Who makes the final decision on Digg?

Published on August 07, 2008

Who makes the final decision on Digg?

    In June 2005, just six days after the start of TechCrunch, I wrote an article about Digg , and after collecting 15 diggs (points), it got to the main page of the site (there are a lot of old Digg screenshots in that post). Today, in order to get to the Digg main page, you need to dial about 1540 diggs, although it all depends on the author of the article and the domain name that he refers to in the publication. However, readers of the site noticed something strange. This post scored 936 votes 16.5 hours after publication. This is much more than you need to get to the main page. The next most popular post in the same category received 178 votes.



    The more users vote against the article, the more positive reviews you need to be at the forefront. However, publications with more “against” votes are removed from the site. In this case, this was not observed, and the article continued to gain user votes, but didn’t get to the main page (after reading the brief annotation, we can confidently say that this article was to quickly get out of the fight, gaining a large number of votes “against”) . Apparently, the article gained a sufficient number of votes for and against and continued to collect them until the Digg leadership figured out what was the matter.




    So what is the point? It is clear that Digg continues to struggle with vote fraud and is doing its best to maintain a system for determining by users what materials should go to the main page of the site. Due to the fact that they set a large number of filters and other barriers, this caused a decrease in the definition of the popularity of really important and interesting articles. This also proves that the efforts of even 1000 people will not help make the post top-notch. In my opinion, this is good news.

    There are persistent rumors that the Digg leadership is hiring editors to review the articles before submitting them to a vote, which should improve the overall quality of publications. There is nothing wrong with that, but it destroys the theory that the crowd makes better decisions about what we call “news” than a single person who uses common sense and reason. In turn, Digg denies all the rumors about the availability of editors.

    Digg can prove to its founders investors what a great business model is. But the upcoming news coup could destroy all their efforts. Or users will do it when they find out that, in fact, they are far from making final decisions.

    Original article in English