digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Google Experimenting With Digg Style Voting On Search Results

techcrunch.com — If you saw this one coming, give yourself a very large prize. Google is experimenting with Digg style voting features on search results that allow users to vote up or bury search results they see.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Coolaborations, on 11/29/2007, -10/+190It should be interesting to see if Google is able to build something like a community of spammers out of this.
    • geminitojanus, on 11/29/2007, -9/+75Just like Digg!
      • loof, on 11/29/2007, -4/+41Why is it that every voting system is now referred to as digg style. Digg didn't invent voting.
        • Hase0, on 11/29/2007, -4/+21What do you mean dig didn't event voting???
          Next you'll try and tell me it was invented in ancient athens LOOL NUBS
        • geminitojanus, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I was referring to the "community of spammers" component.
      • mem2, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1because the general digg populace consists of ill-informed narrow sighted morons.
    • Po0py, on 11/29/2007, -5/+46I think the whole point is to bury the spammers.
      • EndersGame, on 11/29/2007, -3/+10Exactly, they should put more emphasis on burying and very little emphasis on 'digging up.' If thousands of people digg up your google result, it won't affect your placement much in the search results(the sites traffic and other factors should bear more weight). But if people are consistently burying your result, marking it as spam or what have you, it will be omitted or show up near the end of the results. Google has the know-how to pull this off right. I think the system is more likely to be abused if websites start warring and burying each others results.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 11/29/2007, -2/+25Right, so that companies can bury their competition in the search results.

          SEO companies will have a whole new lease on life as they push their clients up while digging everyone else down.

          While it sounds like an interesting idea. the potential for abuse is enormous. Google hasn't figured out how to stop PPC fraud; how could they possibly stop this from being abused?
          • Po0py, on 11/29/2007, -2/+4Agreed. It could be wrecked with abuse if it is not done correctly. I'm glad Google have their thinking hats on though. It's reassuring that they are looking into stuff like this. If the web is going to be cleaned up it has to have the big guns making the first steps.
        • dandonia, on 11/29/2007, -2/+4I think the system would work well only if it gave you the option to filter via most diggs or standard google results with the diggs at the side. That way the digg does not effect your search results too much but its there if you need it
    • Haecceity, on 11/29/2007, -1/+54Given that your vote only affects the results you see, and not anything anyone else sees, it's not at all likely.
    • GeorgeClayton, on 11/29/2007, -4/+4As long as google comes up with some ways to prevent spamming, this would be awesome. :)
    • Genma, on 11/29/2007, -0/+14rtfa poster is confused, congratulations you got the buried inaccurate prize
      • RAdams, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7Not only was the OP confused, but this is old news. It has been sitting in Google Labs for some time now. I was playing with it at least 3 months ago.
    • rpgmaker, on 11/29/2007, -5/+11Dear Google,

      WE DON'T WANT THAT. Democracy has proven to be a flaw concept. Digg is a perfect example, regardless of what you may say just a few (and by few I mean like 25) users get to the front page from the millions users that Digg has. I believe in your algorithm, we all do.
      • Raptor007, on 11/29/2007, -0/+9You only affect your own results, not other people's. I agree that this would NOT work if it applies your preferences to other people.

