Comments on: 200 Diggs 1 Voice: Diggers Had Enough!

By: denzelb

denzelb — Mon, 19 May 2008 05:34:47 +0000

I would rather see some semblance of fairness rather than collusion hidden behind the guise of community leadership.

By: 1389

1389 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:15:55 +0000

There’s an old Russian saying: “the fish rots from the head.” Digg is a bad site because the people running it are bad – in terms of tech ability, lack of transparency, deceptiveness, spin, you name it. The same is true of Digg’s venture cap investors.

Over a year ago, Digg could be fun some of the time. Those days are long gone. Every time Digg changed anything, they just made it worse.

Digg is not really concerned about excluding spammers, cheats, and sock puppets per se – Digg already had mechanisms that accomplished that purpose well enough. No, they just want to control the mix of users and of stories to meet their own criteria – all the while preserving the illusion that the typical user has meaningful input.

Use StumbleUpon instead. It beats heck out of Digg.

By: Marcos

Marcos — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:47:59 +0000

Digg is the best. Always the changes is good for us.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:18:52 +0000

‘Top users are top users because they submit high QAULITY material.’ Are you sure about this?

By: steve

steve — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:59:10 +0000

I will start using Digg more often the instant the power of “the top users” is curtailed.

Too many groups just blindly vote for their friends. Silly and less interesting by the day. I stopped scanning DIGG quite a while ago because of this.

It seems DIGG realizes this. Good.