Is Digg a "democracy" or a cult of personality?
I ask because since I joined the community in the beginning of 2006 there has been one giant pink drunken elephant in the community that has lead me to believe it is the latter. Kevin Rose.
Yes, Digg has the power to democratize the front page of a virtual newspaper. Together the Digg community determines the most important news of the day. And for the most part, we choose wisely. Sure, there have been a few screw-ups along the way, but hey — that's what learning is all about.
In the meantime, Diggnation has spawned what has the potential to be a revolution. Dozens of social news sites have sprung up since. At some point or another Digg has been on the lips of every geek in America. And anyone can tell you — the geeks run things now.
So what's the problem?
Kevin Rose still has a 100 percent front page ratio.
This discredits everything that Digg stands for.
In the traditional top-down media a mean spirited editor calls all the shots. He sits behind a desk, with a cigar in his mouth, deciding what makes the front page. After that decision he puts a bounty on Spider-man's head (to help complete the image).
But Digg changes all that….. I think.
Kevin Rose might not be as grumpy as J. Jonah Jameson, but he is acting as an all powerful editor none-the-less. That power doesn't come from his position as founder of Digg, but rather because he is oh so cute and liked by all.
Hey. I think it's fantastic that the founder of such a great site such as Digg is liked by all. In fact, I'd love to meet Kevin and have a beer with him. He seems like a fun guy to hang out with. But Digg belongs to all of us. And somehow we all have collectively decided that Kevin can't fail. And while he is awesome, that's just unrealistic. Hell, I've seen him send a story to the front page just by digging it — because everyone watches what he Diggs and follows suit.
Are some of the stories good. Sure. Do I think every single story Kevin has submits deserves to go to the front page. No way. I don't think anyone has perfect news judgement.
So what does this tell us about Digg?
1. People tend to vote for stories on a few metrics. One of them is the personality of who submitted the story. End result — The quality of the stories goes down.
So what do I propose?
That's a tough one, because this problem doesn't just exist around Kevin.
It's pervasive within the entire community. Hey, I even benefit from
it. I was ranked 37th when Digg still had a rating system and I have
lots of "friends" in the community. I have a 30 percent front page ratio — and I doubt that's because 1 in 3 stories I submit are ultra-amazing, but rather because I joined early and was very active. Everything else has just snowballed from there (that's right, I'm man enough to admit it).
And while it may not end
with Kevin, I do believe it starts there. This is a top-down problem.
As a community I believe we should all mod down Kevin's next
submission. Not necessarily because we think it's bad — but to make a
point: This site belongs to us all. We will not be blinded by a
personality. Nobody should have 100 percent front page ratio story.
It's a matter of principle. Is Digg's front page governed by popularity
or quality?
While that might be a symbolic gesture, I think it is an important and mature one. I can't take any of Kevin's submissions seriously until one of them fails. I can't earnestly say that Digg is a democratic form of choosing the best news of the day until I know that politicking the system (having the most friends, kissing the most babies and throwing the most peace signs) doesn't always work.
Is this post a bit of a rant — sure. But everybody has to rant sometimes. Does it have a goal, a call to action: YES. Next submission Kevin makes — help me mod it down.
Again, this is not a personal vendetta against KR. As I've said before, I rather like the guy. This is about community building. A symbolic gesture to prove that the Digg community can be mature and realistic.
If you like this idea: Digg IT
Disclosure: At the time of writing this I am a "Netscape
Navigator" — but my views are my own and do not represent my employers
for whom I am only an independent contractor. Nor do I directly benefit
from Netscape's success — This post is not motivated by my role at
Netscape in any way. In fact, it is motivated by my love of Digg and the hope that we can get the community to a more mature spot.
Get off your high horse.
I used to love Digg, it was my favorite source of tech news. But I have the same problem with Digg as with some traditional media: The Paris Hiltons and Anna Nicole Smiths are not the million articles I see every time one of them farts.
Is that really what “the people” as “editors” want on the front page? Or is it just pushed up by some of the lesser valued metrics?
/rant
Great post, Dave.
Okay — this post got out a little sooner than I would have wanted. I published it last night with the intent of editing it today and submitting it to digg sometime in the future — but it got out of the bag.
Funny to note: The first comment “get off your high horse” comes from someone at Digg’s PR agency.
Digg is a fun site, but it’s no unbiased news site (is there any such monster at all?). Every publication has an axe to grind and Digg is no exception. But I love Digg. It’s a bias that I fancy.
Alight, I’ve thought about this one for a while.
I see where you’re coming from, but I really don’t think Kevin has any special editorial powers. I say that for three reasons, his submissions still have to get Dugg to the front page, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a couple get buried after they got there, and Diggers, being fickle, will turn on him in an instant if it suits their needs. If the kids feel slighted in some way, his stuff is going to be banished to the upcoming queue.
I think it might be more accurate to suggest that the Kevinites â?? the users who blindly Digg everything he submits and Diggs â?? are probably closer to having some kind of editorial control. I’m going to chalk that up to human nature rather than any flaw in the system. It would be the same result if anyone with some celebrity status started posting here. Can you imagine the front page if Saint Jobs were to start submitting to the Apple section?
The only differences I see between this group and any other that tries to game the front page is their success and the lack of a concise message: the Ron Paul contingent is clearly pushing anything with the words Ron Paul in it where this group pushes anything from a new gadget to kittens.
As far as what to do about it? I don’t think your plan to mass bury a story will work â?? not because I don’t think it can be buried, but because the lack of transparency in the bury system will cause more controversy than it solves (and I really wish they would change that). I think that being a human nature problem, it will sort itself out. The Kevinites will get bored with their blind digging and eventually the number of users wanting to bury a lame submission will outnumber them. At least that’s my hope.