What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Jayeveryday, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Digg seems to be taking over the web
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Hmm, I thought Google did that? Or was that yesterday?
- tkdan235, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Where is the "scape this" button?
- n3td3v, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Where is the "this CNET story sucks" button at the bottom of their news stories? I sure would love that functionality on the Cnetnews.com web site.
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11No. We need an "Ok, this is Lame" button :)
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6sawweett.
- nigeltufnel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They've been little but click whores for some time now. The "stories" on News.com are often exaggerated to stimulate discussion.
Back in the late 90s they were about information, but that's done.
- jk47h3, on 10/12/2007, -24/+27i love the idea of this but it just seems too easy and people are going to be doing this to every single story, just imagine the submit whores and duplicates. I LOVE THAT DIGG IS BEING RECOGNIZED EVERYWHERE THOUGH!!!
- oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Actually he has a point, this sortof adds a lot of artificial popularity to the story, doesn't it?
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If you noticed, the Digg This link they supply leads directly to the submission page of Digg. So, whoever clicked on that link would still have to go through the effort of typing out a headline, a summary, and submitting it here where the rest of the Digg community would decide whether to put it on the front page or not.
This is quite different from numerous other sites I've seen recently, whose "Digg This" link directly adds a vote to a story that the site's editors have already submitted here.
What CNet is doing isn't bad at all. It's good marketting for them, but it's not going to get Cnet article submissions to Digg's front page any faster. - heretic24, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Yeah, this is AMAZING! Now you can link to a link from your link of links!
*Why* are people excited about this? What's happened here to change your life? Why does this get you turned on to the point that you scream in all-caps about how DIGG OWNS THE WORLD!? What's the BFD?
- dwoloz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39I think its a bit naive to believe CNET did this because they want to "ebrace social bookmarking"
Flat out, they did it for the exposure and in turn the additional ad revenue
Digg has become a phenomenal tool for generating hits to whatever link you may have- terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Strictly speaking, any action that a corporation like CNET undertakes must be driven by profit. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible to its shareholders.
This particular cash-grab is at least non-evil and benefits the Digg community as much as it does CNET (or perhaps more). - rizzo011, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Flat out, they did it for the exposure and in turn the additional ad revenue"
AMEN. And I predict that many, many more sites will begin to copy this, it seems that CNet was the first of this size to start it.
More pageviews=more$$ - teradome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6True, I just hate it when people call their link "Bookmark on Digg." Talk about a miscommunication of purpose.
- jakatak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this looks like it can get way out of hand. pretty soon blogs will put digg buttons on their diary entries. I sure hope this venue doesn't get poisoned. Damn! I can hear Disney making an offer to buy this site as I type this.
- Sagarian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>> it seems that CNet was the first of this size to start it.
yes, CNet was doing this about 8 years ago... they've been syndicating headlines with links to their site for traffic generation forever. the only thing new here is that digg has an API/url for syndicating to them (digg this) and it's integrated straight into the CNet site. - mhmm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2This is horrible, all they want is the cash for ads.
- terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Strictly speaking, any action that a corporation like CNET undertakes must be driven by profit. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible to its shareholders.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can digg it.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I imagine every blog and news site looking for hits on the web will do things like this soon. Eventually the ratio of submitted stories to ones that actually get to the front page will be immense. The signal-to-noise ratio in the "upcoming" section is pretty low already (mostly noise). I imagine that eventually there will be so much crap in there that Digg 4.0 is going to have to come up with a better way to weed through it.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Or, in a truly Warholian Digg site, everyone will have a front page article once.
Who cares about front page? In the future, everyone will get dugg to the front page. - uahgekido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4felchdonkey: You are exactly right. Kevin actually mentioned this exact problem when he was discussing the amount of extra traffic digg is going to receive. I don't remember if it was on TWiT that I heard it or not.
- bwmiller72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the meantime, we can all do our part to only submit and digg worthwhile things. That's built into this engine already. I don't digg things that haven't gotten promoted yet, unless I really think it's noteworthy. I try to see if there is a dupe. I also immediately sort the recently submitted artciles by most diggs, hopeing other users have followed a policy like this before me, to sort the wheat from the chaff.
- kewldude606, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1bwmiller: you aren't very smart.
let's say everyone sorts by number of diggs and then someone submits a new and interesting story. Everyone is sorting by # of diggs, so no one sees it.
And I don't see the point of digging promoted stories other than trying to get them onto diggnation...but it sounds like you digg every promoted story.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Or, in a truly Warholian Digg site, everyone will have a front page article once.
- lorensingley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I feel the phrase "Can you dig it?" coming back with a vengeance...
- Wenz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I can digg it digg it digg it digg it, he can digg it digg it digg it digg it, she can digg it digg it digg it digg it....ohhhhh let's digg it, can you digg it baby?!?
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Giggity giggity goo
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's distasteful, but probably won't matter much. Most CNet articles were already being submitted to Digg.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You have CNet confused with MacRumors, Wired, Ars Technica, and Engadget
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And you probably haven't been paying attention to submissions.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mcbesq - You'll probably see Engadget have a button soon that says "Netscape This"
- n3td3v, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is Cnetnews.com putting a link to the Digg submit a story form supposed to be a compliment?
Every second news story on Cnetnews.com is cringe worthy nowadays.
