Comments on: Digg Tries Again To Bury Dupes

By: منتديات

منتديات — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:38:03 +0000

Good luck trying to accomplish this. Sounds like a daunting task

By: مركز تحميل

مركز تحميل — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:35:03 +0000

if i give you a tiny url, you need to “trust” that the issue is valid, and by then, you’ve already linked on the link. unless you have a well formed sandbox browser.. who knows what the heck can happen.

By: viky

viky — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:40:40 +0000

thats absolutely right.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:04:29 +0000

Digg is a useless site full with junk links on top. I am sure investors (VCs) are trying to get rid of it very hard. May be AOL would buy them for free to put them out of their misery.

By: Name*

Name* — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:50:40 +0000

Specify your canonical!

By: Raj

Raj — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:25:10 +0000

Good luck trying to accomplish this. Sounds like a daunting task

By: Ivan Lazarte

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:41:17 +0000

rofl so true. repeating and/of having no or half a story is great business.

also hilarious:
http://tinypic....=htv3nr&s=5

By: OOTheLibrarian

OOTheLibrarian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:21:33 +0000

Hold up a minute. TC author discusses “users often submit[ting] the same content over and over again” ?

By: Spencer Schoeben

Spencer Schoeben — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:20:13 +0000

I think this is a very good thing. However, I think they if it detects duplicate content from a different URL, it should add that to the main entry.

That way, when you are viewing the Digg entry, you can see all the places that the content is published. It would be sort of like how Google News shows you a story but allows you to read it from different publishers.

By: New Gadgets | Digg Tries Again To Bury Dupes

New Gadgets | Digg Tries Again To Bury Dupes — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:42:44 +0000

[...] Original post by Hostpundit – Hosting and Gadgets [...]

By: Kelly

Kelly — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:14:36 +0000

“…and whose to say which is more Digg-worthy…”

Who’s. Not whose. Who is.

By: timy11

timy11 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:32:39 +0000

hey jeff…

don’t worry… i’m convinced that 95-99% of the people on here think css is code!

but what you state is what i’ve said is a major, athough as yet, unexploited issue involving tiny urls.

tiny urls, obscure the underlying url, and is contrary to the entire issue of the DNS system.

and given the fact that an evil doer could in theory, spawn 100s of tiny urls with a number of levels between the tiny url you get, and the final parent url that’s the actual malformed page… this could wreak havoc….

have fun!

By: Vindexus

Vindexus — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:20:17 +0000

That is the big problem with digg, it takes a lot more steps to tag stories.. sneezing is a 1000 times easier.

By: BombayNinja

BombayNinja — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:08:34 +0000

True…

“Our boys wrote some code yesterday to see if multiple URLs point to the same page”

“Our R&D team came up with a solution that identifies these types of duplicates by using a document similarity algorithm”

I miss those days as an engineer where we used to mess with clueless business dudes. Glad to head the old trick is still in use.

By: sean percival

sean percival — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:01:19 +0000

This post, totally photoshopped.

By: Jacob Rothstein

Jacob Rothstein — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:53:20 +0000

Discriminating between those two (BS and legitimate things one doesn’t understand) seems like a big part of the challenge of the modern world. Too far to one side and you’re a sucker; too far to the other and you can’t learn.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:49:17 +0000

What Digg should do is transfer all the diggs from the duplicate article to the original article, that way all the duplication can be eliminated and there will be no bias.

By: Adam Gutterman

Adam Gutterman — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:48:16 +0000

Seriously, does anyone but 1000 or so crazy hardcore Digg users care about this?

By: Posts about Digg as of June 30, 2009 » The Daily Parr

Posts about Digg as of June 30, 2009 » The Daily Parr — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:40:55 +0000

[...] to capture the moment … or to use a reference from KJA’s creative director – snap a happy Digg Tries Again To Bury Dupes – techcrunch.com 06/30/2009 Since its inception, one of the biggest problems with Digg has been [...]

By: sir jorge

sir jorge — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:38:31 +0000

ever since the stopped allowing shouts, even my coolest content doesn’t get diggs..despite 400+ friends.

By: Kevin Urrutia

Kevin Urrutia — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:13 +0000

seems like it might work

By: geekevaluation

geekevaluation — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:22:25 +0000

techies have a new crush , twitter

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:18:54 +0000

Except that the sentence they used is completely legitimate… just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s BS.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:18:03 +0000

The bigger dupe problem is stories being submitted from the same site with slightly different urls that point to the same page. This should be easily solved since the resulting page are identical.

For stories on different sites, if the text content is 95% the same then there is a dupe. The problem is if someone submits a rip-off of the original article before the original is submitted. This could be solved by linking the different pages together under the same submission. You could then have some sort of flag people can set to say which is the original.

By: BombayNinja

BombayNinja — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:17:44 +0000

“Our R&D team came up with a solution that identifies these types of duplicates by using a document similarity algorithm”

Now you can create such sentences too: http://dack.com...b/bullshit.html