Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Digg Backs Down On DiggBar

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the frames-are-bad-mmkay dept.

Social Networks 180

Barence writes "Social news website Digg.com has made key changes to its recently introduced DiggBar. The browser add-on had been much criticised for its use of frames to 'host' third-party websites within the digg.com domain using an obfuscating short URL, thereby boosting its own traffic figures to the detriment of those third parties. After many major sites ran negative articles on the DiggBar, and even changed their code to block it, Digg has relented and announced two changes to ease concerns."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot Bar in the Works? (0, Offtopic)

JamJam (785046) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597135)

Curious, does anyone know if Slashdot is/was planning a similar feature? if so maybe now is the time we, the users, state our requirements...

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597697)

Okay, I'll start:

Requirement #1: Don't even think about releasing yet another stupid toolbar.

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (4, Funny)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598133)

What we need is a "uber-bar" that puts all of the various other bars into a frame to help us out.

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598279)

Oh yeah, that's a great idea [seomoz.org] .

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599091)

And then we can turn it off.

Can we get it to work with the Awesomebar?

I never thought I'd say this with a straight face (3, Informative)

StandardCell (589682) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598971)

...but reading the consistently and utterly ridiculous comments on Digg or Reddit stories has given me a new appreciation for the commenters on Slashdot. The toolbar was just the icing on the cake.

Re:I never thought I'd say this with a straight fa (1)

mallumax (712655) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599417)

It has given me a new appreciation for slashdot moderation!

Re:I never thought I'd say this with a straight fa (5, Funny)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599625)

The best of the best posts (the ones where someone drops a paragraph of science that just ends the argument, or blows you away) are still here at Slashdot, but the signal to noise ratio has been fading fast lately.

Overall I find Reddit's comments are better and certainly more entertaining than Slashdot these days. The first 20 posts top level posts here are always a mixture of Off Topic, Troll, or +5 Funnies that aren't actually funny.

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599363)

Requirement #2: In case Slashdot does choose to release a toolbar, see Requirement #1.

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598637)

Yeah that's just what we need, more CmdrTaco Special Web 2.0 in our browsers.

Re:Slashdot Bar in the Works? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598931)

They don't care what we think. They know we hate Slash 2.0. They know we hate the new user pages. They know we hate idle. They just don't care.

Do we really have to revive the 90s web (5, Insightful)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597155)

Remember: music starting automatically when you open a website, animated pictures, and of course, frames. What's the next, the unreadable background pattern [geekculture.com]

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (3, Funny)

Reapman (740286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598249)

Don't forget the Blink tag. Everyone LOVES Blinkie! Or the little Construction Icons... mmmmmmm

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (2, Insightful)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598751)

Don't forget the Blink tag. Everyone LOVES Blinkie!

Not everyone. Not me, anyway. The way I see it, there's a big problem with the blink tag -- it doesn't support an 'interval' attribute.

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (1)

MadJo (674225) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598381)

well everyone has a comeback these days, so why shouldn't web0.5 return as web3.0?

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598885)

Who knows, maybe font embedding will become new web0.5/web3.0 (who the hell inserted those ".0" anyway?).

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598397)

DIGGBEAT would have made a great April Fools joke, shame they just missed the oppertunity.

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (3, Insightful)

cripkd (709136) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598691)

Slightly offtopic: why the hell does youtube autoplays the movies when you open up a page?

Re:Do we really have to revive the 90s web (2, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598765)

What's the next, the unreadable background pattern

I have been on 1920*1080 notebooks for a couple of years and I have more problems with the unreadable foreground.
Every website seems to need several zoom clicks before being able to read something.

And don't even get me started on unzoomable flash crap.

Facebook (4, Interesting)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597185)

They do the same thing, I'm wondering why there isn't similar backlash. I hate them both, framing is such a 90's thing.

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597367)

Because no one uses it as an aggregator for other sites. Most of the time is actually spent on the site, with the goal of creating or viewing content on Facebook, not going to 3rd party sites to view their content.

Well that & I just checked the Facebook website, and I didn't notice any framing of 3rd party sites (which might be the other problem with your argument)

Re:Facebook (2, Informative)

DirkBalognapantz (609779) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597493)

Because no one uses it as an aggregator for other sites. Most of the time is actually spent on the site, with the goal of creating or viewing content on Facebook, not going to 3rd party sites to view their content.

Well that & I just checked the Facebook website, and I didn't notice any framing of 3rd party sites (which might be the other problem with your argument)

Good point. There is a difference of purpose with Facebook. BTW, Facebook does use framing when following a shared link that does not have built-in support for the site like YouTube.

