Talk:Digg/archive

This page has been the subject of two past deletion debates: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Digg and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Digg (2). Although the page was deleted and protected in May 2005, many users have asked to recreate it due to the site's rising popularity. For reference, its Alexa rank was 21,087 as of March 11, 2005, and has risen to 8,295 as of July 28, 2005. Please do not speedily delete the page (as it is new content), and please consider these facts before re-nominating it for VfD. Rhobite 01:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Digg has now become an internet phenomenon, in the top 2000 in Alexa rankings and growing rapidly. The vid/pod casts are being featured in mainstream media outlets. It should not be deleted.--Nundeeram 23:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get that number? According to [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=digg&url=http://www.digg.com/] its traffic rank is 8222. Rhobite 05:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

---

I am willing to help you with the page - [Anthony Timberlake]

The deleted article is already informative, I use digg but was unaware of some of its history. Without this article how can more information be added, and edited as is the Wikipedia way? How is a page that says 'deleted' more use? There are good points as to self promotion and the like, however digg certainly seems to be a rapidly growing phenomenon in itself and this Wikipedia entry mess only goes to strengthen that argument.

As others have said, you need to organise a Vote for undeletion and persuade everyone there that you have a well-wriiten article, more than a couple of dozen users on the site and some kind of notability (I can guarantee you that getting deleted from wikipedia will not count towards this). Concentrate your efforts over there rather than here. adamsan 13:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to note Digg has recently been listed twice in Votes for Undeletion and failed both times, that leads me to believe it would just fail again if undeletion were proposed in the near future without further explanation of Digg's importance. Digg might be a growing phenomena, however, it has been judged that, so far, it is not yet big enough for an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Slashdot has appeared in the media, Digg the web site does not even show up in a google news search, though a company that once used DIGG as its stock symbols does show up. On the other hand, many bloggers have mentioned digg.com, for instance: [http://davesipaq.com/news/005084/ipaq_digg_pocket]. And Kevin Rose apparently is considered notable enough to have his own article.

Another oddity is that Diggnation has an article although Digg does not: to use an analogy, this is kind of like having an article on Microsoft Word but not Microsoft Windows. --Mysidia 13:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Excavation meaning Digg is a common typo for Dig. The explained reason for the protection is due to this reappearing after a vote for deletion. See [1].

If a person wants to write a good encyclopedic article, then I think that person should do so and submit that, which would be nice, but so far the article for Digg has been two or three words: the merits an article has can be judged only based on what has been written already, not what we believe others might write before some person who knows enough specific information about the subject has decided to write something: if the article is just two words, then it is just two words.

So far the Digg article has seemed to be about self-promotion, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; I say this mostly due to remarks along the lines of "Slashdot has an article, Digg should too,"

And I think an article could be fine, provided Digg is really that notable a web site, but four words is not an encyclopedia article, and an article should not be submitted until at least least enough contextual, encyclopedic information has been written to make a decent stub.

Obviously, a good article is not an advertisement, which is what two words and a link is usually viewed as.

They have protected the redirect now, so if someone wanted to write the article at this point, however, I am thinking you would need to contact an admin or post at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion to make a good article for Digg --Mysidia 14:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the plugs for the website are now spilling over into the excavation article. Please could an admin consider removing the redirect that's currently here? I don't really buy digg as a common typo for exacavation especiaally as we have articles on Dig!, DiG, The Dig, Dig Dug etc. Maybe this could point to a Dig disambig? adamsan 09:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DIGG

Digg is going to excavation inadvertantly. Digg is something else, it is a verb and I have adopted to this format. It should be listed in the Wikipedia.

DIGG ARTICLE

Digg, digg.com, is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allowing an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do.

The site recently updated to version 2.0 which added some new features such as friends and boasts a cool new interface designed by the same people who did the Mozilla.org site.

Once a story is submitted by a user it is instantly posted in the digg area queue. This is a temporary holding place where stories wait to be promoted to the homepage. To help promote stories to the homepage, a user need simply visit the digg area and digg stories you think are cool.

digg v. - To vote for a story on Digg.com

Once a story has received enough diggs, it is instantly promoted. Should the story not receive enough diggs, or is reported, it eventually falls out of the digg area queue. Digg works because a large group of people actively promote good stories to the homepage. Since the site's content is user-driven, it is up to the users to contribute.

Submitting stories is easy. A user needs to first register and login then simply click on "submit a story" and enter the URL of the story he or she would like to submit. Then fill out a title, description, and category for the story. Should the user encounter a potential duplicate, he or she should digg the original story and do not submit a duplicate entry.

Digg allows for the syndication of their content. There are currently two types of digg news that can be added to a website: digg homepage news and digg user news. If a user would like to add the latest Digg homepage stories to his or her website then all that is needed is for that user to simply click .add digg news. on the digg homepage right navigation. To add digg user news, (a users latest diggs, or someone else's) then visit the user's profile (digg.com/users/username) and click "add this feed" in the digging history navigation.