        On the other hand, the search results are already somewhat democratic, being determined partially by links.
    • Chirp08, on 11/29/2007, -1/+3This should only be applied to sites that don't have adsense. Otherwise the compnay with the most people to vote it up is top of the list. I interned a casualty of the dot-com bubble that provided top 10 lists for everything, it was pretty much a top 10 search engine. The company was overtaken and turned into "top 10 by who's paying the most". Needless to say it failed with the bubble, but this isn't much different.
      It sucks because its very useful, It would be nice to weed out the ***** of results, but it's gonna have to be one hell of an algorithm to be effective.
    • i208khonsu, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2It would be great if they could expand the personalized search results into group search results, or even better if they would incorporate the personalized results of people you select as "friends".
    • canadaboy, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1If I was Google - the "dig points" would have nothing to do with promoting sites. I would track and cross reference users that promote "seo spam" and then downgrade all their choices. Which would increase the good sites, without ever having to apply positive points to a site, avoiding the "25 person influencing factor". Yup - I would use the algorithm in reverse, only to weed out bad sites based on cross referencing those 25 person influencing factors. What remains will be the wheat.
  • spuddy, on 11/29/2007, -7/+26So, is it time to flame google's blog posts like so many did for yahoo for a very similar event? (http://digg.com/tech_news/Yahoo_Shamelessly_Rips_O ...
    • AlmostEvil, on 11/29/2007, -12/+3I think the google thing is merely influenced by the Digg system, whereas Yahoo's was pretty much a total rip off of Digg.
      • orangysb, on 11/29/2007, -3/+17Oh stop kidding yourself, digg's voting system definitely wasn't original, people flamed Yahoo simply because it's the cool thing to do, just like how people flame Microsoft and laud Apple, and Google happens to be Apple in this case.
        • lukasmach, on 11/29/2007, -13/+1Nope:
          - Digg applies digg-style voting to news aggregation
          - Yahoo aplied digg-style voting to news aggregation
          - Google aplied digg-style voting to search
          You don't see the pattern here?
          • dansmeek, on 11/29/2007, -1/+9Digg applies style-voting that had been used by other sites before and became popular.
            Yahoo applies same style that had also been used by other sites.
            Digg users feel special and think Yahoo must be steeling their ideas.
            This is the correct pattern.
          • spuddy, on 11/29/2007, -1/+3Actually Yahoo "aplied" digg-style voting to a suggestion board, not news aggregation. In fact Yahoo even gave props to digg for having a nice system. So, no. I don't see a pattern here.
    • sgtpppr, on 11/29/2007, -0/+11Compare the two titles in the digg posts. Think that pretty much sums up biased reporting.

      Google Experimenting with Digg Style Voting v. Yahoo Shamelessly Rips off Digg
    • auralcircuitry, on 11/29/2007, -5/+5Well, Yahoo sucks.
    • elvenseven, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1Those days we use to work together!
    • FutureGuy, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4Google is God. Anything it does is Divine. Even when it shamelessly asks the whole world to go "open source" while closely guarding its own sources. There may also be another reason, after Facebook decided not to be acquired by Google, Google launched opensocial thing, Digg decided to dump Google for advertising, Google fires back with this. Its a carrot stick approach, take our carrot or we give you the stick, divine stick that is.
  • Jacob3d, on 11/29/2007, -5/+49I think Google's search mixed with human voting on results is the best search solution out there. There are many times when you are searching for something and there isn't a good result within the first few Google results, these could still be ranked at the top however it would be nice to have a dialog saying how many people found this article helpful for the same search so that I automatically know not to even try those first couple of results to get at the stuff I want.
    • EndersGame, on 11/29/2007, -1/+3The system has so many uses too. Of course they obvious intention is to be able to bury results that are spam, but they could tweak it so you can mark some results as pornographic or NSFW. User controlled content worked so well for news sites like Digg, I think it will have the same effect for search engines.
    • AdHaR, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7"I think Google's search mixed with human voting on results is the best search solution out there."
      Human? If this digg-style voting is ever applied to the general index, there will be spam bots developed all around to *digg-up* their site, and as a result the quality of a google search will go down.
    • rpgmaker, on 11/29/2007, -1/+2I can't wait to see how the spam will infest google after the implementation of this voting system. Just imagine those almost payless Chinese people burying and rising the spam links on the search results to their will.
    • elf25, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I concur. Many times I search for something and "review" only to get pages and pages of bogus shopping sites offering users a chance to purchase and make a review and the page shows zero reviews. Those are NOT real reviews. So obvious I'm surprised google has not fixed this.
  • drewolanoff, on 06/10/2008, -9/+3i like having a say in what i see/dont see rather than google deciding for me
    • HUKI365, on 11/29/2007, -13/+71I prefer Google deciding what I see rather than a bunch of Ron Paul spammers.
    • ufia, on 11/29/2007, -4/+1I can't wait googling for topics about Linux or some such and only getting results about "only Ron Paul can save America", "Giuliani is a fascist psycho", or "Hillary is a witch". This gonna be so great. And of course, I totally won't know that Pauly's spambots are gaming the scores.
    • CCoe, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1I'd prefer Google over you.
  • haentz, on 11/29/2007, -3/+51Will they add comments in search results as well?
    • rudy23, on 11/29/2007, -0/+11have you been to youtube recently. try visiting the comments section.
  • PatrickA, on 11/29/2007, -4/+26I think it's a great step forward. Who wouldn't like the ability to permanently stop certain sites ranking for certain queries? Maybe you hate Wikipedia and want it to disappear, now you can.
    Personal search already alters results based on your history, this is just a way to give it a helping hand.
    • Azimuth1, on 11/29/2007, -1/+12Or just, you know, type -wikipedia.