Re:Facebook (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597613)

facebook, and stumbleupon, and pretty much every search engine's image search... I think the combination of the urlshortening and the frame was what caused the tempest in the teapot.

Re:Facebook (3, Interesting)

AmaDaden (794446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598117)

The URL shortening is what was causing the issue. They offered to drop if for sites that ask. For example the new york times.

Personally I like the digg bar. It's as unobtrusive as it can be, gives me a link back to the comments, and lets me digg a page when I'm reading it. I tend to browse diggs main page and open up a bunch of links all at once. Before the digg bar it was pain if I liked anything enough to digg it. Everyone should remember that it can be turned off on a user by user basis. Besides the fact that having it on is the default they are doing everything they can to not be jerks about it.

Re:Facebook (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598889)

you are a fucking moron.

Re:Facebook (1)

kokojie (915449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599619)

Agreed, I absolutely love the new digg bar, much better user experience.

Browser bars make me puke... (3, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597223)

I'm really just getting sick of Browser Bars and add ins to "help your browser". I think it is very ironic that Google Chrome's excellent interface is just one souped up text box that you type stuff into, with a smattering of buttons for favorites. Browser bars are just stupid.... unless someone pays me to write one.

Re:Browser bars make me puke... (1)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597291)

Yeah, Google's toolbar is the only one I can stomach and I don't like it very much either. I just set Firefox up so that I can search Google from the address bar.

Re:Browser bars make me puke... (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598879)

Firefox will do that out of the box anyway. Enter any arbitrary text into your address bar and it'll automatically query Google and either direct you to the most obvious match, or give you a more ambiguous search listing of possible sites.

Re:Browser bars make me puke... (3, Informative)

oskard (715652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597753)

The summary is wrong. It's not a browser add-on. It's a frame, loaded via HTML, like any other frame. It loads when you click a link on Digg.

Oh, frames REALLY make me puke. (3, Funny)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598335)

The summary is wrong. It's not a browser add-on. It's a frame, loaded via HTML, like any other frame. It loads when you click a link on Digg.

In that case, I amend my post to "frames really make me puke.", followed by, "web sites that use frames to hijack other web sites really, really make me puke." I thought framejacking went out with the early 90s?

Re:Browser bars make me puke... (1)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597755)

This bar is different than the ones you are describing. It is injected into any website linked from Digg, or using Digg's URL shortening service.

in other news fu backs down on fubar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597227)

fubar [wikipedia.org]

What I want to know is (5, Interesting)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597249)

... why is nobody screaming at Facebook about this, since they do the exact same thing that Digg was doing?

Seriously -- use the "Share" feature in Facebook to share a URL with your friends. Then click the link to read the shared story. The link will be framed with an obnoxious Facebook bar under a Facebook URL, just like stories shared via Digg were defaced, and with all the negative consequences that were associated with the DiggBar.

And yet while bloggers and SEO experts were up in arms over the DiggBar, I have yet to see a single story calling Facebook to account for this.

So if it's not OK for Digg to do this stuff, why is it ok for Facebook? Why the double standard?

Re:What I want to know is (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597279)

Because Facebook is dumb?

Re:What I want to know is (1)

Paul Pierce (739303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597305)

so do you like the DiggBar?

Re:What I want to know is (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597467)

No, it sounds more like a complaint about absent fury for Facebook.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597771)

Exactly, I think both are annoying as all get out.

Re:What I want to know is (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598499)

Furries? Fuck furries.

Re:What I want to know is (5, Interesting)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597515)

Why the double standard?

I'll take a stab at this. There is a whole cottage industry built around gaming Digg. It was a sweetheart deal, the "news sites" provided top-10 lists, tin-foil-hat opinion articles and short summaries of real news articles on real news sites mixed with a heap of ads. In exchange, Digg would give these sites enough traffic to make a living. Digg just violated the rules of this little deal and tried to take more than its fair share. Of course these guys are pissed--they had a deal, blackheart!

Nobody counts on Facebook traffic, so nobody gives a shit what Facebook does. But lots of these joints *do care* what Digg does cause if Digg shuts off their traffic, the party is over and the site folds.

Re:What I want to know is (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597693)

I find your comment pejorative. Facebook actually embeds ajax pdfs in their pages, so facebook traffic is in fact the driving force behind many adword campaigns. Not to mention that cottages have nothing to do with this.

