Show us Your Big Digg!
by
admin
We are terrible at accumulatin the Big Digg, but many of you are experts at getting your articles on the front page of Digg.
Share with us a link to your biggest digg via email or in comments and we will feature your link and the number of diggs you pulled off in a future article.
Please don’t fear leaving your link in a comment as we DoFollow, so you will get a benefit right away and another when the feature article comes out.
Not to mention, your Big Digg will get more press and might get a Bigger Digg all together!
Share this story with other bloggers and lets see who submits the biggest Digg!
Q & A
1. What is a Big Digg?
Its an article that you submitted to Digg.com, that received more Digg votes than any other article that you submitted.2. Should I include it here if I didn’t write the original article that was my Big Digg?
Yes. The spirit of Digg is to not self promote your own stuff too much, but we only want to see your biggest Digg no matter if you wrote it or Matt Drudge wrote it. If you submitted it and it has more diggs than any other articles you submitted, that’s your Big Digg!
Its gotta be
http://digg.com/programming/Make_hot_linking_work_for_you
it received 67 diggs and probably gave us the most traffic, however we didnt reach the main page
Im working on a new article to digg
digg.com/tech_news/Increasing_your_Alexa_Rank_Free
Thanks Matthew, but it now has 68 Diggs!
Pathetic but this is my best. http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2006/12/iran-students-heckle-ahmadinejad.html
Here is one that I thought had all the ingredients of success, and yet it just didn’t have enough momentum to make it out of the “upcoming stories” section:
http://digg.com/gaming_news/History_of_the_Game_Boy_franchise
My first story I posted nearly three years ago is my largest dugg story:
http://digg.com/software/Sothink_SWF_Decompiler_-_Convert_SWF_to_FLA
thanks, and dugg everyone above
Kris, that was a good article. There were a couple images that were a little granular, but I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t gone a little further. Maybe its one of those things where its viewed as history more than nostalgia.
ers35,
That is definitely an interesting program. Hadn’t heard of it before, but I’m new to Flash, only been toying with it really for about the last 9 months. Need to get serious, but I could see doing some interesting things with a tool that can extract an image out of flash like that.
So far this is it;
http://digg.com/music/Blues_Music_Awards_for_2007
2 whole diggs. I guess I need more traffic!
I gave you some link love for the article.
http://digg.com/design/Free_Wordpress_Redesign_Contest
thats my biggest so far (only 7 diggs so far! LOL
digging everyone above me now! Great diggs!
The most diggs one of my submitted stories ever got was 955 more than a year ago. 76 comments, too.
http://digg.com/security/This_Worm_Is_Nasty,_Brutish,_And_Sneaky
But that was back in the day when digg was all about technology. I loved it so much more then.
That’s excellent Marisa, but I love the title of that article! lol
Pretty damn creative. I do kind of miss the tech days with Digg too.
Sometimes I almost wish they had used the same technology but created separate mini sites instead of putting everything under the same roof.
maybe something like digg just for tech
then separate site digg-business or digg-politics or digg-crap
Agree. I used to spend days on end there, gathering the latest tech news.
As for the title, I think that’s part of the reason it garnered so many diggs. People don’t realize how important the title is. It really does have to grab you in as few words as possible. And now with so many categories, spending a little extra time deciding on the right category can make or break a story.
Categories are important not only where you submit them or bookmark them, but also on your own site for SEO purposes, note the category of this article shows up in the URL.
If I had been just a little bit smarter, I would have maybe added the category, Digg Tips or Social Bookmarking Optimization (SBO)
Thanks all who dugg me above. I think I know where I went wrong with that article. First, I didn’t submit it myself, so I had no control over the description in Digg, which sounds a little bit wonky.
Also, the images in the article itself are not only grainy, they are also not a consistent size, which looks a bit sloppy. Resizing images is such a pain in the ass. Does anyone know of a good plugin for that?
Kris,
I’ve heard people on both sides of the fence regarding the Digg submission. Some people feel its best if you do not submit your own articles. Then its not a ’selfish plug’ and more like something someone ’stumbled upon.’ ;0 But you make a good point, if you submit it yourself, then you can get the wording set up better.
I use Windows Live Writer. It has three default size settings for images (small, medium and large). Once you pull an image in, then you can resize it to any pixel size you want.
The program is free (and from Microsoft). Its not a plugin, more a blogging tool for writing the article and then uploading it automatically from your computer to your blog. It can be configured with Wordpress driven blogs and most other content management systems.
It may not take you the entire distance, but it might get things closer to standardized from go.
The downside is that if you do this, you are basically uploading the raw image as it is normally, and linking to it with a view of the image at a different size. This means that you basically have not followed the tenants of image optimization. Your picture may not load as fast is it could and that could slow down your blog load speed.
There’s always a little give and take between optimum practices and practices that you can live with and keep up your blogging passion.
personally I like LiveWriter because you can use the software to write for multiple blogs. I ghost write on a couple sites and have a guest column on a couple more, plus my own blogs. I find this tool great for keeping track of things, like passwords and image upload paths and more.
My biggest digg article was this one about web design in the past.
http://digg.com/design/7_Things_you_don_t_see_in_Websites_today
http://www.everybodygoto.com/2007/04/09/7-things-you-dont-see-in-web-20-from-web-10/
1835 diggs. I don’t think I’ll be able to top that for months to come. Needless to say my site died from the tens of thousands of diggers, but it was watching the cavalry charge.
Great article and very good example.
Congrats on the numbers, just curious if the Digg traffic load knocked out your site at all when this got dugg?
I just found out that my URL is now banned in Digg for ’spam’. I hope it is not a result of participating in this exercise! (Although you know how touchy the digg users are about ‘gaming’)
Kris,
This isn’t an exercise to get people more diggs. The purpose is to take a look at articles that have been submitted to digg that ended up getting lots of diggs.
I’m trying not to approach the future article in a biased way, however as an example there are some people that claim that the average person cannot get a lot of diggs unless they have lots of high ranking digg friends.
I’m trying to look first at the type of articles that get high diggs vs. those that do not.
Do good articles get low diggs sometimes?
Do bad articles get high diggs?
I’m not using this comment page as the only source for the articles that we are reviewing either.
Digg does act in paranoid ways and that may be an aspect of the story I write (ergo Are good stories getting buried because Digg is to paranoid for their own good?)