    • geminitojanus, on 11/29/2007, -3/+10something -site:wikipedia.org

      Google's a lot more powerful than you think if you know how to use it.
      • Bender1001, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6But who wants to always have to add a -wikipedia to every search you do?
      • rudy23, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2unix users exposed.
    • Batiu-Drami, on 11/29/2007, -0/+15But, how can you hate Wikipedia?!
      Oh, the humanity!
      • Murdats, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10maybe he has a moral objection to knowledge, or the general public possessing knowledge
        wait, now I think about it, maybe he is part of the administration.
      • mediatedthought, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2I felt the same way. wikipedia is wonderful
      • Raptor007, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia has a bad habit of making judgments about what is "notable" and therefore worth keeping an article about. For a user-supported effort, some admins enjoy/abuse their power too much.

        That being said, I welcome Wikipedia in my search results. The articles they DO have are usually well-rounded and informative, with lots of useful related information.
        • Murdats, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1you can always protest this, and if enough people feel the article belongs there it should get reinstated.
    • Plastic3D, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4Big businesses would love this, that's who would love the ability...
      I think it could potentially backfire if there's networks of people who will be able to crush the little people with a little organization and a few clicks. That's why Google has been so great, is that the little people can get some great rankings.
    • scubakyle, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2It would be nice to get rid of expertsexchange.com results. I hate it when I accidentally click on one of their results and realize that I don't want to pay for computer help - that's why I'm using the internet.
      • sat0shi, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1I thought you were looking for expert sex changes.
      • Agret, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1If you view an expertsexchange result you'll see the question then blurry comments on it that you require registration to view, but if you scroll right to the bottom of the page ... past the bottom even you can actually view the answers without logging in or registering. Kinda cool :P I found it out after hitting the End button in a random rage attack at getting the site up again lol
  • NathanielJ, on 11/29/2007, -3/+124...except that this is nothing like Digg, since your votes only influence what YOU see, not what anyone else sees.

    Digg didn't invent voting, eh?
    • orangysb, on 11/29/2007, -3/+7Well i would say Google would certainly take your feedback into account in their search results, it would be extremely dumb not to do that.
      • Raptor007, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3Don't you mean "it would be extremely dumb to do that"? You had an extra word thrown in by mistake.
    • orangysb, on 11/29/2007, -8/+2Zz double post, bury.
    • mxstone, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3I agree that it is nothing like Digg initially. Imagine though when google has enough data from people digging up/down results so that they also launch Google Social Search, which will be compiled completely with this data or possibly a hybrid of both.
  • junkyinny, on 11/29/2007, -4/+168heard a rumor once about ... digg did not invent voting..
    • outsid3rNo17, on 11/29/2007, -2/+9Blasphemy! What are you going to tell us next? That Kevin Rose did not invent AJAX?
    • OssianHanning, on 11/29/2007, -3/+8Buried article as inaccurate. You don't HAVE to cram in "Digg" into the title/description just for the sake of it.
      It's plain old-fashioned voting, for christs' sake. Nothing is 'digg-style' about it.
    • coreyb, on 11/29/2007, -3/+1No, they just perfected it...