Digg on the other hand sidesteps the mime interaction. So the diggbar does not induce any additional ad revenue, google analytics handles the exceptions appropriately.

Re:What I want to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597723)

what the hell kind of drugs are you on? your comment makes no sense!

Re:What I want to know is (4, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597799)

I wonder, would cracked.com even exist if it wasn't on digg's front page every other day or so with another top X list... Not saying they aren't entertaining.. but damn, they have alot of them.

Re:What I want to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597827)

Nope, that's not it. I have a snowball's chance in hell of having one of my sites appear on Digg (again). The one occurrence was a fluke, a lucky coincidence, if you will. I'm still opposed to the DiggBar. It's just wrong. It's worse than Facebook or other sites which also use internal redirects or even frames for external links, because Digg's primary purpose is to link to interesting external sites. Facebook is a social network. It also links to external sites, but the primary purpose is the communication between Facebook users.

Re:What I want to know is (4, Informative)

coaxial (28297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598643)

it's the fact that the frame was served to spiders. facebook doesn't do that.

It is amazing (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599441)

It is a amazing the sheer amount of politics that goes around pagerank and search engine listing. In an environment where your whole business can go tits up with a bad listing in Google, it is no wonder such politicking exists!

If you couple that with the fact that nobody knows what the fuck, exactly, makes Google like your page and you get quite a strange brew. Books and websites all passing around spells and potions with no scientific basis. People constantly thinking Google is somehow out to get them because their website dropped three positions for the keyword "smelly cat".

I have to wonder though if it is because most of the people who are tasked with SEO stuff don't think like computer nerds. In fact, I'd say maybe I'm wrong and the the people you really want to hire for SEO are guys with PhD's in statistics. Maybe folk who were actuaries in a former life or something. In the end, the entire theory of Google Search is nothing more than a bunch of damn statistics.

Re:What I want to know is (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597533)

Nobody wants to admit they use Facebook. But you did, sucker!

Re:What I want to know is (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597829)

Being publicly identifiable as a user of Slashdot had already killed any hopes I might have had of being considered cool ;-)

Re:What I want to know is (0, Offtopic)

spliffington (1130983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597545)

I would have to guess because facebook would like to know what site the user visits, how long they were there, and to take a moment to download their browser history and config.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597547)

Facebook does not offer their goofy bar as a public URL-shortening service. It's primarily for use inside the Facebook walled garden. The DiggBar option shows up in TweetDeck along with bit.ly, TinyURL, etc., and you don't need a Digg account to use it.

Re:What I want to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597567)

I'm confused how the Facebook bar is the same as the DiggBar. The DiggBar was framing other websites within its own. Unless I'm missing something, the Facebook bar frames...Facebook. Also, it's not even framed.

Maybe I just don't notice whatever wrongdoing Facebook is committing other than being an all around annoying site.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597571)

See two comments above yours. I see it as Facebook being a more general social site, where if you share a link, you're sharing it specifically with your friends, not like Digg whose sole purpose is to point people to websites. People aren't coming to my Facebook profile page to look for things, it's a few of my friends that might go see, whereas if something is Dugg, everyone on Digg might look and browse to that site with the bar intact.

Re:What I want to know is (5, Informative)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597579)

I'm a habitual user of StumbleUpon and I've never stumbled upon a page with a Facebook frame. After they launched that bar, I was getting tons of pages framed with it even after I'd used my Digg account to turn it off. I'm assuming this was just happening because people would link to it from Digg (or the Digg bar however that works) and then giving it a thumbs up with the frame in place. It was annoying me greatly.

Re:What I want to know is (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597631)

So if it's not OK for Digg to do this stuff, why is it ok for Facebook? Why the double standard?

Well, for one thing nobody cares about Facebook except a bunch of hormone-ridden kids.

Whereas with Digg, well, ummm ok, you got me on that one...

Re:What I want to know is (1)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597683)

That's because no self-respecting /.er uses facebook.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597761)

That's because no self-respecting /.er uses facebook.

Are you trying to imply that self-respecting /.ers use Digg?

Re:What I want to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597795)

Hmm, I'm guessing your are around 18 yo? Yes? Bashing FB was cool about this time last year. Move on.

Re:What I want to know is (1, Interesting)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597963)

Uh - try 43. Isn't it the 18 yos that are flocking to all these stupid sites? They can wire their cellphone up to tweet, fb, etc., but they can't code to save their lives.

Apart from having an apparent large group of virtual friends, what exactly does fb prove?

