14 thoughts on “Does Google Digg It?”

  1. This is something I’d recommended clusty.com to experiment with 6 months ago or more. Unfortunately, it never happened. 😐

  2. More likely it’s a reddit feature as I see it .. I don’t know, I feel the design and ideea it’s more reddit then digg. But frankly I don’t get it ! Why would they experiment with such a thing ? They have search history and with that they can see if you click on a link and how much time you spend on that site … that’s basiclly more relevant then users clicking arrows !

  3. Kevin,

    that site is a hot tip !! (I’ve been looking for an engine that does this for several years !!

    for example, if you’re looking for hotel deals (or something like that):


    However, the number of sites searched is limited — and I feel the results should gather “duplicate recommendations” into one “meta” list.

  4. ps: I expect that a company with more computational resources will soon come out with a similar engine (searching across specified sites) — such that the results would actually be “live” (instead of simply regurgitating google’s cached results)

    BTW — note also that I can create a single list ranked according to “google score” by doing a search like:


  5. On the toolbar they also have voting buttongs

    and up until about a year ago on some SERPs they used to invite users to give feedback about the SERPs and suggest a site that they did not find.

    One wonders why Click tracking isn’t being used by Google to get some grasp of the overall effectiveness of the search page

  6. Voting is a great idea for Google. Especially true considering the need for more relevant search results. User generated content is one thing, how about user moderated content?

  7. OK, does that mean battellemedia.com is sexy or not?

    How about sohbet spam — would you give the top ranking page the thumbs up or the thumbs down?


  8. nmw,

    “such that the results would actually be “live” (instead of simply regurgitating google’s cached results)”

    Allth.at actually has the best “live” results I’ve seen out there… They serve google or yahoo’s cached results as a worst case. Their approach is for any given site, to first search the API (if available), then search their RSS feed (if available). If neither an API or feed is available, they will serve cached results. Because of this, the site is AWESOME for craigslist searches (talk about “live” results). Obviously, they need to spend more time integrating API’s for other sites though. More here:


  9. Cool — I dugg the RWW article (even though I’ve found the site has censored my comments before, so please be warned that the site should be “taken with a grain of salt”) and I’ll pass on the link, too.

    Thanks for clarifying that — seems to me that something like this should give a reasonable ROI for anyone who is looking to extend their reach in search.

    However, how difficult is the code? Is it patented? etc.?

    Just yesterday I tried to ruffle some feathers with this tweet: http://twitter.com/nmw/statuses/473094552

    ;D nmw

Leave a Reply to Fred Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *