Cool, I found myself laughing in this dark and silent hour of the night.
Although it would screw up #10, swearing and linking to porn are pretty surefire ways to avoid the digg mob. -j
The irony here is that this post will get on digg's homepage and get at least 1000 diggs (I think around 1765).
Having a page be on a subject that 12-year-olds can't understand will guarantee that it won't be dugg.
Make sure to actually have content within the paragraphs requiring someone to actually read it and not just in the headline and they'll never digg it.
You had 10 items. *AND* you were the source of the story. You're a shoe-in for the front page.
> Submit in Chinese or French. Other languages work as well
Many Polish sites that want to be Web-2.0-ish included "digg this!" button. I also saw similar trend on... porn sites. That's dumb! They got baned from digg, but still keep digg button (because it looks cool?).
Digg it: digg.com/tech_news/How_to_Not_ ...
Some SEOs had a name for this kind of post, but I forgot it...
All fine, except for one thing: at the moment, nobody loves Britney. Even Britney herself.
TAC: "linkbait" is the term you are looking for.
30 DIGG's and climbing – should be hitting the front page soon ... ;-)
yup, you're on the front page now.
2 hr sprint to the front page, not bad, though i bet if you made a site now covering all the ways to not get on the front page you would probably still make it to the front page.
wow that sounded so much better when i thought of it and so much worse while reading it
Yup, 125 diggs last time I checked. you got 125 in 7 minutes.
You broke all your own rules!
1. You were the source of the story.
2. You didn't focus on revenue.
3. Your title was not misleading.
4. It was submitted in English.
5. It was dugg on the first day it was posted.
6. You were very to-the-point.
7. It wasn't boring. You especially failed here, because you made it entertaining.
8. Your spleling was near perfect. ;)
9. Although it was implied, you weren't really critical of digg.
10. You used exactly ten items.
You fail! Nice job making the front page!
Oops, I mistyped up there. You had a total of 175 when I posted that.
You now have 293 after 45 minutes. Haha.
Who cares about DIGG? Even if you do get on front page, it's artificial traffic. It'll last maybe a few hours and possibly your servers would go down and your site inaccessible to the legitimate users who would normally visit.
Besides I think del.icio.us is the best.
Reddit is ok.
i don't know what else is out there.
but who cares.
ha ha.. well done., thanks for the laugh :)
that was awesome ... nice job ... now what about getting on the digg wanna be sites like ... nyooz.org ... or ... mename.com .... got any advice for those sites ???
(it's a joke)
This is the most absurd fluff-piece I've ever read about Digg. You can't be serious in proposing your list contains ways to NOT get your submission Dugg, but then again, on a blog branded "80% Google," maybe you are serious, in an unmistakable "can't-take-me-seriously" kind of way.
While I've sensed a locked mentalitly on this blog the few times I've dared visit it, and expect my advice will go in one ear and out the other, let me give you a few hints anyway as to why what you suggest is wrong point by point.
1. Ensure you’re not the source of the story.
Most Diggers who submit popular items are NOT the source of the story. Diggers spend an incredible amount of time on submissions that lead us to CNN.com, WSJ, The NYT, Engadget, Gizmodo, and even other social bookmarking sites such as Slashdot and Newsvine, which 99% of the time are just regurgitating links to the original source. That's most of the front page news on Digg...where have you been lately?
You even back this absurd suggestion up with an equally absurd example:
"Let’s say CNN breaks the news that Steve Jobs dates Britney Spears. This is potential Digg material – geeks love Apple, and the rest loves Britney – so what you need to do is pull a short quote from the CNN article, optionally with a link to CNN."
If CNN broke the story first, what else would the Digger link to for his submission? Should he write it up on his own blog with a link to CNN and submit that? Wait until there's a video of Steve Jobs or Britney admitting to the relationship and submit that? The second idea yes, obviously that would be better, but when Britney and Steve fail to admit the truth after a few weeks, a potentially big story on Digg dies sight unseen because YOU said no one should link to CNN for the first story about it. If linking to CNN is the only way to get a certain bit of news out to Diggers, what's wrong with that? Really? Do you think we can all write or find original content every day of the year just to put on Digg?
2. Focus on revenue.
You go a little wild on that one. Most bloggers and news sources have ads on their sites so they can make money off of their content, which doesn't make them a dime just sitting there being read, commented on, and linked to. Their ads were up long before before their site was ever submitted to Digg, and they're not going to take their ads down just to satisfy the aesthetic requirements of Diggers, who are mostly an AdBlockPlus with FilterSetG crowd anyway...in other words, Phillip, they will never see an ad anywhere for as long as they live, be that the next hundred years, because they're using special programs to block or filter all of them out. I am an AdBlockPlus with FilterSetG person myself. I will never see an ad for as long as I live, either, so let them run all the ads they want. Diggers can't see them so don't suggest that we care!
4. Submit in Chinese or French.
I can't believe your list was so lame you had to include that tip just to stretch it out to ten items! How many people submit to Digg in Chinese or French, anyway? If they do, let them. Their stories will be reported as spam and/or buried because no one understands what the hell they submitted in the first place, so let it be. More Diggs for the rest of us.