    • sappysyrup, on 11/29/2007, -2/+0Are you going to tell us the pope isn't Catholic next?!
      What an outrage...
  • Syphon8, on 11/29/2007, -5/+73So every searches top ten results will contain at least 1 page on the iPhone?
    • weir, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2I wish I could hit that little green thumb 100 times for this comment
    • FadieZ, on 11/29/2007, -2/+2Not if I have anything to do with it.
    • iamaelephant, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1Read the ***** article.
  • prezzy, on 11/29/2007, -12/+3This story gives Kevin Rose a boner!
  • cr3ative, on 11/29/2007, -1/+39I encourage this change - I can then get the chance to vent my frustration at Experts Exchange.
  • goerg, on 11/29/2007, -5/+61as long as they dont copy the fckd up comment system...
    • xfitzyx, on 11/29/2007, -7/+1Or the ***** up spelling...
      • xfitzyx, on 11/29/2007, -0/+0Since when was "fckd" the correct spelling of "*****"?
    • tjkisst, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Or even have a gazillion spam comments.
  • ggarron, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7Yes, but I do not think that it could be a good idea to put the results of voting to work for everybody's search, I mean you votes should filter only your search, otherwise is dangerous.
    Lets say:
    Some people at Wendy's may start burying the result that came with Burger King when you search for Fast Food (Just an example)
    • insomniacal, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2If Google thinks incorporating people's digg up/down votes into their top secret formula for general search results will make people love Google more ... they will. And they won't consider it "evil," either -- they'll consider it progress.
  • tartina, on 11/29/2007, -1/+0i see/dont see rather than google deciding for me
  • Pooley, on 11/29/2007, -2/+39This isn't Digg style voting at all. Your vote only influences future searches from your own account. Can you imagine how people would game Google if this was every to be fully implemented. Companies would be hiring people to create new Google accounts and vote themselves up and rivals down. It would be chaos.
    Besides, Google's success is in the accuracy of their search algorithm. It doesn't require human approval on top.
    • Elliuotatar, on 11/29/2007, -6/+4People already game google. Do any search and like 80% of the results are useless pages which are filled with junk links to other pages filled with junk, and of course lots of ads.

      If your votes influence your own results only, who's going to bother to vote? My own votes aren't going to put even a tiny dent in the wrong results I get. It's not like I search the same terms every day. You've been able to filter results for months, and I haven't bothered with it at all because it just won't make a difference.

      Digg style voting would be great.
    • insomniacal, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3How do you know Google isn't working people's votes into general search results? We don't know what their uberformula is.
  • daxsymbiont, on 11/29/2007, -10/+1digg style algorithms is the FUTURE of democracy.

    imagine a system without rulers, without central big-brothery computer systems, only a cluster of computers owned by citizens that ANYONE can raise questions/requests/ideas and anyone can vote them up ..or potentially down.
    • GRTWHT, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1"digg style algorithms" - where some people's votes mean more than others: Elect the president with 50 votes? Constitutional amendment with 200?
      • daxsymbiont, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1security would be the primary concern.

        security would also involve avoiding having a centralized system.
  • morph988, on 11/29/2007, -7/+2They are slowly getting you used to the idea of censorship and you guys are absolutely eating it up......yum yum....give me more censorship
    • insomniacal, on 11/29/2007, -3/+2... and you were dugg down for that? I guess when you point out the relationship between censorship with Digg, people only hear "Digg" and embrace it.
  • Haecceity, on 11/29/2007, -1/+13Inaccurate. The voting isn't "Diggstyle" because a voter's choices affect only the results he/she sees.
  • mal1964, on 11/29/2007, -2/+1More clutter.
  • sincewednesday, on 11/29/2007, -2/+2Not surprising at all, considering they were playing with reordering results at their searchmash.com experimental site before.http://www.searchengineguide.com/searchbrief/senew ...
    The feature isn't there anymore, so I guess it "graduated" to Google Labs. http://www.searchmash.com/about/features.html
    I guess Google now has an entire farm system of experimental search features. Class A = searchmash, AAA = Google Labs.
  • om3ganet, on 11/29/2007, -3/+3buried for the excessive ads on side of page that got past adblock
  • tymme, on 11/29/2007, -0/+17Bye-bye expertsexchange.
    • gfindlay, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5Did the surgury cost too much?
    • webcrumb, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2I felt the same way when I tried to buy my girlfriend a birthday gift from whorepresents...
    • wattersm, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I wish I could permanently ban that site from search results.
  • geekchic, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4The Google toolbar has had up/down voting for several years already. Admitedly, they were very coy about what, if any impact those buttons had - but the concept of "Google votes" has been around for some years.
  • MeatBiProduct, on 11/29/2007, -1/+2This is the easy way out of organizing a search engine.
  • HollowMarkeD, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Where do I claim my prize? :P Not surprised if Google are going to start giving more weight to websites in social bookmark sites such as delicious and google bookmarks as well - what better way to measure popularity than seeing how many people bookmark that site. Already its sometimes better to do a google search with "site:digg.com" at the start to get the really good stuff.
  • sapped, on 11/29/2007, -0/+9Well, there goes my Greasemonkey script I guess...
    http://www.langenhoven.com/code/gsearch/gsearchrat ...
    I created this to help weed out useless sites for myself. The advantage of Google doing it for me is that my preferences are now easily remembered from one machine to another.
  • asforme, on 11/29/2007, -1/+2It sounds like a good plan, but I wonder...
    If I bury a result will the result never show up, or just not show up for that search query? I think the best implementation would be two separate votes. Vote/Bury overall quality of a result and Vote/Bury relevance to a query.
  • mega22, on 11/29/2007, -5/+0wonerful
  • saigumi, on 11/29/2007, -3/+19Crud, if this was global.. that would be horrible!

