The Crisis at Digg.com

Digg is digging it's own grave. It needs to make some changes or it will die. Are people actually reading the articles or just voting based on the headlines? I suspect the latter.

Crisis? No, just examples of some inherent flaws in the current system implemented by Digg.com

One of the problems is that people can vote up a linked story before they at least open the "Digg" to check the validity of the description and authenticy of the seeded article. Then once that item has gained enough votes to reach the front page, other people vote it up automatically, thinking that the exisiting number of votes is itself a form of validation. By the time this starts to happen, the number of diggs is so great that it can overrule the corrective action taken by members who have otherwise flagged the article as being fake or lacking in credibility.

The spamming problem exists for every social networking site, but the ability to game the system is easier in the short term on Digg, where a new member can post a lot of articles over a short period to be seen by the whole community. Whereas another site might have some form of restriction on where new articles could be seen until another member validates the content out of probationary status.

Somewhat to its merit, the Digg structure does track complaints against users who are seen as posting direct spam or seen as posting all thier articles from their own blog or ad-revenue sites; enough complaints posted against a given users links can result in their automatic banishment from the site. This can be a defense against spam-bots, but can also be open for abuse if one knows just how many complaints are needed to trigger the ban.

I removed Digg from my News bookmarks folder long ago.

Digg is run by 13 and 14 year olds. The site isn't going anywhere soon, but it will need some major improvements in order to stay afloat. I suggest comment moderators, even though that sounds near impossible.

A crisis of credibility, that's really funny. Digg never had credibility to begin with. People shouldn't take things so seriously. Some things in life are about having fun. Digging is one of them.

I used to love digg, and I'll admit I still visit the site, but the place is ridiculous. There is a lot of blind digging and spamming. Also, any comment, regardless of its logic or format, that contradicts the main article is dugg down. In my opinion they should open up a separate site for all the videos, and stupid junk like that, while leaving digg for the tech stuff, like back in the day. Also, they should have a period of time after sign up where you can only browse the site, and after time you can post and comment. Although, if the site were split, I don't think that second step would be necessary since the old digg was fairly self maintained with regards to good and meaningful content. Let the uneducated play on their own sites, and leave digg to the tech minded.

I gave up on Digg a long long time ago. It's a site that a few elite Diggers promote stories to the front page if they deem them worthy. Otherwise your story will never see the light of day.

The rest of the users of that site appear to be 14 year olds pissing about this and whining about that.

I have yet to read a story that doesn't have a comment that is at least -10 as the first comment or at least on the first page of comments.

At this point I use the site to see interesting content on the web with they manage to promote something interesting. Lately, there hasn't been that much. It's all been stories about how Digg is being run by a few (like this comment) and other rants that relate to Digg.

Kevin Rose and friends had a great idea with Digg. The problem with Digg is that they "seem to have made it" be run by a few elite diggers. That may not be the case, but it sure appears that way.

Plus commenting on Digg is the most confusing mess I have ever had the "privilege" to use. The "Reply" link is in the wrong place, and the reply editbox is at the bottom of "all" the comments not the thread you are commenting on. Newsvine really got that part right! It's a treat commenting here.

Why use Digg when you can browse the Vine™?

Funny. The seeded article has only a single digg at the time I write this.

I recommend that people who happen to have a digg account digg it up, or however you say it in digg-speak. It would be interesting to also digg this newsvine article so digg users can see our comments. Maybe we'll get some converts.

I think a lot of people are kind of missing the point here. Digg allows an incorrect article to become a story in itself by letting it be marked as inaccurate. Even if this doesn't occur Digg is NOT a news source it's a social networking and discussion website and this is exactly what it's done.

Crisis is far too strong a word.

The situation is analogous to Wikipedia. You're letting the general public participate, by design, which makes the whole thing work in a way that would not otherwise be possible, but this inevitably allows some abuse to creep in.

So long as responsible users understand that misuses will happen, why they happen, and the typical abuse scenarios, they will not place more reliance on the service than is appropriate.

Digg still has value as a way to find interesting content. It is not though a substitute for use of ones own brain.

I don't mind digg as long as I don't have to read the comments...

Honestly, if you ever want to feel smarter, read some of the comments left on that site. Wow. I think the median age might be somewhere closer to eight or nine.