digg.com headlines - you got to have something really catchy?

I didn't want to post this to marketing or copywriting forum, so I thought to post this to general chit and chat.


This morning I submitted new story to digg.com

http://digg.com/music/YouTube_s_New_Terms_Still_Fleece_Musicians_2

It's picked from wired.com website, link to original story:

http://blog.wired.com/music/#1523392 (which btw. doesn't have proper permalink )


in 8 hours story got 4 diggs (only ???!!!!), which I think is quite surprising, specially since this story hasn't been posted there earlier... atleast I think so, I didn't got any warning of douple post etc.


As you can see, story is about youtube.com and their "fishy" terms regarding copyrights with uploaded videos.

I found this story fairly "hot" and interesting, it should concern lot of people/artists who are uploading their own material to youtube.com


But it got only 4 diggs?


What is going on with digg.com? I don't understand this 'digging' dynamics. There has to be rings which are digging some stories and leaving others untouched or the headlines are really important? You've write something like 'stop the press!' to the headline?






ps. This story doesn't have anything to do with my websites or whatever... I just thought sharing example what can happen to "interesting" stories in digg.com or something....

 

Me thinks they're not all that into music... I submitted this:
http://digg.com/software/Music_Search_Plots_Suggestions_on_3D_Map_-_Filter_By_Lyrics,_Tempo,_Rhythm

Which went nowhere pretty fast as well - I've had 3 or 4 homepage Diggs though

 

I think if you combine just about anything with tech, it will go over well. But it has to be techie. Think geek

 

try to mention web 2.0 somewhere.


i hear it works.

 

If your story was "Google and Apple release new Open Source Web2.0 AJAX application that runs on Ubuntu" you get a front page. Otherwise you struggle.

 

i was disappointed at mad4's post when i realised there wasn't a 'digg this' button.

 

LOL, no more diggs from me, I got banned for talking about Web 1.0.

 

yeah, maybe digg.com is too much spinning around technology and stuff.

I just thought 'youtube' alone would have been sexy enough to create attention, but I might have been wrong.

 

Checking your story... and it's really interesting, atleast for me.

I've been wondering this same "searching" problem quite a lot.


Yes, well... I'm making music myself, so maybe that's reason why I found wired.com article interesting. Specially since these "fishy terms" seems to happen sooner or later with all popular sites where you can upload media content. It was same with mp3.com, if someone remembers the site.


Hmm... are there any similar sites to digg.com, which would have little bit wider range of topics and interests, than just tech stuff?

 

Shoutwire, Netscape.

 

I visited Netscape's news-service or whatever it was and I escaped there quite fast. It didn't really inspire me.


But I'll check Shoutwire today, thanks.

 

I do recommend shoutwire. Can you give us a link to netscape news service?

 

http://news.netscape.com its ok i dont like it near as much as digg or shoutwire though.

 

There's not really a lot stories or "diggs" = users.

I don't like the idea about using term "channels". It's so 'old-skool'.

 

worst digg headline i've seen to date:

"myspace the next google?"

*sigh* now i miss the slashdot of 1999

 

heh.

Well... slashdot was pioneer website.

 

Hmm... btw. so what would have been the selling headline for "my story"?

"Youtube terms are ripp-off for the musicians"?

 

Just use the words Nintendo, Apple, Digg and CSS