    ( dijkstra algorithym ) [Google Search] [I'm Feeling Lucky]

    Ron Paul - +23,593 Gigs
    Vote for that one guy...
    http://www.ronpaul.com

    iPhone - +21,649 Gigs
    Buy this because you don't have a soul without it.
    http://www.apple.com/iphone

    Tasers suck - +19,572 Gigs
    The man is holding us down again, fight the power!!!!!!
    http://example.com/taser

    **Shudder**
  • ruddy, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5being able to vote on something doesn't make it digg. does the US have a digg styled government? no...
    • Defuser, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3Well, if you mean "Only the lunatics actually bother to vote, and have therefore insured that all we get is the same tired topics, over and over again", then yeah, we DO have a "Digg-styled government."
    • whatsupimphil, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2No, they don't let us bury politicians.
  • insomniacal, on 11/29/2007, -6/+1So much for diversity of opinion. Now, majority rules even facts and information.
  • pumpedvideo, on 11/29/2007, -2/+3It is gonna fail..thousands of Indian will keep on voting to manipulate the search result.
  • epohs, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4A way to opt-in to these experiments

    http://www.google.com/experimental/
  • angito, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1If they do try to integrate it with everyones search results I think it would be best if it were optional and not on by default, so if I don't find what I need immediately I could sort it by rank to see what comes up. Another concern I have is that if they don't have decent bot protection it could just lead to a new way for advertisers to shove their sites down our throats...
  • EricAnderton, on 11/29/2007, -2/+2OMG. As long as I can turn it off, I guess it'll be okay for some searches.

    I like to search for programming stuff online. Typically, I like to dig deep for obscure or hard to find topics that usually are only found in ACM texts at the library. Vote-based ordering would be disasterous for this kind of stuff since there's probably only a handful of people who would vote such stuff up in the first-place. It's bad enough I have to sift through dozens of "Ruby Sucks" and "Ruby Rocks" articles to get what I want *now*.
  • KenSPT, on 11/29/2007, -4/+1This is going to do more harm than good. You're simply encouraging others influence the search results to fit their best interest. You're going to have a ton of people "digging" websites that they're associated with, thus causing smaller, more useful, websites to fall into the backdrop.
    The concept isn't a bad one, but it should be an extra feature as opposed to a staple on the search page. The searcher should have the ability to choose from "classic search results" or "most user approved search results". Atleast then the manipulation won't effect everyone.
    • PFinn, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1did you read the article? It states specifilcally that this only applies to an individual's search results... your voting will in no way affect my searches
  • hpymondays, on 11/29/2007, -4/+0Good. We'll be able to bring back the top search result for "miserable failure" (those who remember this googlebomb will appreciate it)
  • KenSPT, on 11/29/2007, -4/+4This is going to do more harm than good. You're simply encouraging others influence the search results to fit their best interest. You're going to have a ton of people "digging" websites that they're associated with, thus causing smaller, more useful, websites to fall into the backdrop.

