1. I have to disagree. Memorandum and Digg are great, but if NY Times, CNET, etc. didn't produce content in-house, who would these new sites have to link to? There is no reason to put down those who create original content. It's not because they're selfish or greedy, it's because they are a different type of site. After all, from a webmaster's point of view, isn't it good to have a "sticky" site and keep visitors on your site? The web would be a giant hole of nothingness if not for the actual content.

Posted at 9:25PM on Mar 2nd 2006 by Marc James

2. Great! You know, that's really all I ask for from my readers: unabashed chronic dependence!

Posted at 10:08PM on Mar 2nd 2006 by Gabe

3. NY Times and CNET are not the same sort of site as Digg. Not even close. Digg is a cross between a blog and a forum, pretty much. They link to sources, yes. That's what they exist to do.

NT Times doesn't link to anyone because they'd be linking to a lot of competition (other papers). In the same way Weblogs Inc doesnt link to comeptition, neither do they.

Posted at 6:27AM on Mar 3rd 2006 by Nick Aziz

4. >> In the same way Weblogs Inc doesnt
>> link to comeptition, neither do they.

We link out all day long.... go to Joystiq, Engadget, Autoblog, etc. and look at each of the stories. They each have links in the body or a READ link.

We have at least 20 links out on every single page of our sites!

Posted at 10:31AM on Mar 3rd 2006 by Jason

5. Right, and none of them are to your prime competitors. They are to magazines, newspapers, and other sites that have no risk of stealing away your readership.

Posted at 12:03PM on Mar 3rd 2006 by Nick Aziz

6. I have to agree that the NY Times, or even Yahoo, just isn't the same site as Digg. nytimes.com is there to provide visitors with content, not be a hub for finding outside information.

I don't expect ESPN to link to Fox Sports, or almost any other site for that matter. Throwing away the same AP articles they each carry, they both produce their own content, not organize others'.

If nytimes.com is the newspaper, Digg is a like an organized magazine rack that separates individual articles instead of the publications themselves. Could they intermingle in some form? Sure, nytimes.com can link out when relevent within the story, let readers comment and interact more, but for the most part the concepts of the site are completely different and are very apples-oranges for this sort of comparison.

Posted at 12:50PM on Mar 3rd 2006 by David

7. ////Go to NYTIMES.COM and find me one line--ONE LINK--to anything other than the NYTIMES.COM domain or an advertisement. Pathetic.
Go to CNET and find me one link to anything other than their own echo chamber. Sad.

Go to Yahoo.com and find one link to something they don't own. Nada.

Nonetheless, both the Times and Yahoo are providing FREE VALUABLE services to Millions of browsers worldwide - continuously.

That has to be acknowledged. They have a right to be self centered about offering links their properties.

And even with NO links - they are providing Valuable publicity for many through Hundreds of Topics they cover.

Posted at 11:38PM on Mar 4th 2006 by Search Engines Web

8. First of all, Yahoo! and the NY Times have a filter that enables them to spell correctly when you read through their articles--i.e.--they've been sending are (OUR Dope) network a ton of traffic.

Secondly, they have journalists writing their arcicles and not hacks who have opinions about things and use the web as their dumping ground to get their one-sided report out.

Thirdly, you might feel like you're independent because you say whatever you damn well please in this blogging world you live, but you are owned by the most evil empire in all this land and you, my friend, sold your integrity (along with this sometimes grammatically incorrect and most often misspelled) site to the enemy.

Good luck with all your millions... and better luck learning how to write ... you might think about taking a lesson from those portals you talk about above--they have a job to report the news, make their companies money and deliver their readership a non-biased opinion of what's happening in the world and they do it day in and day out like no other--NO OTHER!!! You, my friend, spew venom to the masses who believe in your cause because they think you are one of them--and you most certainly ARE NOT!!!

In reality, you're just another greedy person who cares about the mighty dollar and the buzz your silly words will generate...not the poor schmuck who reads your stuff and believes it to be true.

Enjoy being a dick for the rest of your days--blogging will not last, but journalism (a craft protected by those with a nose for news and a whole lot of integrity) will live way beyond you, your money and your f'ed up opionions are buried deep in the ground.

Best,
Yoke Dog

Posted at 9:31AM on Mar 7th 2006 by Yoke Dog

9. Great post about the relative value of the sites. I've blogged about it here: http://reblogger.wordpress.com/2006/03/10/why-memeorandum-and-digg-are-so-great-they-link-out/

Posted at 9:21PM on Mar 9th 2006 by Mark Wilson

10. You don't need to link to be sticky. Just let the user interact with the content. Then add a structure, editors, rankings, and a deadline. Now you've got a "hit show on the Web." Play the New York Times (or TheFrequency.com)

Posted at 3:17PM on Mar 16th 2006 by Allan Hoving

11. I think Digg stopped letting you add your link in the message area?

Posted at 1:19PM on Mar 29th 2008 by Dennis

12. 4. >> In the same way Weblogs Inc doesnt
>> link to comeptition, neither do they.

We link out all day long.... go to Joystiq, Engadget, Autoblog, etc. and look at each of the stories. They each have links in the body or a READ link.

We have at least 20 links out on every single page of our sites!

Posted at 11:07AM on Mar 30th 2008 by kız oyunları

13. very thanks you

Posted at 8:36PM on May 20th 2008 by Oyun

14. thanks
http://rmooosh.net

Posted at 1:26PM on Jun 10th 2008 by rmooosh