5. Post old news only.
Joke's on you, Phillip, over and over and over again. If I were to list all the "old news" currently in the top hundred Dugg stories this year you would fall asleep before you got done checking out the submissions. The current sentiment on Digg when a commenter complains that a popular story is old is, "It might be old to you, but it's news to the rest of us!" These stories, if they get really popular, can go on to get 2,000-5,000 Diggs in just a day or two. I'm not going to give you a few current examples. I'd rather that you visit Digg yourself, spend some time there, and learn what Diggers are after (they're after anything they like, and what they like is more subjective and hit-and-miss than you could ever imagine).
6. Beat around the bush.
Oh, so should everyone submit a ten point bullet list or a one or two paragraph article to Digg until reading for both pleasure *and* informative value is just a thing of the past? I've only had one story become popular on Digg and even *I* thought the goddamned thing was too long. It was a good story, though, it was original, and it was mine, and it went on to get nearly 3,000 Diggs, so toss your ideas about length, story structure, and the blogger submitting their own work out the window, OK? Some of my favorite Digg stories are 3 page long technical reports, blog posts that meander on for oh, 10 or 20 paragraphs...you get the idea.
All you're doing is encouraging the drive-by attitude of impatience and quick data-mining that Digg's read-em'-and-leave mentality encourages so much in the first place. Thanks.
8. Include spleling errors.
Weak, very weak, Phillip. Everyone makes spelling errors. I've found spelling errors on WSJ, on news.com.com (C| Net), on blogs written by normally brilliant people; I make spelling errors, too, and chances are, so do you. You would've been much better off emphasizing that ur l33t haxxr skill$ will get you buried on Digg much faster than a spelling error or two ever will.
9. Be critical of Digg.
I don't know how to break it to you, Phillip, but it's just not cool to be an ass-kisser on Digg. People are tired of stories on Digg about Digg, they're tired of Kevin's mob of fanbois, and they do not reward kissing anyone's ass. Don't be critical of Digg? Of Kevin Rose and Alex? I'm not saying to do so is right or wrong, but it's done all the time, to no ill effect. Do you not remember the uproar last summer over people gaming Digg and other related news? if you read the comments to those submissions you'd see Kevin got killed in them over and over. He also got a lot of support in those comments. I'm not saying either camp is wrong. I'm saying you're wrong to tell people which side to line up on.
10. Use 9 or 11 items.
In honor of that last so-called "suggestion," the next list on my blog will have 8 1/2 items, and the one after that will have 7. Both will be insanely popular on Digg. My prediction.
Honestly, what an absurd article. I hope you monetized with AdSense or some other sure-fire scheme, not that any Digger will ever see, much less click, on your ads (they won't) because your inaccurate post is being consumed by some of the Digg sheeple even as I write this.
> "Let’s say CNN breaks the news that Steve Jobs dates
> Britney Spears. This is potential Digg material – geeks
> love Apple, and the rest loves Britney – so what you
> need to do is pull a short quote from the CNN article,
> optionally with a link to CNN."
> If CNN broke the story first, what else would the Digger
> link to for his submission? Should he write it up on his
> own blog with a link to CNN and submit that?
I should've stated more clearly that I was referring not to the Digg submission containing the quote, but a *blog post* containing the quote. I thought it became clear by writing about "ensure you're not the source" and mentioning that the link to CNN is "optional", but I edited this sentence for clarity now.
All your other points are either overgeneralizations that I just don't buy ("Diggers can't see [ads]"), crucial misunderstandings of intent ("you're wrong to tell people which side to line up on"), pretending the world is in an either-or state where you can't write a nutshell *and* be in-depth ("encouraging the drive-by attitude"), or what looks and feels like trolling ("I'd rather that you visit Digg yourself"), so I'll pass. Thanks for your feedback anyway.
Interesting, Nice Job.....
[URL signature removed – Tony]
The problem with Digg is that only 30 members dominate it. I posted great breaking stories and videos which got in one day on del.icio.us popular but on Digg they got like 1 to 5 diggs. Digg is broken. It does not work for the average Joe.
Besides, the alternative, reddit also accepts non english stories de.reddit.com
but nobody seems to notice...
Does it "look and feel like trolling" to you? Good.
You know what "looks and feels like trolling" to me? Submitting a top ten list to Digg on how to not get your story to their front page when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your actual knowledge of Digg is nil. Using an insult to deflect attention away from your ignorance is probably the biggest troll there is, but hey, I'll let it pass.
Maybe next time visit and get a feel for what goes on at a website before you do a big write-up about it (but don't pick my website, please! I'd probably have to sue you just for the sheer amount of details you'd screw up).
<< You know what "looks and feels like trolling" to me? Submitting a top ten list to Digg on how to not get your story to their front page when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. >>
Erm, except Philipp didn't submit the story to Digg.
Now who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about?
But hey, I'll let it pass, because I have a sense of humor... ;-)
You can't write something everyone will agree with, but this story was funny and showed some silly mistakes made by people who really want to get dugg and some misconceptions of Digg's mob (the ad thing, submitting your own story). And the irony was perfect: the story was a perfect candidate for digg's homepage.
It even got > 1000 diggs.