Should Google Include Digg Listings?

[WeRASkitzzo]

There's a big debate brewing about whether or not Google should return Digg results in their listings? Its not like they offer unique content...

Search Engine Journal covered the start of the debate and I've written up a blog post with even more details.

What does everyone think?

[lorien1973]

why not? they show bizrate, shopping.com and they don't offer anything unique either.

[fsmedia]

I think it's better that Digg does because it directs users to the top leading articles while those specific sites may not have the authority to rank as high as Digg does. I think in the end it does benefit the site that the article is on

[ahkip]

how often does a digg page rank higher than the original article?

[fsmedia]

very often from what I've seen

[Loco.M]

Digg is a great site to get linked back from

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by ahkip

how often does a digg page rank higher than the original article?

It's happened to me personally.

Btw, you can digg that article here, see for yourself what ranks higher once they both get indexed:

http://digg.com/tech_news/A_Response...Google_Results

Will be interesting to see.

-Michael

[WeRASkitzzo]

Yeah, Digg outranks things most of the time (unless you have a really strong site) or get a lot of links to your article.

In the article I proposed a sort of compromise in which Google would list Digg and the other SB sites as sub-listings of the original content. What do you guys think?

[titoni]

Obviously digg is google's favorite .

[WeRASkitzzo]

Sure but the question is, should it be? With all the new social bookmarking sites becoming more and more popular, I think we're well on our way to seeing SERPs dominated by these sites.

I mean, taken to the extreme, Google could basically be providing Digg and Reddit and all the rest a way to get their foot in the door and become a new Search Engine of sorts (although Digg's current search function kind of stinks). Either way it's definitely something to consider.

[titoni]

Both contents and links of Digg and Reddit are fresh. and popular. . Maybe fresh and popular are more important than duplicate

[Monty]

Digg is a web site, Google index web sites.
There is no reason why Digg pages shouldn't be indexed.
But if Google do is job right, there is no reasons for a page from Digg to rank higher than the original page.

[WeRASkitzzo]

Right but from a searcher's standpoint, wouldn't you want to be taken to the original content, rather than have to click through again to get to the REAL content? I mean isnt that why people complained about directories dominating the SERPs? Isn't that a big complaint with MFA sites?

Originally Posted by Monty

There is no reason why Digg pages shouldn't be indexed.
But if Google do is job right, there is no reasons for a page from Digg to rank higher than the original page.

Yeah, I agree. I have no problem with the Digg pages being in the index, I just don't think they should be ranking as high as they do...

[ScottFish]

Well I do agree with what most of you have said, but Here's my take on things....

Google will always strive to show the most relevant results. If digg has the best content regarding a keyword search, then they should be shown in google's SERPs. Just like wikipedia shows up often, any other site that has the latest and relevant info, should show up often.

[JEET]

As a searcher point of view, I would like to see the "full story page" listed above in search engine result pages than a "short summary" of it.
That would be useful for the end user, in this case the person searching...
Bye

[WeRASkitzzo]

Originally Posted by ScottFish

If digg has the best content regarding a keyword search, then they should be shown in google's SERPs. Just like wikipedia shows up often, any other site that has the latest and relevant info, should show up often.

Sure, i agree with that, I just don't see how a Digg page could be MORE relevant than the article or content the Digg page summarizes and links to. I mean maybe with all the comments but half the time those are a bunch of "You're an idiot. No YOU'RE an idiot" remarks...

Plus, Wikipedia is at least original content, not just a summary of another article.

[ScottFish]

Yea, I do see what you mean Skitzz...one answer could be that many of the new articles simply arent crawled and indexed yet. Digg users can sometimes be faster than Yahoo!

I do think that "first mover advantage" has a lot of weight in Google's eyes.

[gabrielangel]

If only Google's duplicate content filter worked correctly, then the original articles could rank higher than digg's. Digg is a dangerous place. It's easy for people to spam and it's tempting for non spammers to move towards the dark side.

[mani]

Originally Posted by gabrielangel

If only Google's duplicate content filter worked correctly, then the original articles could rank higher than digg's. Digg is a dangerous place. It's easy for people to spam and it's tempting for non spammers to move towards the dark side.

Digg is secure in this case, because they ban the sites which spams.... and this is the best place for you to get backlinks for your site... one of my article related site have got a lots of visitors and backlinks from dig... if you got a dig from a top user then you are lucky because you will be at high PR profile page of that digger

[WeRASkitzzo]

Originally Posted by gabrielangel

If only Google's duplicate content filter worked correctly, then the original articles could rank higher than digg's. Digg is a dangerous place. It's easy for people to spam and it's tempting for non spammers to move towards the dark side.

Well, I don't know that it really WOULD keep digg ranks down. I mean all in all the duplicated content is minimal (unless of course a digger copies the whole post over as I mentioned). But even then, you've got all the normal digg code and content, plus a summary, plus who knows how many comments (if the story becomes popular that can be a lot) that are all original and unique content.

I just don't see how those comments and the rest of the unique content, can, by definition, be more relevant than the article or content the Digg page links too....

@Mani, Digg certainly does provide good links, but this isn't a one or the other discussion. Couldn't you get both a good link, AND the higher ranking in the SERPs? Plus, which would you rather have if you could choose only one? A link that might bring you an instant boost in (fairly low quality) traffic, or a top ranking in google for whatever subject your article is about? I think I'd pick the top ranking most of the time since Digg's traffic rarely does anything but shut my server down.

</rant>