Digg also allows for stories to be posted to a user's blog automatically when he or she diggs a story.

That doesn't have quite the right tone for an encyclopedia; it seems more like a HOWTO for using the website. Thue | talk 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The current version ([2]) of the real article is doing a good job so far. Thumbs up :). Thue | talk 19:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

After the article had been deleted according to policy (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Digg), it was recreated more than once. To prevent this, I had intended to redirect it to "Dig" (spelling variation) but found that we didn't have an article by that name. The closest article we had related to the word "dig" was the one for excavation. I redirected and protected, to prevent the recreation of deleted content. I have now been informed that the excavation article has been receiving digg related vandalism. Because of that, I have changed the article so it no longer redirects but is still protected. The article has been deleted per VfD and should not be recreated. SWAdair | Talk 30 June 2005 02:33 (UTC)

What's the deal? The vote page you link shows an overwhelming win for "keep". — B.Bryant 1 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)

The administrator who decided this one obviously chose to discount suspected sockpuppet votes. This is standard practice. The main VfD page states "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted..." To ensure that it is the Wikipedia community, and not an active special-interest group, that decides a vote, more weight will be given to votes from logged in users who had accounts before the vote began. This prevents a non-Wikipedia group with a vested interest from skewing the vote. SWAdair | Talk 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. — B.Bryant 6 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. All I have to do is spam 100 edits on Wikipedia in any timeframe and I'm automatically inducted into the Wikipedia brotherhood and no longer considered a possible sockpuppet suspect? Given this information, what's to stop the unwashed masses of Digg users from coming back at a later date after fulfilling this requirement and voting for it again? Seems kinda silly to me, especially when there are other so-called articles that have been around for a while have much less informative content than the article on this very page. I'm sensing a bit of hypocrisy here and it doesn't sit right with me. And, for the record, [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=digg.com digg.com's] [http://www.alexa.com/site/site_stats/signup?site_url=digg.com+slashdot.org&range=1y&widget=g&style=c&submitted=true&mode=graph&range=1y&amzn_id=&site_url= traffic rank] according to Alexa at the time of this writing is grossly larger than [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=slashdot.org slashdot's] if you want to compare a new submission to a relatively mature one and the trend shows that this difference is growing wider with each passing day. Soon, Digg may even surpass in Slashdot in traffic as a news aggregation and community site. Beware of your site getting Dugg ;) --PacoBell 10:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that traffic graph demonstrates is that you don't understand what a logarithmic scale means. Rhomboid 13:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Point conceded. I must have been looking at the wrong graph at the time. ^_^;;

That vote that I linked to above was the original VfD. It was listed again here with consensus to delete. SWAdair | Talk 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Try [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=large&y=r&url=digg.com#top] (type slashdot.org into the box and hit the compare button) --Mysidia 13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a template specifically for this situation. Take a look at Template:deletedpage. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Digg is a very fast growing internet phemnomenon that is truly unlike anything else. My hometown of a mere 12000 people (Hopkinton, MA) has an article, and therefore I fail to see how a site that has been created by famed TechTV personality kevinrose - a site that has also spawned a podcast that has been recently mentioned in the new york times, (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/arts/22heff.html&OP=28fe8ebeQ2F-XEZ-MKdxhKKQ5EQ27-Q27IIY-I)-Q27Q27-5hQ5Ex-Q27Q27bEAAQ7CbQ5EjB) isn't enough justification for there to be an article about digg. It simply makes no sense. --Exoendo 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It has been over 2 months since the last vote for deletion and the site's popularity has increased tenfold in this time, does anyone think that an undeletion vote would go through now? --Anonymous, 26 July 2005

I just unprotected, as the website does seem to be getting notable. Thue | talk 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Another fun tidbit about Digg...it recently shot into the Top 5000 Traffic Ranking on Alexa.

Explanation of terms?

What does "It combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical, more democratic, editorial control" mean? I could have read that on digg's site, but I came here for more elaboration. I specifically am curious what RSS and this site have in common.

Is there an RSS feed for this site which I can place on my personalized Google webpage?

68.49.142.108 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is an RSS feed on the front page of Digg. It basically lists all the front page stories. Here's the feed link if you want it: http://www.digg.com/rss/index.xml --Bash 20:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct capitalization of Digg/digg?

At the beginning of the article a "technical limitations" tag on the article's title was put in place by user Flydpnkrtn. Assuming this is correct, why do I still see digg with a capitalized "D" all around the article? Is "digg" really "Digg?" --crumb 03:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, the site calls itself "digg". The article should be changed for consistency. Rhobite 04:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the warning about the technical limitations regarding "Digg" vs "digg." The lowercase d in digg in the logo is clearly stylistic in nature only. "Digg" is actually correct seeing that it's a proper noun. I'm also changing the instances of "digg" to "Digg." Kevin Rose and the designer also refer to the site as "Digg" on their blogs. If you have any disagreements please post them here, or on my talk page. --Hoovernj 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)