    The concept isn't a bad one, but it should be an extra feature as opposed to a staple on the search page. The searcher should have the ability to choose from "classic search results" or "most user approved search results". Atleast then the manipulation won't effect everyone.
  • nightsweat, on 11/29/2007, -6/+3Really bad idea. It'll lead to the same campaigns for special or commercial interests that you see here for Ron Paul.
  • jacquesm, on 11/29/2007, -2/+1they just lifted it from here: http://zataka.com/

  • p51d007, on 11/29/2007, -4/+1I quit using google a few months ago and use ask.com 99% of the time.
    If google goes to this reporting idea, it will screw it up as much as the wacko's that dig up goofy stories on digg
  • Treoinmypocket, on 11/29/2007, -6/+1***** THAT. I'll make my OWN assessment of my OWN search thank you very much. DIGG style voting is crap when it comes to this - its politicised bs. IF they allow for options where u can take a DIGG'd search or the standard then fine but down throw it all one way.
    • mrjofo, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Luckily, that's the case, which you'd see if you'd only bother to read the web page.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Oh well, if you are going to NITPICK....
  • Lennalf, on 11/29/2007, -6/+1This is a terrible idea. Let some other company ruin their own search engine by adding this "feature." I don't want a bunch of bible thumpers rallying to bury my porn!
    It's like Google is saying, "Remember how fun those Google bombs were? What if every search could be like that!"
  • xdeliriumx, on 11/29/2007, -2/+1So did they make an offer for Digg yet? I would hold out for a few billion...
  • jlawson1, on 11/29/2007, -4/+1So does this then mean, that Digg>Google????
  • kahrn, on 11/29/2007, -2/+6People are inherently stupid. People will vote up things without any valid reason, just as they do on digg. Even if it's amazing content and very helpful; people might not understand it and will vote it down, again, just as they do on digg.
  • kenbiz, on 11/29/2007, -2/+2sounds interesting
  • aiya, on 11/29/2007, -3/+1i hope they dont implement this system. i can already see 'google farms' being set up all across the world to push up websites if you pay them. or 'digg' you down if: they dont like you / you dont pay their ransom.
  • gklitt, on 11/29/2007, -4/+1I think this is a pretty good idea. Some people say that they don't want other stupid people deciding what they see. Have they considered that all search results are already determined by people? People linking to websites is what the Google algorithm feeds on.
    • Defuser, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3You're missing the point. NOW the search results are being determined (partly) by people who want to PROMOTE certain sites. A Digg system puts search results directly in the hands of the most obsessive and insane dregs of the Internet. Is that really what you want? For example, let's say you want to do a search on "Presidential Candidates". I hope you're happy getting nothing but ten thousand Ron Paul links, interspersed with a few billion "Truther" links, because that's EXACTLY what you'd get if Google implemented a Digg-type system. It wouldn't even remotely be about what the majority thought: just like on Digg, it would only be about what the crazy, "spend every moment of every day hunched over their keyboard with insane drool dripping down their face" contingent thinks.

      Or, to put it another way: if you have one person in a group of a hundred who's screaming their head off and flinging poop around the room, it would be a gigantic mistake to think that the poop-flinger is representative of the other 99.
  • DominicNeagle, on 11/29/2007, -1/+1Well there's two possible problems I can see with this. The first one is obviously going to be all the spam sites and companies who will employ people to vote for their site, and bury their competitors' sites. Thankfully if the system stays as it is (ie. votes only affect the search results of the voter) then this wont be a problem.

    The second problem is that, just like personalised search, it can mess with the SEO techniques of web developers. Some developers go all out when it comes to SEO, but having people adjust the ranking of websites will totally negate all their efforts. Again, as long as the voting system doesn't affect anyone else's search results other than the voter's, it won't be a problem.

    It'll certainly be a useful thing to have though. I too, hate Experts-Exchange. ;)
    • fullphaser, on 11/29/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I don't mind Wiki being the first on the list because they actually have something useful, but experts exchange really needs to go suck a chode.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    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.