To be fair, linkedin is the exception to the rule. It has proven to be a good way to keep connected with old co-workers.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

GNUbuntu (1528599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598049)

Uh - try 43. Isn't it the 18 yos that are flocking to all these stupid sites?

So Mensa (which has a facebook page) is just a bunch of stupid 18 year olds?

Apart from having an apparent large group of virtual friends, what exactly does fb prove?

It doesn't prove anything and it's not meant to prove anything. It's a way for people to stay in touch with people they can't do in person.

Re:What I want to know is (3, Insightful)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598151)

Sure there are valid uses. My point is that the implication that I must be on FB, myspace, twitter to be relevant is what is annoying.

They are trendy fads that serve a purpose, but their importance and media attention seems overblown, IMHO.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

GNUbuntu (1528599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598535)

Sure there are valid uses.

Then maybe you need to stop making such broad strokes with your statements. You said and I quote "Isn't it the 18 yos that are flocking to all these stupid sites?".

My point is that the implication that I must be on FB, myspace, twitter to be relevant is what is annoying.

Where did anyone make the implication that you must be on any of those sites to be relevant? I guess I missed that.

They are trendy fads that serve a purpose, but their importance and media attention seems overblown, IMHO.

The same was also said about email and IM just a decade or so ago too. Get off my lawn.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598665)

"I came here for an argument."

Never mind. I made a silly comment. Obviously we could debate my broad statements for years.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599005)

No, he's right. Facebook and Twitter and the like are for attention-starved teens.

As for MENSA, having a high IQ does not account for conscientiousness or lack thereof. For example, I bet at least one MENSA member is religious. That alone smashes the credibility of the organization. And do they, in their infinite wisdom, realize that "mensa" is Spanish slang for "stupid female"?

Re:What I want to know is (1)

GNUbuntu (1528599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599277)

No, he's right. Facebook and Twitter and the like are for attention-starved teens.

And yet a huge portion of people on Facebook are neither teens nor attention-starved.

As for MENSA, having a high IQ does not account for conscientiousness or lack thereof.

Okay. That has what to do with my statement?

For example, I bet at least one MENSA member is religious. That alone smashes the credibility of the organization.

Why? Mensa isn't an atheist organization. Being religious in no way means you can't have a high IQ.

And do they, in their infinite wisdom, realize that "mensa" is Spanish slang for "stupid female"?

They probably don't care since their use of mensa is based on the fact that it's a Latin word which means table (also the root of the spanish word mesa).

Re:What I want to know is (1)

thomas.galvin (551471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597873)

Digg frames every link you follow, while FaceBook only frames those "Shared a link" posts. I've only seen the FaceBook Frame once or twice, and yes, it pissed me off, but I don't see it often enough to work up a real vitriolic rage.

Re:What I want to know is (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598629)

Every link on the front page led you to a permanent redirect to the diggbar frame page. This happened whether you were logged in to digg or not. This means spiders got the frame page, and thus the pagerank wouldn't propagate[*] to the linked to sites.

Facebook on the other hand, only serves the frame if you're logged into Facebook. That means you have to be a real person, and not a spider. Also, FB puts all their pages behind a robots.txt. Spiders only get a very short page that lists a name, a photo, and I think three friends. The rest is in the walled garden. That's another way that spiders don't get the framepage.

It's all about pagerank, and how Kevin Rose tried to steal it.

[*] Technically, there's still some flow because of the frameset, but sites with frames are horribly hard to parse in any meaningful way, so FRAME linked pages get penalized. Usually you don't notice when searching for some Java function call or something, because the terms are so rare, they only appear on those pages. Framed general text? You're screwed.

The People's Voice (4, Interesting)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597277)

This, the Facebook TOS, and I am sure there are several other examples of how new technology, (ironically) such as Twitter and Facebook, have allowed people and companies to voice their concerns with a product and produce results. I am willing to bet that 10 years ago if some company wanted to screw you over (even if they sent a letter to all customers) there would not have been a way to get that info out to the world in a quick and efficient manner as to get said company to change it's policy.

There were no marches, no organized rallies; just a bunch of people complaining in a way that is heard by millions, including those they are complaining about and other users/customers of that company. This is the power of information.

Digg This! (0, Troll)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597351)

Frames are the anti-christ of HTML.

The only practical use I have found is embedding certain types of complex content, like PDFs. Those should be hosted on the same site.

'nuff said

Re:Digg This! (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597511)

Embedded PDFs? Just like embedded office files? Wait, don't move, or go anywhere. You must be the guy who came up with that idea, let me call the firing squad. If you have a document in that format, let me download it and view it full screen, not in some 200x200 pixel frame with browser crashes and insane loading times.

