Here’s one interesting observation I’d like to share. We ForeverGeek contributors sometimes post links to our more substantial articles on DIGG.com, to share and possibly get some inbound traffic (as with what other writers/bloggers are fond of doing). We have had our share of DIGGs, and it was great. Traffic usually rises to absurd levels (but of course, we make sure our servers could handle the load) and we get great feedback from readers and other blogs.

So far, we’ve already had four stories that were frontpaged, according to this query. Yes, this includes the DIGG link to the podcasting article I authored (which I’m quite proud of).

But if you tweak the search query to “include buried stories,” you get nine frontpaged stories, including older ones. But what’s intriguing is that this type of query would include quite a number of stories posted after the FG-DIGG issue where DIGG’s credibility as a reader-driven site was questioned. In particular, that one story was frontpaged by the sheer number (and speed) of DIGGs, but was quickly “buried” because of the sensitivity of the issue.

After that one, no other FG story had actually appeared on the DIGG front page, but the query for frontpaged stories (including buried), as likewise linked above, would say otherwise.

Something seems amiss. The search query classifies one story as “frontpaged,” but the article doesn’t actually appear on the frontpage. Now buried stories are prominently marked as “buried,” and I can understand why those will not appear on frontpage. But what of those classified as frontpaged, but not marked as “buried?” Why aren’t they appearing on www.digg.com?

I am very much confused why the DIGG search query classifies some stories as “frontpaged,” but “buried,” but without the appropriate “buried story” marking.

DIGG founder Kevin Rose mentioned something on the TWiT podcast about moderators actually choosing which stories to get frontpaged (here’s a recap I wrote for FG). So this means among other factors in the algorithm that decides which stories are sent to the frontpage, there are human “editors” who get to select their picks.

So in the end, one might ask, is DIGG.com really the user-driven website it publicizes itself to be?

Once a story has received enough diggs, it is instantly promoted. Should the story not receive enough diggs, or is reported, it eventually falls out of the digg area queue. Digg works because a large group of people actively promote good stories to the homepage. Since this site’s content is user-driven, it is up to YOU to contribute.

I used to be such a DIGG fan. Somehow, I still am—I still find DIGG’s ideals to be something to root for, especially given the collaborative nature of the Web today. But for me, DIGG.com has lost its magic!

Tags: Articles, DIGG, ForeverGeek, web, Web 2.0, Web_2.0 | Viewed 1747 times