The majority of Digg users do not want Cnetnews.com stories on this website.- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The majority of Digg users do not want Cnetnews.com stories on this website."
In that case, we shouldn't be concerned about this feature because they won't be covered here then. - oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Until they autosubmit stories to digg. Not possible? Hey, someone types those up for CNet! They just add entering the captcha as part of the process and boom. Then even if not *all* of the stories get dugg, they still have story sifters hitting their site, and occasionally *some* will be dugg to the front page...
Like I said, artificial popularity.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The majority of Digg users do not want Cnetnews.com stories on this website."
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hear Google knocking at the door.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would indeed be a nice feature on Google News. Would be an interesting chain of news too, with Google News acting as a man in the middle that ties Digg to their auto-covered news stories.
- n3td3v, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Google already own Digg, its just not been confirmed in public...
- Impetouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another attempt at getting trafffic. And of course traffic= $$$. Ohwell, thats great for CNet.
- one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1attention whores
- real, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Heres to the Digg team "Cheers"
- volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cnet is dead to me... They were my home page for so many years from when I was in elementary school until early high school if I remember correctly when they really started to blow.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The very fact that you had a home page in elementary school makes me feel old. Our school didn't get its first Apple ][ until I was in junior high.
- BillyEveryteen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Mark this lame, we need less CNet stories on Digg, less I say!
- n3td3v, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Done. (I thumbed you up, and burried the story...)
- morphie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's why digg is so great. If people don't like CNet stories, they won't get it to the frontpage. :)
- Rotkiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good for digg.com! (applause)
- TheViewMaster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0I *HATE* c|net!!! :-(
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Weren't like half the stories on Digg from news.com.com anyway? :)
- rprins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What would be nice to see (don't know if it's possible), is if a story is submitted that the link to digg.com/submit changes to the submitted story. That way you could cut down on the dupes and people could all digg the same story just by clicking the link. I don't know if it is possible, but that would be a great feature to see in the future when the digg API is released.
- V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's good to see digg getting such recognition. Kudos to everyone!
- steeel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Amen!
- Sc0rian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is bad to be honest, this sucks.. digg are either making money from cnet.. or cnet are just being hit whores as usual..
- heretic24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0"It's good to see digg getting such recognition"?
WHY? What is it DOING for you? It's links to mostly tech articles, maybe 1/20th of which are of any relevance to any one person, most of which are navel-gazing about digg or look like they were submitted by drooling illiterates. What's the killer app? What are you so hot for? What's the big deal? Pray tell! - dimmerswitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Simply a smart move. They've been around long enough to know how to play the game well.
- aidanm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sometimes... when I am on other forums reading (e.g. newsarama.com) and read someone's comment that I don't like - I go to give them the thumbs down... but then I realise there is no button there. I hope digg ultimately takes over EVERY SINGLE FORUM.... {insert evil laugh}
Or, alternatively, that a similar set up is created for every forum on the net. - sed8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is good to see CNET embracing social bookmarking, but I have to agree, when you see how much traffic a site gets after being 'dugg', who wouldn't be interested in increasing their profit margin from it.
I am concerned Digg's popularity will ultimately be it's undo-ing, as I already see many 'spam', 'offers' and duplicate stories being posted when sifting through real-time and popular 'upcoming' stories. *sigh* - ArcaneDevice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2everybody wants traffic ... any way they can get it.
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was more impressed to see the same thing on a BBC article last month
- ThisDateAndTime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with everything sed8 had to say. Digg just needs to stay ahead of the curve, so that it doesn't become dull.com
(ok, that was lame) - Hergio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bad idea! Talk about causing tons of duplicate stories to appear on digg now. I clicked on one of the links and there were already 3 duplicates...stupid stupid stupid!
- heresy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder how much CNET has been paying Digg recently or vice versa. Every CNET article about Digg praises it and CNET articles have been on the front page an awful lot. It has become more apparent with the recent CNET Digg 3.0 article. They were too busy advertising digg in the article to actually point out the flaws and problems with many of the changes.
- Books, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow that is pretty awesome. I think it's safe to say Digg is very very successful now.
- lemieuxster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep, there it is. To the right of the sneezing head.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At first it sounded like they were ripping off DIGG and others...
nope they got submission buttons for their stories to the popular social sites. - lordbal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a smart idea yes because it brings in a gizillion hits for CNET..
- IncognitoCraven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No it's not cool. The proliferation of all the "deli.digg.flick.us this" button ***** all over the place is stupid. Is it so hard to cut and paste? What about using a bookmarklet (or extension)? The amount of bandwidth and screen real estate wasted on these distractions most certainly outweighs the benefit of the occasional "digg". This just decreases the signal to noise ratio, hooray!
- PSPon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should have one 'super' button, where it un-collapses all those buttons. I don't want to see them, even though it's good to see Digg getting some recognition. =)
- T1MBO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Reuters news have been doing this for a while. http://today.reuters.com/news. Their RSS feed includes a del.icio.us , digg this, and seed this options.
- Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The website 2old2play does the same thing. They post everything they write here as though it's news and even send people back to digg on their site just to generate more artificial hits. Hell, in their forums they talk about how they unsubscribe and resubscribe their own podcast just to generate a higher tally on the iTunes web page.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is