Re:Digg This! (0)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597793)

Embedded PDFs? Just like embedded office files?

Wait, don't move, or go anywhere. You must be the guy who came up with that idea, let me call the firing squad.

If you have a document in that format, let me download it and view it full screen, not in some 200x200 pixel frame with browser crashes and insane loading times.

Ummm... so how does loading it in a full window speed up load time? I'm not talking about a small window embedded in a sucky ad-burdened-site. I'm talking about a 40 pixel banner at the top identifying the site and providing a simple set of text links for the app. Under the banner is the PDF.

Maybe I'm off-base here, but I would not compare embedded PDFs to embedded office files. PDFs have become ubiquitous enough to justify their use. Our app provides access to a very large collection of PDF docs and we want to provide an integrated view of them.

Re:Digg This! (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598597)

phpMyAdmin uses frames pretty nicely, IMHO.

Not the first, wont be the last (5, Interesting)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597383)

Didn't about.com or somebody like them try this stunt back in the .com days? Remember having to add that "break out of some assholes frame" javascript on every page? I guess nobody does that anymore, but back then it used to be standard issue. Course, back in those days people used frames, so it was probably easy to break out. Looks like digg is using an iframe to host the content. This begs a couple questions:

1) What does something like AdSense think about pages served in iframes? Will it throw off their targeting?
2) What does this mean in terms of SEO? Will google get pissy about you being in some jerk's iframe?
3) How the hell do you break out of an iframe in a cross-browser way?

I gotta say one thing though--how they have the comments "fold down" from the "Diggbar" is pretty neat. Course, the posters on Digg are all 12 year olds who find poo-poo, pee-pee jokes funny thus negating everything.

Digg is a weird place, it is like some kind of flash-crowd groupthink that is enabled by the unlimited ability to vote anything down. Slashdot's moderation system may have its faults, but it is the best damn system I've seen for a website with lots of traffic. Here, you can make a post that goes against the general "view" of the site and still get "+5 insightful" provided you are eloquent. On Digg, you could write the most insightful damn thing in the world but if it goes even a tiny bit against the bias of the article you will be buried into the floor with zero chance of getting read.

Re:Not the first, wont be the last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597745)

wikipedia.it is an ad filled page with an iframe to wikipedia. fortunately wikipedia has recently added the breakout javascript.

Re:Not the first, wont be the last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598563)

1) What does something like AdSense think about pages served in iframes? Will it throw off their targeting?

Uh, no. The thing about frames is that they are their own page. Think of them as an embedded tab. So the advertising works like normal.

What is different though is that their page is now surrounded by stuff from the site doing the embedding. So while all their advertising is still in place like normal, there is more advertising and crap from another site that they don't collect on.

Re:Not the first, wont be the last (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599541)

So the advertising works like normal.

Are you sure about that? It is served in an iframe, which would mean both your page and AdSense would see digg as a referer for all of that traffic. Something tells me google probably varies the ads it dishes out based in part on the referer.

Now granted, prior to DiggBar, the referer was already "digg.com". But the way diggbar works encourages people to hand out "digg.com/5849xdfs" instead of "yoursite.com/some-article.html". Those folk then use that "digg.com" URL in their blog, which not only gives digg the link-juice, but probably throws off the targeting algorithms used by AdSense (and those like AdSense).

In otherwords, technically you are right, but I think you are oversimplifying things. You need to consider what serving in an iframe does to the referer.

PS: It will also fuck up your logs. For example, if slashdot for some insane reason ran a story here and instead of using a straight link to your site, used a "digg.com" URL, you wouldn't know from the logs where all that traffic was coming from.

Re:Not the first, wont be the last (2, Funny)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598721)

Slashdot's moderation system may have its faults, but it is the best damn system I've seen for a website with lots of traffic.

Indeed. I'm regularly surprised that /.'s moderation system has not been copied/implemented in more places. No system is going to be perfect but /.'s does work pretty damn well.

I do believe (5, Funny)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597449)

This is the ongoing joke [diagnose-my-pc.com]

Re:I do believe (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597657)

That was awesome. I hadn't seen that.

in other news: fu back down on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597455)

fubar [wikipedia.org]

Hell, GOOGLE does this (2, Insightful)

cavtroop (859432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597489)

with their image search. Where is the outrage there, like Facebook others have mentioned?

Don't get me wrong, I hated the diggbar, and havent been to digg since they implemented it.

