Good point... but most people "google" the internet these days.. they don't search it...
Derek Lakin
· 3 years ago
Before the likes of del.icio.us, BlinkList, et al came on the scene we all used to just "bookmark" a site. These services are still letting us bookmark websites, the label just denotes which service you are bookmarking it to.
We will only get to a ubiquitous name for bookmarking again, when you can easily exchange and access bookmarks from different services. In the same way that your email provider does not limit you to sending/receiving emails to/from people that use the same provider.
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
Sure but my bigger point is that Digg has created a new type of action but has exclusively coined the term. Nobody else can use the term digg to denote the action even if their service is exactly the same.
Also there is enough difference between delicious et. al. and normal browser bookmarking that bookmarking isn't sufficient.
Derek Lakin
· 3 years ago
But why would you want to use the term "digg" if you're not creating a bookmark at digg.com? I get the point that Digg are protecting the term, I just don't see it as being the best term to use.
I agree completely that a single term that everyone uses would be great; it's just not going to happen until the data store for your bookmarks (or whatever you want to call them ;-)) becomes irrelevant.
Matt Warren
· 3 years ago
Couldn't you just say you are going to "dig" a site, then they can't really stop you as it's a common word.
Derek Lakin
· 3 years ago
There was a big difference between "mail" and "eMail", but all we did was put an "e" in front of it. Perhaps we just need to an "e" in front of bookmark :P (jk)
Maybe in these <strike>Web 2.0</strike> days we should call them "bookmarks 2.0" :-P
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
eMark ;)
Shog9
· 3 years ago
It would be grand if “to digg” broke free of the site and became a verb anyone could use.
Yeah, assuming that by "grand" you mean "annoying". I bookmark sites, i rank them mentally by how often i see them cited elsewhere, adjusting these mental ranks based on my personal opinion towards those i see lauding them. I've never "dugg" a website, i never hope "to digg" one. You may think it's "cool" and "rad", but to me it just don't sound fun.
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
You guys are getting hung up on my digg example. Think bigger, think of a site you like and the action it does and think how it would grand if that action had a label that broke free of that one site.
Shog9
· 3 years ago
Think bigger, think of a site you like and the action it does and think how it would grand if that action had a label that broke free of that one site.
Hmm...
I like posting pointless comments on Paul Watson's blog; "watsoning", if you will. I can't really say my life would really improve if i could "watson" other people's blogs though.
Oh, wait, i can and do. I just call it "commenting". How grand is that!
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
Yeah now imagine that some site had come along right in the begining called Commenting.com. We'd all have to "watson" on blogs instead of commenting.
Break the terms free of the sites I say. Like email.
Shog9
· 3 years ago
My point (if i have one) is that words like "comment" (substitute "debate", "refute", etc. as needed) already exist and are well understood. "Email" is derived from "mail" (by way of "electronic mail"), which has a long tradition in various postal systems, being originally derived from the word for the bags used to carry correspondence.
As i see it, a word like "digg" comes into being for two reasons: 1) the company wants a trademark, and 2) they don't have a good way of equating their function with something familiar. Not that they weren't trying - "to dig" is classic jive slang for understanding and enjoyment. But jive slang itself is hardly common - even the canonical jive meaning of the word "jive" is rarely used (that is, if something like jive could be said to have canon). Essentially, they created a word to describe something they weren't smart enough to describe using the existing vernacular of their intended users. (that, or maybe jive is really common among diggers. i'm still not entirely clear exactly who digg is targeted at).
So if it bugs you, fix it. Come up with a word that describes what you're doing, and make it popular. Add it to your site, tout it to your colleagues, make some noise.
Here's my suggestion: add some of those stupid links to your website. You know, the ones that usually say something like "digg this". Make 'em say "Recommend this on Digg". Fight the power, Paul - fight the power...
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
That was quite a watson you just wrote, Shog. ;)
Frankly I can't stand digg. Such a juvenile site. And I don't much like the term either. It is just one that the people I am trying to bitch slap into changing will like.
It isn't just one word either. It is a way of doing all new things, of not claiming exclusivity to an action's term. For the betterment of man and all that.
