Posted on Monday 2nd of October 2006 at 05:00 in The Internet

Concerned by Digg's Groundhog Day-ism

I've been reading Digg for a while now, and have discovered some exciting material because of it. However, today I read a satirical submission on the front page on the 10 things to do to guarantee being on the front page.

"What really concerned me wasn't it's statements, but it's accuracy..."

It jested that the perfect combination of Steve Jobs, Nintendo, Global Warming, Ubuntu and Microsoft Sucking (as well as some others) would hit the front page. This is a concerning notion indeed that such a trend can be identified and potentially exploited. What happened to educated users voting for material that was interesting or relevent to them on a more individual basis? The same stories are appearing time and time again (Microsoft robbed an old man then ate his dog etc) so the submission that sparked this article was indeed correct; there is a set list of topics that spark more interest than others.

digg

True, Digg brings into focus submissions that the users find interesting and therefore material that reaches the front page is only there because enough people deemed it worthy. It just seems unfortunate that there is such a distinct pattern in what is popular, that the "lowest common denominator" theory is true. Some users will start a "Linus Torvals vs Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates FIGHT" article with the sole intention of attracting traffic. Everyone knows controversy breeds traffic and I've even implied that strategy once or twice but Digg is allowing it to breed.

"All I?m saying is think before you Digg - is the submission relevant to you? Does it help you? Or are you digging it just because it makes mention of Mr Jobs in the title?"

Digg is a great place, but it does sometimes highlight "dumb" stories about Bill Gates paying a child $30 to eat his own cat (or whatever), where articles about breakthroughs in gene manipulation are left dying on the floor of the upcoming stories area.

Enjoy this article? Why not subscribe to the full RSS feed?

Add Your Comments

Comments

Showing most recent 4 of 4 comments

"to digg" - almost sounds Shakespearean

by Seopher on Friday 6th of October 2006 at 13:49

I think "to digg" is a pretty much mindless act, you dont really have to think about it. But to comment you have to use your brain a bit, so I think digg should take into account comments more than diggs

by rob on Tuesday 3rd of October 2006 at 01:00

No I agree, but it is a good point - whether it makes a difference or not it’s good to try

by Stu on Tuesday 3rd of October 2006 at 00:09

While I dont necessarily disagree with what you say - I really dont think asking users to consider what they are digging - to "think" etc will make one bit of difference.

by Gordon on Monday 2nd of October 2006 at 19:04