Another reason Digg Sucks

It’s interesting how people think.  If you read some of the (rather nasty) comments on this Digg trail (link on bottom) you’ll see that a lot of people tried to “bury” this article just because they have something against Engadget, or Ryan Block, or kittens – whatever.  They weren’t “voting” on the content of the Digg’d article at all – they were being human.  That’s the fatal flaw for Digg – humans are rarely objective.

It would be interesting to do a deep dive into their stats and see if certain users consistently rate certain things up or down.  Maybe Digg should adjust their algorithm to take bias into account?

Another way of attacking this would be to allow each “Digger’s” vote to be Digg’d!  If everyone else thinks you are being petty (or showing favoritism to a friend by constantly voting them up), they can vote your vote down – giving it less weight.

Yuvi complete a very in-depth analysis of Engadget. The data is interesting. Got a tech blog? This data will help you focus on what people are interested in. Great job here!

Digg – Engadget Statistics – an Analysis by Yuvi


  1. @David – yes – Fark is WONDERFUL at headlines. Very creative! They can do more with a three word headline than most can do in a 3 page post!

  2. David says:

    I personally have stopped visiting Digg. I got tired of the general lean of the type of content that kept showing up on the front page. Personnaly I enjoy FARK… mainly to laugh at their headlines.

  3. I am sad, the graphic I was trying to post did not work –
    try this – sorry for the double post:
    funny comic

  4. I ran across this cartoon from – from the site – a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math and language. Who knew stick figures would be so funny.
    My personal favorite which I think is pertinent on the current state of commenting or attitude on digg –

  5. @Chris – not sure I agree. First off, people would only vote a vote up/down if they felt strongly enough about it based on their own biases – so basicaly the only people affected would be the most egregious.

    In any case, it is what it is. But I can’t wait until something better comes along 🙂

  6. I understand that the system can be a pain when trying to promote great content (trust me, I’ve had bad experiences in the past!) but I also think that it isn’t meant to be unbiased or unobjective – I’d say that bias and objectivity are two of Digg’s strong attractions for many of these users. I don’t necessarily think it is right or appropriate, but I think if you remove that bias and objectivity you’re going to end up with a… well, we’d end up with something more similar to Netscape.

  7. Personally I prefer the system they use over at Stirrdup ( If a user shows interest in a story be it positive or negative, it counts as a “vote”. So more controversial stuff has a chance.