Derek Lakin
· 3 years ago
It;s great to see this conversation branching out and reaching other people. Great to read other people's opinions.
I agree with Shog. If we want to change the world, then we have to do something about it. The change has to start somewhere, and where better than here?
I guess it's got slightly out of hand with the example you gave, but I get the point. Digg have their term and other similar sites have their own term, and yes it would be great if there was just one term that was independent of the data silo.
The problem is that there are many different companies offering the same or similar services. Bloggers wanting to get their posts noticed add "digg this", and so on links to several sites, to get more attention, because there is no way of saying link this post to whichever bookmarking silo you want to use, unlike email.
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
Thanks for a good example, Derek. To Blog. Even though there is a site called blogger we have manaed to make blog a generic, data-silo independant term. On TypePad, you blog, on WordPress, you blog, on Vox, you blog, etc.
That is what I want.
Derek Lakin
· 3 years ago
I may be historically inaccurate, but wasn't the term blog (short for WebLog) in popular use already before blogger came along and offered a blogging service? In which case, even if they'd wanted to, they couldn't have trademarked the term "blog" anyway :P
Paul Watson
· 3 years ago
It was but it survived blogger which is a good thing.
All Comments
We will only get to a ubiquitous name for bookmarking again, when you can easily exchange and access bookmarks from different services. In the same way that your email provider does not limit you to sending/receiving emails to/from people that use the same provider.
Also there is enough difference between delicious et. al. and normal browser bookmarking that bookmarking isn't sufficient.
I agree completely that a single term that everyone uses would be great; it's just not going to happen until the data store for your bookmarks (or whatever you want to call them ;-)) becomes irrelevant.
Maybe in these <strike>Web 2.0</strike> days we should call them "bookmarks 2.0" :-P
Yeah, assuming that by "grand" you mean "annoying". I bookmark sites, i rank them mentally by how often i see them cited elsewhere, adjusting these mental ranks based on my personal opinion towards those i see lauding them.
I've never "dugg" a website, i never hope "to digg" one. You may think it's "cool" and "rad", but to me it just don't sound fun.
Hmm...
I like posting pointless comments on Paul Watson's blog; "watsoning", if you will. I can't really say my life would really improve if i could "watson" other people's blogs though.
Oh, wait, i can and do. I just call it "commenting". How grand is that!
Break the terms free of the sites I say. Like email.
As i see it, a word like "digg" comes into being for two reasons: 1) the company wants a trademark, and 2) they don't have a good way of equating their function with something familiar. Not that they weren't trying - "to dig" is classic jive slang for understanding and enjoyment. But jive slang itself is hardly common - even the canonical jive meaning of the word "jive" is rarely used (that is, if something like jive could be said to have canon). Essentially, they created a word to describe something they weren't smart enough to describe using the existing vernacular of their intended users. (that, or maybe jive is really common among diggers. i'm still not entirely clear exactly who digg is targeted at).
So if it bugs you, fix it. Come up with a word that describes what you're doing, and make it popular. Add it to your site, tout it to your colleagues, make some noise.
Here's my suggestion: add some of those stupid links to your website. You know, the ones that usually say something like "digg this". Make 'em say "Recommend this on Digg". Fight the power, Paul - fight the power...
Frankly I can't stand digg. Such a juvenile site. And I don't much like the term either. It is just one that the people I am trying to bitch slap into changing will like.
It isn't just one word either. It is a way of doing all new things, of not claiming exclusivity to an action's term. For the betterment of man and all that.
I agree with Shog. If we want to change the world, then we have to do something about it. The change has to start somewhere, and where better than here?
I guess it's got slightly out of hand with the example you gave, but I get the point. Digg have their term and other similar sites have their own term, and yes it would be great if there was just one term that was independent of the data silo.
The problem is that there are many different companies offering the same or similar services. Bloggers wanting to get their posts noticed add "digg this", and so on links to several sites, to get more attention, because there is no way of saying link this post to whichever bookmarking silo you want to use, unlike email.
That is what I want.