Submitted by peppapig100 on 11-20-2008
This is one of those enigma submissions. Great topic, interesting title, reliable, diggable source, over 200 Diggs, and yet it still didn’t flip. Something isn’t right here. There were no other stories that I could find with the keyword “Schwarzenegger” that hit the front page in the last few days, so I just don’t know. Great read, though.
This is not my personal blog; nor, is it JD’s. It’s starting to feel like it, though. We need contributors, and in order to satisfy that end, perhaps we need to expand the mission of this blog a little further. You may not have thought it was possible, but I assure you; it is.
Our first and primary mission was to highlight those stories on Digg that, for one reason or another, did not make the front page. It was a result of being frustrated at and confused by an obscure algorithm that no one could even begin to understand. How does one story get picked over another? Is the decision to promote one piece over another truly being crowdsourced?
Through our posts we highlighted apparent flaws in Digg’s algorithm, its system design, and its community. Not satisfied with that and feeling rebellious, JD decided to highlight the utter crap that managed to be promoted to Digg’s homepage. Thus, even from its earliest days, this blog’s mission has always been two fold:
1) To highlight those stories that may have deserved to have gone popular.
2) To highlight the garbage that manages to become popular, but should really have not.
Mostly, we added human intellect and judgment to the selection of stories to go popular that Digg’s algorithm could not. Read more…
This is an open call for writers. We need you. The original concept of highlighting stories that should have been on the front page of social media sites but that didn’t quite make it is starting to lose steam. We will continue to do it, of course, but we want more.
Lots more.
We want this site to spark the interests of the readers out there who want more from a blog. There is a distinct need to expand on our successes and bring this blog to the next level.
It has done well so far. It achieved a PageRank of 4 in a relatively short time without unnatural link-building. The traffic has been wonderful and we have seen 3 of our posts hit the front page of Digg, including one story that had over 3000 Diggs. Our subscribers are moving up nicely and consistently, but still… Read more…
Submitted to Digg by jophillips 8/19/2008
For many, the prospects of “going green” can be appealing. Whether to be a true contributor to a worthy cause, to achieve a personal sense of activism, or to simply set an example to family and friends, there are those who want to start demonstrating their conscious understanding of the crumbling environment that surrounds us.
The problem is that many just don’t know how to get started. This story gives some great ways.
Original Description:
Going green: where to start? If you are interested in living a more eco-friendly lifestyle, this is for you. We hope you will find WebEcoist to be pleasantly free of politics and we’ll never tell you to eat granola, hug a tree or vote for the Greens. You don’t even have to switch to tofu.
Submitted to Reddit by SVOboy and to Digg by Sconathon 8/19/2008
The sun is everywhere. It heats everything on the planet.
Roads and parking lots are everywhere.
It just makes sense that someone would come up with a way to harness the power of the sun and the heat collection capabilities of asphalt to produce energy. Frankly, I’m surprised nobody thought of it before.
This article in GreenUpgrader, plus these articles on Science Daily and CleanTechnica, shed some light (pun intended) on the potential of using the abundant combination of road and rays and making a super-potential power supply for the world.
Original Description:
They’ve figured out how to turn cobble stones into /solar panels. What’s next? It’s getting kind of ridiculous.
read more | digg story | reddit story | digg front page blog
Submitted to Digg by Bukowsky 8/7/2008
This is one of those topics that has high passions on both sides of the fence. On one side, you have the proponents who say it can be done: a truly water-powered vehicle that saves on the necessity for petroleum based fuels. On the other side, you have those who say the technology and theories are flawed, that it can’t be done and is wasting the time of some great minds and large budgets.
It’s like the concept of rugged laptops - those who use and believe in them swear by them, while those who don’t are skeptical.
Popular Mechanics took a look and their results are very interesting…
Original Description:
After batting down the hype over startups and DIYers claiming they could run a car on water, PM’s senior automotive editor installs a hand-built HHO kit—only to find he was right the first time. Can bad chemistry keep the myth of the water car alive?
Submitted to Propeller by MyWayOnNow and to Digg by bostmaguy 8/2/2008
Are we doing ourselves any favors by screaming “Global Warming!” every time something changes in the climate? Are these things truly run in cycles, and are we in the midst of something right now that is pointing towards the obvious and making us miss the root cause?
Bearing in mind, I am one who definitely believes that global warming is real, it’s dangerous, and we have to do something about it sooner rather than later. With that said, I think the message is lost whenever we start to point every finger at global warming.
The economy? Some blame global warming.
The food crisis? Many blame global warming.
The war in Iraq? Yep, global warming must have melted a certain president’s brain cells, at least according to some.
The point is, we have to temper what we attribute to global warming or the truly addressable issues will be missed.
Original Description:
We’re stuck on the notion that climate change is the culprit every time a natural disaster strikes. But that’s just muddying the waters.
Submitted to Reddit by DisConform and to Digg by kdobo 8/1/2008
There were several stories submitted to social media sites about the MIT breakthrough with a cheaper catalyst for hydrogen as an energy source. Strangely, none of them hit the front page of Digg, despite this being potentially huge news on a huge topic.
The problem with hydrogen as an energy source is in the catalyst necessary to start the electrical production: platinum. At nearly $2,000 per ounce, it hasn’t been practical with cheaper solar and wind energy offering the same bang for less bucks. But Chemist Daniel Nocera and postdoctoral fellow Matthew Kanan discovered they could separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water by adding cobalt and phosphate to water and running a current through it.
Cobalt and phosphate cost roughly $2.25 an ounce and $.05 an ounce, respectively.
If all goes well, expect a dramatic shift towards hydrogen as an electrical energy source in the near future.
Original Description:
Cool new research eliminating platinum from the Hydrogen generating equation.
HunterGreen on July 27th, 2008
Submitted to Reddit by someone who deleted it and to Digg by besos 7-26-2008
The idea makes a lot of sense, but then it brings to mind the possible negative consequence of forcing more cars to be built to meet demand.
In theory, we can reduce the carbon footprint of those who have high-pollution automobiles by buying them back, then converting them to scrap (hopefully scrap that can be recycled, but that part isn’t covered). We can assume that the people who take advantage of this will then go out and buy newer, more eco-friendly cars.
My only question: is it worth the expenditure? Can that money be used better in other ways, since we’re talking about a lot of money? Good topic for debate. I would love to see the actual numbers.
Original Description:
Basically, the idea would be to have the federal government buy up many of the country’s oldest, most polluting cars and scrap them; the owners, who would likely be lower-income individuals, would be paid at above-market prices and allowed to spend the money however they would see fit.
Submitted to Reddit by weblaunches and to Digg by studiow 7/21/2008
Dark energy, “discovered” in 1998, seems to be pulling the universe in all directions at once. It has no presence in the current scientific understanding of the universe, but we know it’s there. We know what it does and what it doesn’t. We just don’t know how or why.
Original Description:
“Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.” Lily Tomlin -Comedian and philosopher. No observation in recent history of science has been more disturbing than the discovery of dark energy in 1998.
