-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/11/27/digging-on-digg/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
44 comments · 4 points
-
polizeros
52 comments · 1 points
-
AndyBeard
69 comments · 4 points
-
Zachary Adam Cohen
35 comments · 8 points
-
dbarefoot
40 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
2 weeks ago · 181 comments
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
3 days ago · 24 comments
-
2010: the year SEO isn’t important anymore
1 week ago · 67 comments
-
iPhone developers abandoning app model for HTML5?
1 week ago · 52 comments
-
A new addition here: the Meebo bar
2 days ago · 8 comments
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
Nice to see you posting in GMT
Digg, on the other hand, encourages much more of a groupthink or herd mentality - the number of Diggs is displayed prominently, encouraging you to Digg stories that already have a lot of them, you're encouraged to subscribe to the top Diggers, you're encouraged to subscribe to your friends, etc. As such, individual stories are elevated much more because of network effects than group wisdom.
Other issues include the fact that the front page doesn't even try to ascribe importance to stories - the top headline is just the one that's most recently been promoted, not necessarily the top story of the day. And if you subscribe to the feed, forget it - your RSS reader just gets flooded with junk.
There's usually some interesting links on the front page, and I'll check it out when I'm bored. I like the concept of social news, but honestly that's what I regard "The Blogosphere" as. Technorati, Techmeme, Google News, and Google Reader are all much more useful to me than sites like Digg.
Rex
I suppose Digg would argue that the category feeds are less noisy, but perhaps there is a requirement here for some sort of 'best of the best' Digg feed?