Digg, the quintessential social news website, used to occupy a lot of my online hours for a number of months in 2007 and early 2008. I managed to break myself of that addiction well over six months ago and, although I will Digg stories occasionally, I don’t go there for any other reason that to look around, shake my head, and then bounce out. Digg lacks… a lot. Mainly it lacks a compelling reason for me to spend my time there.
Digg seemed like the great crowdsourcing prototype in action, where news stories entered a gigantic channel of news through small streams and stories could get Dugg, or voted on, pushing them into mass public view. At various times this has promised tens of thousands of views to the lucky website whose page got voted into popularity. There’s no doubt that this functionality has been exploited by people who wanted the page views.
But the rules kept changing, much like Google’s Page Ranking formulas seem to change regularly. Suddenly it was hard to get a story to front page: about twice as hard as before. Then, just as suddenly, it seemed to be a piece of cake to make a story popular. Then, again, not. You could almost hear the brain cells overheating as the engineers behind the scenes tried to eliminate gaming by introducing new functionality that came very close to gaming Digg anyway.
A recommendation engine appeared, supposedly to help us find cool new stuff. Maybe I was well out of the honeymoon phase with the site when the engine appeared, but I never found it to be terribly useful or helpful. I also found the Upcoming section of Digg more cumbersome to work with after the engine was implemented. Lacking.
Digg initiated a town hall concept in 2008 which, frankly, was lacking. Lacking, I say, because very little was unscripted, IMHO, despite how Jay Adelson and Kevin Rose seemed to be playing it casual - nothing terrible new, useful, or unexpected came out of it. Meanwhile, to my knowledge, no meaningful online means for Digg users to communicate with Digg management ever appeared. Lacking.
Digg as a source of news? Well… you can certainly find good stuff there, but between my RSS subscriptions and use of other news sites (including MSM news sites, actually), I don’t find a compelling reason to go to Digg for news. The likelihood of finding something interesting in that information stream after scanning through a lot of much less interesting stuff: low. Lacking.
Then there’s the bannings. Digg users, some with long tenure who have added a lot of notoriety and value to the site (including one of the co-hosts of The Drill Down), have been booted for questionable or, well, lacking reasons. Reasons that lack sufficient explanation or logic. Lacking.
Meanwhile, Digg continues to raise new funds, despite what appears to be some failed opportunities to sell the company, and plans more international expansion. Well, you know, that’s actually pretty cool and I wish them good luck with that. However, that success comes on the backs of its most active users, who provided the content that helps drive the monetization models behind this whole thing. And so a number of these more active members have been banned. Will more rise up in their place? Probably. But it seems to me that it would have made a lot more sense to try to work more with them. Naive, I may be, but other companies in the Web 2.0 model seem to be doing much better at having positive, more directly engaged relations with their user base.
And, to me, that’s what’s really lacking. C’mon, Digg, you can do better.
This post is being published on Oct. 12, at the same time as other Digg-related posts are being published. Social News Central has more information, if you’d like to check it out.
If you enjoyed reading this, please consider leaving a tip to help fund the activities of this blog.If you're new here, welcome! Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed to stay up to date with my latest posts and articles. Thanks for visiting!

