I’m not entirely sure why, but searching Google Images for “Digg” displays this picture first!
There’s a debate brewing about whether Digg should appear in Google search results. On one hand, Digg creates no new content. On the other, it’s drawing more traffic than the original stories. It all started with Allen Stern over at CenterNetworks.
I just do not understand why Digg shows up in searches on Google. Don’t get me wrong. I think Digg is a good service and provides many sites with a good bit of traffic. For example, TechCrunch reported that 80% of the traffic to the site comes from Digg.
My belief is that this is not enough to warrant a listing in Google. Since at its most basic sense Digg only offers a link to the actual story, then that story should occupy that position within Google, not the Digg link. I believe content publishers actually lose the chance to see that visitor because the person has to click twice and even understand that they must do that.
Markku Seguerra over at The Blog Herald agreed:
If a site doesn’t necessarily produce the content, or is not the first hand source on a story, it should not rank better than the oldest most relevant resource. But would search engines agree?
Muhammad Saleem chimed in with an opposing view at The Mu Life:
Not only should Digg should be included in Google search results but it makes sense that it is ranked higher than the actual article. This is because content on Digg is not derived from a single source, rather the popular content is often from hundreds of entirely different sources, each of which doesn’t produce content of good enough quality with enough consistency and regularity to warrant a PageRank higher than Digg.
By allowing Digg results to appear in Google, the search engine actually allows people to access the good content on lesser known sites, without requiring the site owner to have a substantially high ranking in the Google system.
Digg is a works as a mechanism for creating a repository of information that the mass majority finds to have either informational or entertainment value. This goes hand in hand with how a search engine should work, i.e., by providing the most useful information first.
Perhaps its time to set our search engines to list by proxy….
that is, to list Digg, but specify also the link for the referred article.
otherwise, blog sites, like this, and worse-so, all the kids out there, dilute the search results. For that matter, I’ve even had a MySpace blog show a result in google.
The problem with digg, and many other aggregate sites is the ranking is over represented by tech oriented young males. That’s fine if you care about gaming, Linux builds, and who’s hot.
I might be interested in these results (digg,blogs) if they weren’t completely and utterly useless most of time.
Is it on the internet?
Then it should appear in search. Who the hell is anyone to start dictating what does and doesn’t get included?
Would it be so hard for search engines to have an option to exclude blogs and Digg if the user doesn’t want those results?
4 “Is it on the internet?”
It’s not really that simple. Isn’t the real purpose of a search engine to find the most relevant result? Which result is more relevant: The link posted on Digg or the actual story itself?
I personally think that Digg and Blog postings should be included in search results as the comments can be illuminating. Sometimes you’ll get a different take on the story or more related links. But there should be a way to filter them out.
Have the Search Results list first the actuall story follwoed by “sub results” that include digg, linking blogs….
Result
Blog
DIGG linking to blog
Have the Search Results list first the actuall story follwoed by “sub results” that include digg, linking blogs….
Result
Digg linking to result
Blog
DIGG linking to blog
Blog linking to blog
blog linking to blog linking to blog
Other site stealing content
Other site linking to site
Result 2
Digg linking to result2
Blog
DIGG linking to blog
Blog linking to blog
blog linking to blog linking to blog
Other site stealing content
Other site linking to site
Result 3
Digg linking to result2
Blog
DIGG linking to blog
Blog linking to blog
blog linking to blog linking to blog
Other site stealing content
Other site linking to site
Make it colapsable, so those only wanting the original content see them, those wanting the sources referring to the original can see them as well.
Barring a system like this, make sure that if result is mearly referring to another site, that what it is referring to comes first and that the referred to site is mentioned in the description of the referring site
Is she kissing a glass dildo?
8. “Is she kissing a glass dildo?”
Good question. The picture is actually quite famous. It’s of Cristie Kerr. She’s an LPGA golfer and she’s kissing the golf trophy she just won. Why the trophy looks like a giant glass penis is beyond me.
“Is she kissing a glass dildo?”
Damn, bet me to the punch. Actually, you should ask yourself why was it that you thought of a dildo? Freudian slip perhaps? Wishful thinking? 🙂
Now getting back to Digg, I must confess that I’m an addict. Digg results should show on Google.
You can talk all you want about content and who should get the page rank, but #3 is right. I as the end user don’t want to see blogs at all for the fact that they are useless most of the time.
From personal experience I’d like to see Digg items high on a list of search results. Digg story usually contains user comments and related links by people who are interested in the story. This leads to very useful info, most times better than just the original story by itself. Fortunately, Google search typically reflects this. Example: just yesterday I searched for public domain movies/videos, remembering related Digg story. Digg story came up 4th ot 5th. While first three results were more focused than the story on Digg, I got what I wanted from Digg comments about the story and the overall best result for my search have been posted within those..
13. Good point. Well put.
You don’t get yahoo search results within a google search so why get digg results? Blogs should be in google since they are content, not just pointing to content ala digg.com.
You don’t get yahoo search results within a google search so why get digg results?
Your example isn’t good. Digg isn’t similar at all to a search engine.
Digg is much closer to a forum. I almost wonder if blogs and digg would be better placed belong under google groups search…
People keep talking about “show digg UNDER the real result!!!”
But a lot of these links would be page 4 or 5 if it wasn’t for digg. So do we bury the digg result or propel the real result to the top 10 results with digg?
So you either take value away from the user or open digg up to huge amounts of spam. Good deal…
As for #8, that’s called raw unprocessed data. The concept of google is that you don’t have to see all the links to a site. Joe Shmoe User’s head would explode if they saw that!
Agreed on comments having links to other useful related stories, but I will also cede the point that digg comments are seriously broken.
#6I personally think that Digg and Blog postings should be included in search results as the comments can be illuminating.
Agreed. I can “filter” the results myself, mentally, as I scan down the list of results. We always do this anyway, don’t we?
Sometimes people’s reactions to a story become part of the story.
I thought all women golfers we’re lesbians!
What’s with the big glass dick?
Oh the oppression of women…
LOL