*sigh* No, it doesn't (5, Informative)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597591)

Actually, google very clearly puts the original URL on the top frame, as well as on the main results search page. Did you miss the part where one of the major complaints is URL obfuscation? RTFS!

Re:*sigh* No, it doesn't (5, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597797)

Also Google's image frame serves the purpose of providing the image directly, so you don't have to search through an entire webpage to find it. It's great for random image browsing.

Re:*sigh* No, it doesn't (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598735)

It was useless to me until I removed "moderate safe search" in the preferences ;-)

Re:*sigh* No, it doesn't (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597939)

I don't like the diggbar, but it also has the actual url in the bar as a clickable link

Re:*sigh* No, it doesn't (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599355)

Google's url eats up enough that most urls scroll out of the url box at my resolution. It's also an unparsable mess to my eye.

And the real problem in any event is the frame. If the focus defaulted to the page, it would be fine. Why would I want to scroll down in Google's frame.

Actually, that should be fairly easy to code out a firefox extension for.

But no, it's bad site design. There should be an option to not have the frames.

Diggbar still there! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597653)

Am I the only one who still sees the Diggbar when I'm not logged in? It hasn't disappeared for me at all. How is that "backing down"?

Yup, still there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598371)

I see it when I use Opera-9.64 (the latest), which BTW cannot login to Digg.com nor can the 'close' X-button actually close the frame and send one to the REAL page, as it does with Firefox.

Opera claims to be the most standards-compliant browser in existence; what does this say about Digg?

I don't go to Digg much anymore, partly because of this but mainly to stay out of kindergartens in general.

Another reason (3, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27597705)

Yet another reason not to use Digg

Re:Another reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598275)

Agreed. Digg was cool in 2006.

Ea4? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27597773)

Didn't even see the Digg Bar Fail (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598217)

I quite looking at Digg when they wouldn't let the Pifts.exe story reach the front page. Norton had a possible back door into their software for big brother and it phoned home to a server in Africa. Pretty important story if you ask me. All accounts that questioned the Pifts.exe file on Norton's site were deleted. A back door can be exploited by all not just the one who puts it in their software!!

But I LIKED the bar! (1, Interesting)

superbus1929 (1069292) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598405)

I work behind a content filter, so the Digg bar was handy for reading sites that are filtered, so I didn't have to RDP onto a separate server to read blocked URLs. So this is kinda sad news for me, but c'est la vie, big picture and all that.

Re:But I LIKED the bar! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598491)

If the diggbar was all it took; you need a new content filter.

Re:But I LIKED the bar! (3, Informative)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598793)

If your content filter is fooled by the Digg bar, then it's a really, really bad content filter.

The URL of the site is still loaded on your computer whether it's inside the Digg bar or not.

Re:But I LIKED the bar! (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598919)

If you find it that useful, you can still get it by using a registered login. It's on by default for registered users.

DiggBar Killer for Greasemonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27598577)

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/45795

Backing down would be opt-in only (2, Informative)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598619)

I am pretty sure the only reason people are not opt-out in larger numbers is, because digg has not made it easy to do or advertised that you can turn it off at all. They need to turn it off for everyone and let them opt-in and then see what their numbers look like before spewing them like they show diggbar in a positive light.

Digg was stealing traffic? (1)

zaffir (546764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27598801)

The summary states that Digg was stealing traffic by "hosting" the targeted site's page in a frame. Unless Digg was mirroring that site and replacing the ads, they were doing no such thing.

Not that the diggbar didn't suck- I disabled it first thing.

Re:Digg was stealing traffic? (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599169)

they were doing no such thing.

Depends on what you mean by "stealing". Is the targeted site going to get any kind of pagerank bump if it is linked via the diggbar? If people start passing around the DiggBar "tinyURL" instead of the actual URL from the target site, who gets the pagerank? I dont know--only google knows (which is why pretty much all SEO advice should be taken with a grain of salt, most advice is basically folklore and superstition... nobody knows what google wants)

In other words, technically they might not be stealing traffic, but they might be stealing the value of that traffic.

I thought the bar was amazing. (0)

Stick_Fig (740331) | more than 5 years ago | (#27599087)

It combined all the things I really liked about social networking into a simple format. Its existence was confirmation to me that you could keep a site's identity going beyond the site. Plus, it was a brilliant reaction to Twitter. What a shame they're scaling it back.

But then again, I apparently have an unhealthy mancrush on Kevin Rose [shortformblog.com] , because I posted as much on my blog a couple weeks ago.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?