digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg does not have as much money as you think.

dugg.com — dugg that.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • adhiza, on 07/07/2008, -1/+18I think I might invest in it.
    • nicmakaveli, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6maybe a history site for stories dugg? the possibilities are endless, oh, I get excited, We could do something with that.
      Nah, excitement past, back to the upcoming section. cya....

      p.s. good luck thou if you decide to go for it. let us know for how much they're suing.
  • LANAsiDOOG, on 07/07/2008, -2/+18Dugg!
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/07/2008, -1/+31Who is the sucker that will buy this dead horse.
  • keviniskool, on 07/08/2008, -1/+63Won't all this traffic drive up the price, thus killing the joke?
  • shanos, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9I doubt digg care
  • BoonTobias, on 07/08/2008, -3/+49$8500 is what, like 20 morons without adblock?
    • CSharpSauce, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4How much do you think advertising brings in?
      • Popsgg, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1He just said how much he thinks it brings in. 8500/20 = $425 a person.
  • Arcesius, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9Hmmm, digg... dugg... dagg?

    Dagg.com sends you here, though: http://web.mac.com/ericdagg/Luke/Main_Page.html
  • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/08/2008, -13/+0Digg needs to clean itself of the racist trolls first.
    • nymphetamine, on 07/08/2008, -0/+10I see you're new to the Internets.
    • dtd00d, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6I was about to make a joke about digg-bashing commenters but then I saw your avatar and realized it might not be funny.
  • elshizzo, on 07/08/2008, -9/+1I didn't realize digg was spelled "dUgg".
  • staan, on 07/08/2008, -3/+27“DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS… are the trademarks of Digg Inc”

    Why buy when you can get it for free? Pretty sure a letter to the registrar would get it turned over for less than eight large.

    • egthareal, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Owners of Dugg.com could appeal with ICANN and draw it out in their appeals process. It would likely cost them over $8k in unrecoverable lawyer fees.
  • Shagmire, on 07/08/2008, -17/+2SKCUS MOC TOD GGUD
  • st00p3rman, on 07/08/2008, -12/+1Wow, that was clever! Writing the comment backwards! I would have never even seen that except I have a mirror right behind my computer that I suddenly decided to look into! Since you obviously have such strong opinions about a nonexistent website, I think that we should all dress up like shovels and stand outside the White House demanding that dugg.com gets taken down!
    Who is with me?!?
  • godkorg, on 07/08/2008, -11/+0I just baught it...
  • Khanvalescent, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9"Get On The Web Limited does not knowingly register and/or offer for sale domain names which are registered trade marks."
    • yacks, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Well if you keep your head in the ground and don't read anything.. you wouldn't "knowingly" register registered trade marks.. or merely just don't research if they are registered or not.. *chuckle*
  • AnotherDiggGuy, on 07/08/2008, -5/+3Wow, is promoting some idiots dugg.com domain really digg worthy? And why does it suggest Digg.com isn't worth much? Because it's not asking for $1,000,000?
    • kentifer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2The joke is that digg couldn't afford a second domain.
  • theliamburns1, on 07/08/2008, -5/+9WHO CARES.
  • DWNTWNJB, on 07/08/2008, -9/+2I don't get it, why would Digg want to buy a variation on its name?
  • jspegele, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9Great post, my free psychic reading was excellent.
  • Nitrus, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5This is stupid. You cant seriously be assessing Digg's capital based on a domain for sale which is a popular word used by digg people? Are you saying that Digg can't afford ~$9k for dugg.com? Which cant be used anyway because the word is trademarked under Digg as said by someone above? Digg doesn't need another site with a slightly different name, if anything that's testament to its success.

    Digg > therealBEANS
  • techblogLAT, on 07/09/2008, -3/+0Digg would be better off buying dig.com first... But considering that's owned by Disney, anything short of a buyout by the Big D, I don't see them parting with prime virtual real estate like 'dig'.
    • MavRevMatt, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Why? The site/company is named Digg, with two 'g's, not Dig.
  • StingingNettle, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5What's "Buried" going for?
    • billbugger, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2... a need for a redesign! That is one ugly website.
  • kronzdigg, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Raises 10's of millions every month selling his socialist poison but he can't buy obama.com
  • MavRevMatt, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Who the ***** cares?
  • eltardo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8DIGG DUGG. I can't be the only one that sees it.
  • londonmoon85, on 07/09/2008, -2/+0It seems like this is some sort of taunt to attempt digg.com to buy dugg.com because the name is closer which is really stupid IMO :/
  • LadyOBOF, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1I really like this site and if there was a fee to be on it... I would pay...but I would like to see some changes. I think this site stands out because people here are really trying to get involved by sharing their stories on real issues. I love DIGGIN IT.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.