try to manipulate digg to get pagerank, they manipulate digg to try to get the crushing horde of visitors. So nofollow would be pointless for popular stories, at least.
If spammers are actually getting a boost off of stories that don't get any votes, then that might be worth looking into. And comment spam isn't fun, so that might be a good use of nofollow. But popular stories, I don't think it's worth considering (especially because Digg gives users so much oversight over individual links, whereas links in rarely-read wikipedia articles just sit there for months without review sometimes). - Nodren, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10i would have to say nofollow every outbound link except for pages which have hit the front page(and havnt been buried)
- Borramakot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Think theyll turn down both?
- ejstacey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They could make the main URLs follow (well, normal) but all the ones posted in the comments nofollow. While it won't help all spam, it could cut down considerably on some of the crap we see in almost every thread's comments.
Yes I understand a lot of the spam is posted for the "right away" benefit, but link spamming doesn't hurt in the long run either.. maybe this will help stop that. - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How is it the right thing to do on Wikipedia? Sure, it might cut down on some spam, but it penalizes those who have great pages.
- dreamlayers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Digg certainly has a bit of a spam problem. I think all links should start off with nofollow and that can be removed if people's reaction is consistently positive (comment or story gets dugg and not too many people bury it). Nofollow on all links would be easier to implement but plenty of links really deserve some credit.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"as having them hid by down-thumbing doesn't prevent search engines from seeing them."
Actually, search engines are smart enough to know when you are hiding something with HTML/CSS/Javascript. :)
That's why Google is so good to begin with. They filter out spam sites that try the old "text color the same as the background" trick and much more. - tomvendetta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What about if only buried stories were given the nofollow attribute?
- Anrkist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Doesn't really seem fair that your crashing a bunch of peoples servers and then not even bothering to give them a decent ranking in the engines.. is spam really a huge problem here like it was in Wiki? I certainly don't encounter it to often... only when I'm bored and looking at the worst rated articles in upcoming stories do I come across it.
- blackmh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If digg penalizes its content providers then I'd urge content providers to do the same. Internet is dynamic, digg is replecable. If digg implements nofollow I see no reason why content providers shouldn't implement ban by referral. If you take something you should give something back. Author if this article would probably ban email protocols because of spam if he could. That's not how you do it.
- garg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Google considers links as a recommendation or a vote of confidence. That is why I believe that front page diggs should be with out the nofollow tag because they have been voted as important.
Buried links or links that never get promoted should have the nofollow tag because they aren't deemed worthy. - bhowell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6For comments.. how about nofollow unless the comment has more than a certain number of diggs, say +4. I also agree about nofollow for stories until they hit the front page.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The answer is "No"
I usually show people things I find on Digg. I usually find the things I remember seeing on digg by using a google and appending Digg to the end. If digg did this then I couldn't do that. I know I am not the only one who does this, there was an article dugg up not too long ago about how google search is better than diggs. - Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I personally think Wikipedia shouldn't have used nofollow. Wikipedia has lots of links to very helpful sites, that through wikipedia could get more noticed on search engines. The addition of nofollow removes that, and I think could lower the quality of some search terms.
As for if Digg should do it: I don't think so. Maybe for stories that are buried it would be appropriate, but generally I don't think it is a good idea. - lamestory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3all the blogspammers on here won't like this a bit!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No. I think it would be very bad if Digg became nofollow. Simply put, if submissions are deserving of being dugg to the front page, then they certainly must be worthy of increased rankings. Besides, digg has pretty decent anti-spam policies in form of countless diggers who ensure that crap, spam, and otherwise lame content never graces the front page. Many webmasters would probably lose interest in digg if they knew their stories wouldn't have any additional benefit besides garnering extra bandwidth costs.
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@OhJay
That's actually a really good idea.
Digg, are you listening? - thewhitefedora, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, I did spell story wrong.
- Darthmalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I noticed today (don't know how long they've been doing this) that fark adds no follow to both the links on the homepage and the links in the comments.
- OhJay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Personally I think that nofollow is good, but that other measures are also needed to curb comment spam.
My suggestion would be that links in the comments wouldn't be active and clickable /unless/ the comments they are in have been dugg up to, say, +10 diggs. That would hopefully limit the amount of clickthroughs to adsense farms. - profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One can argue that Wikipedia is a large and visible search engine in its own right for links like the ones you're talking about.
They're still getting recognition on other search engines through Wikipedia, but indirectly. I.e., people go to the Wikipedia link then to the external link. - jeff419, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google is smart. They can tell the difference between a link in the upcoming section and a link on the home page. They then give different links different values, if any.
Even considering that one link doesn't mean ***** when it comes to SEO, especially from a site with not content and a bazillion outbound links.
What's great about Digg is that if you put some good bait out there and it hits the front page all the people who follow Digg will then blog and link to your original article, gaining you tons of relevant links from a variety of sites.
I had one article that was pegged on the front of Digg and the top of the World and Business section for a couple days, and I ended up getting at least 100 links from different blogs and websites. (Those are just the ones I had in my referrer logs)
Personally, I think nofollow links are stupid. Why should Google change the way we link to content? True spammers don't care about rankings, they care about traffic, any traffic, and they will continue to spam anywhere they can. I get at least 20-30- spam comments a day on my blog, even though it's moderated and I kill all their *****. Until there is an efficient way to distinguish between a bot and a person spam will be a fact of life. - Schmerz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There's no need to penalise useful links, so I'd suggest any comments with links below the normal dugg down threshold should be no-followed, and stories (and their comments) which have not yet been dugg should also be no-followed.
