Sphinn - Top 45 websites ranked by Digg saturation

29
Sphinn It!

Top 45 websites ranked by Digg saturation

Went Hot: October 4, 2007 - 8:00 pm
Posted By: DoshDosh 641 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.blogstorm.co.uk)
Category: News Sites

Tracking the number of times a particular blog hits the Digg homepage isn't really a great indicator of popularity. Some Digg stories get a couple of hundred Diggs while others are far more popular and attract several thousand. Luckily Google offers a simple way to measure the overall popularity of a site with the Digg audience by making use of its site: command.

2 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from dannysullivan 641 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Posted this over there:

It's a nice idea, but you're not measuring it correctly. Right now, you're simply searching for any pages that Digg that have the domains as words on the pages, not as links. I mean, look at [site:digg.com yahoo.com]. That's bringing up pages where people are putting in yahoo.com email addresses, among other things. Plus, in other cases, you're getting pages that have links from profiles rather than stories.

A better way would be to do something like this:

http://digg.com/search?s=youtube.com&submit=Search&section=news&type=url&area=all&sort=most

OK, that's searching Digg itself for all stories to the youtube.com URL. Look at the bottom, and you'll see there are around 1525 pages of results, 10 stories per page, so a saturation of 15,250 stories. Tick the buried option if you want to get more accurate. Even better, you might scrap and total the raw number of Diggs earned for all stories. Now that would be a metric -- which site has the most cumulative Diggs over time.

from patrickaltoft 641 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

I agree that posting Yahoo email addresses will skew the data but I was trying to measure the popularity of a domain by seeing how many times it was mentioned on Digg, not just how many times it was Dugg. The two are not going to produce the same results.

Also I wanted to bring up results that would be very easy for Google to incorporate into the algorithm, totalling the raw number of Diggs wouldn't be as easy.

Finally there are some sites that are always Dugg by the same group of people which would mean less Digg saturation using my method. Sites that have Diggs from a wide range of people would appear in more categories and in more peoples profiles and therefore should be thought of as more popular.