I think there may be a bit of confusion here, as the recent post about the increased number of daily stories on Digg's frontpage was written by a Digg user and posted to their blog, not written by Digg staff or otherwise endorsed by us. (I work at Digg.) Our last blog post was yesterday ( http://about.digg.com/blog/how-get-started-digg-filtering-my... ) and about a couple of new features we rolled out.
Bookmark: if I find a post that's interesting and I think I might use it later then I'll bookmark it.
digg/reddit: If you find a post thats interesting then you can "digg it" so that others can view it and either agree (digg) or disagree(bury) with you.
Before self-implosion, Digg, for me, was almost only a more accurate title to an article that then linked to that article. We need a way to adjust news article titles to be more accurate. Maybe a browser extension. HN comments often work that way in the long-form.
"The consequences are stunning: Digg is not a democracy of news, and the way headlines make their way to Digg's homepage are neither fair nor transparent."
LOL, some people act as if Digg is a nation-state or, even, Google. Was there really anyone out there who thought that Digg has no moderators for spam, kiddie porn, etc?
Some people upmod for relevance, others upmod for bookmarking purposes, and some upmod whenever they see something that makes them giggle.
Maybe more social news sites need to rise to the challenge of being opinionated in what the point of their upmods are.
reply