This would prevent spam from ever getting a better rank while still helping good, useful sites.
(PS. For how long does digg require me to fill in a CAPTCHA every time I comment? It's damn annoying!) - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There should be a script - if spamlink then nofollow.
Also sites that have been tagged as spam a certain amount of times should be automatically blacklisted. - phogasmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hate spam, but I think using nofollow to remove the search influence of links corrupts the thing that makes Google and the web great. If a legitimate site gets linked to in Wikipedia or Digg then they deserve the increased page rank, its not only about the marketing benefits of a link but it is also about people finding the information they need. I think Wikipedia users and Digg users have been good about self policing. I rarely see spam on Digg or Wikipedia because it is quickly removed or dugg down. If people get into the habit of adding nofollow to links then search results will surely suffer. GO TO HELL SPAMMERS!
- sicc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In all honesty, if I hit the front page of digg and it had nofollow tags, I would simply block the digg traffic from viewing my site. If I'm going to shell out for the bandwidth, the very least I can get is a nice tip of the hat for the search engines. IMO
- logic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nofollow is to help prevent bots from entering restricted areas, and executing scripts by mistake ("Delete this page" on a wiki for example). If a search engine chooses to honor it, they're doing us a favor. By abusing this tool, we run the risk of losing it completely.
- ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the revenue from ads is valuable, and driven by traffic, sure, but long term beneficial search results, like the type you get from an algorithm that considers how many other indexed pages link to you, is the foundation for any sort of real business model. earning a quick buck only floats you for the day, earning the long dollar keeps you in business for a meaningful period.
- wowsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a webmaster I don't like nofollow because the websites that I link pages to are relevant and not spam - this may help keep spam at bay but it penalizes webmasters.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it's not a win-win. non-spam decent sites _deserve_ to be higher ranked.
- DivineLackey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@srkj
You're a tool. Why shouldn't a site benefit if it is important enough for us to visit. - Guder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Over all I'd have to say go with the majority here.
Hits front page (perhaps even of just catagory) then remove nofollow. other wise all links get it.
If a front page link gets noted as spanm enough then it adds back on the nofollow. - Darthmalt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Also just went and checked and slashdot adds no follow to all links in the comments but not in the original story.
I think this is how it should be. There and on Fark the links on the front page are (supposedly) edited and so are therefore relevant and at least not spam. With Digg the ability of anyone to submit a story and have it show up makes us vulnerable to spam. Perhaps it could add nofollow to all links that are below say 20 or 30 diggs, and nofollow to all comments. - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@srki,
Cool...Glad we have your approval. When I opened this page I was thinking to myself, gee, I wonder if srki thinks this is the way to go. Scrolling around through the numerous comments to see what you thought, lo and be hold, I found it! Thanks for the tip. - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@netdroid9,
Personally, I wouldn't go that aggressive. I would certainly implement nofollow on submitted stories (or at least stories that Diggers buried as spam); however, I'd leave profiles and blog links as normal. Again with the exception of links in a users profile that were buried as spam. The reason that I say to leave profile links as they are now is because, in my opinion, the number of times a story has been dugg is somewhat of an indication of how important a page is. Stories that have a lot of diggs will find themselves on the profile pages of many diggers, therefor increasing page rank for that particular page.
The thing is, I'm not really sure how much this will circumvent spam because I'm sure there are a ton of people that know about Page Rank, but have never heard of nofollow, which means that the idiots will continue to spam away. - clickfire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Looks like it has been done it now in some cases.
- libgermany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1absolutely right, pal.
nofollow is a VERY bad idea, coming from the old web 1.0 (or less) days, in which things like this were useful because there was no alternative (as, for example, intelligently filtering search engines).
it smashes the whole idea of web 2.0, social interaction etc, into waste. if users find it useful, what's wrong with telling the search engines about it? - shoppingcart, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1ANSWER !! add a nofollow only to posts from users that consistantly get dugg down, or never get more than 3 votes.
diig is good because it helps others, not itself - phogasmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good point!
- unicornhunter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2no, I'm just saying that the traffic in a few hours is waaaaaaaaay more important than any search engine benefit.
- snowwrestler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nofollow is a terrible hack that breaks the very thing that makes search engines useful. Using nofollow on a great site like Wikipedia is like using a nuke to fight crime in a city. Even if you think that 50% of the links on Wikipedia are spam (a ridiculously high estimate), that still means that you're killing 1 good, useful link for every spam link. That doesn't improve relevance, it just chucks the whole idea completely out the window, good with the bad. It's against the very idea behind Wikipedia, which is the free and public sharing of information without restriction. Putting nofollow on every external link essentially turns Wikipedia into walled garden that you HAVE to visit to find other useful content...that's almost as bad as AOL!
I predict that Google comes to really regret nofollow in the next few years and adjusts the way they handle it (if they haven't already) to something a little more subtle than just "not following" the link. To solve the spam/relevance problem the intelligence needs to be in Google's algorithms, not in the content it's indexing. Otherwise everyone who ever gets sick of spam will just nofollow everything, and Google will get to watch the number of links in its analysis drop and drop and drop, and PageRank get worse and worse. The problem of relevence of the page needs to be solved by more advanced interpretation of each page. It's not hard for me to spot a spam page; therefore Google should be able to be trained to do so as well eventually. - unicornhunter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course I do, that's why I know that the traffic is more valuable to a person who has a website
- webdesignmiami, on 03/15/2009, -0/+0Has anyone noticed there are more social websites failing than flourishing lately?
Web Design Miami
http://webdesignmiami.pervasivepersuasion.com -
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is