When Google has search results from Digg, isn't that an oxymoron?

[MrSavage]

I say this with a touch of humour, but hear me out. I know oxymoron isn't quite the proper word, but it sounded good.

Isn't taking a Dugg site and posting that in Google results actually duplicate content? I mean, you likely get buried in search results if your own site features headlines, listings, etc from other sources. Why? It's that duplicate content or lack of unique compelling content. It just seems odd to me, that Google would list some other search engine result in their own results. Make sense? People type in "blue shoes" in Digg for a result, but Google will parse that same Digg search result into their own "blue shoes" result. I'm having fun with this and maybe I have too much time on my hands. I dunno. If I can't find my own content for my own site, and use an rss parser for example or use other articles, I could face penalties or removal completely from Google index. Seems like a bit of a double standard. Do you think that Digg should get some sort of payment for this service? It's like Amazon. In the same way Google doesn't like affiliate sites. Why? Because you are just fronting the real actual store. They would much rather have the original store in the results. Why have the middle man ranking high in results? I just see Google using Digg in the same "affiliate" like manner. It's late here, might explain my thought process. Just be gentle on me if you join in on this fun thread.

[Receptional Andy]

I think the general idea is that Digg only reproduces a snippet of content, and present this on a unique page that includes other content like comments. While they can compete for similar keywords, I don't think there's much potential for duplicate content problems.

[StoutFiles]

Digg, being more of a traffic provider than content-stealer, is generally allowed to use the snippet of content to entice viewers to go to the actual conent site to read more.

Yes, Google probably shouldn't rank Digg so hih when they don't have the content to begin with. However, if Google changed the rankings to just ignore Digg then there would be problems. Google is supposed to be neutral and only penalize sites not providing anything, whereas Digg is accepted by webmasters almost everywhere.

[MrSavage]

It's ironic though. In essence, it's like Google showing results from Bing. I know that's a stretch, but essentially it's the same thing. They are showing the results of a result. That's like me showing the news from somebody else's news. It's that whole philosophy thing that I kept being told. Unique, quality content, those are the results that Google wants to provide people. What's even more ironic here, is that banned sites I'm sure will show up in Google's Digg results. Maybe Google and Digg have some sort of partnership we don't know about. The fact is, Digg could replace Google as a destination for finding good sites. Ultimately, sites like Digg will replace Google and most other forms of computerized search results.

I just think, that Google is guilty of doing something that they look down upon. People using other peoples content. Period. A Digg result is a Digg result, and according to the same principles, shouldn't be a Google result.

[tedster]

The detail to examine is what makes a particular page on Digg rank well. They don't ALL rank well, right? If a page gets Dugg a lot and linked to often, that alone can be worthwhile information, and well worth showing in the SERPs.

[MrSavage]

I guess the issue is this. If the site is respected in Digg, then why didn't Google get the site and list it from it's own results? So, essentially, if your site is listed in Digg, and Google fetches that, then your site doesn't get a direct link from Google search results. I guess I'm nitpicking here a bit, but the whole concept of this bothers me. It's hypocritical to me. They don't want to show a news story for example from a secondary site, their goal is to find the original article and give that site the higher result in rankings. On the other hand, they are giving Digg the credit for your site in Google results, and some people won't click on your Dugg result because they don't want a middle man so to speak. I'm sure you are losing out on traffic because your site shows up in Google as a Dugg story, whereas if your site was listed in search results, you would get more traffic. Further, the way I see it, it flies in the face of their whole philosophy! If my site sucks, then it won't be Dugg more than once. If my site is good, then Google should be listing my site directly, not the Dugg story. If my site is good enough to be popular on Digg, how the heck can it not be the result shown in the Google results? Or, does Google actually list both the Digg story, plus a seperate result for your website? Isn't that spamming their own index? How is it that the Digg page gets the result but not the actual website? This Digg/Dugg in results blows in the fact of what they are preaching. Or am I on glue here?

[Receptional Andy]

I think in most cases the site getting the link from Digg has the best chance of ranking. However, Digg pages obviously have a certain level of trust and reputation, but they don't attract many external links, so they aren't especially strong pages in the general scheme of things.

If the site they're linking to doesn't have reasonable external links, or strong enough links internally on that site (or is otherwise poorly optimised) then Digg will outrank it. I tend to see this as a problem with the site itself, rather than a problem with Digg. If a site is well constructed, then the chances are it is lacking in sufficient trust to beat the Digg page.