Why Digg.com is Failing

The idea behind Digg.com is that it is a social bookmarking/social news site. Any registered member of Digg.com can submit a story and as people “Digg” that news story, it escalates itself to the front page. Some form of formula is used to determine how many “diggs” a story needs to get to the front page.

With the addition of Diggnation, a videocast of the weeks most popular digg.com stories, submitters suddenly found their usernames being announced along with the story they submitted on a worldwide downloaded video/podcast.

So, you ask, what could be wrong with digg.com.

Let me give you the list:

  • Duplication of stories: There are reporting mechanisms to report duplication of stories that have already been submitted, but they are very rarely used. Also, the “need” to get your submission listed on the front page and a higher rating based on how many of your stories have made it onto the front page, creates a environment that is widely abused.
  • Moderation: Or the lack thereof. The idea is that the community will moderate itself. A side sect of digg users that most have dubbed “Digg Police” do perform some of these tasks, but to an extreme. However, the users as a whole must use the moderation abilities for it to work and they don’t so the sites self moderation does not work.
  • Abuses: Because of the duplication of stories and the lack of moderation, other abuses run rampant. The effect is that a user of Digg.com must filter through multiple duplicate postings and useless attempts at moderation.

How can it be fixed?

  • Add actual moderation abilities.
  • Allow signatures to help reduce spam postings.
  • Find a way to encourage self moderation.

Adding extra moderation abilities could allow the elimination of multiple postings, which could help reduce the loads on the Digg.com servers.

Technorati Tags: , ,

About Shane Ede

Shane Ede is an IT guy by day and a Entrepreneurial Blogger by night. You can follow him here on Thatedeguy or over on Twitter and Google+.


  1. there is infact actually mods on digg or rather mod there is only ONE mod for the whole of digg well atleast according to kevin rose

  2. Hi Shane

    Moderation can be a bad thing also, its best to reach a solution to non moderation.
    If you moderate a site you could become responsible for it, so its best if you can come up with a solution to tweak the algorithm and add additional features based on things like this…
    Users feedback.
    We launched http://www.web-feeds.com a couple of days back and hopefully through user feedback and testing it is possible to get a site that can be ran by its users.

  3. If a site is user moderated, you have to place the users in a situation where they are penalized by the community for making improper posts. If they post a story that get’s reported until it “dissapears” (if a story is reported enough, it will even dissapear from their profile page) the user should then lose ranking (or points). This would in essesence make people think twice about reporting a bad story if it brings their rank down.

    You also need to set arbitrary limits on how many users from one IP can vote on a story and utilize cookies on the machine to help (keyword help, cookies can be deleted, but it would require a dedicated user) alleviate situations where multiple accounts are created to artificially inflate the popularity of a story.

  4. Each passing day, digg sucks more and more. One example: Earlier today I did a search on “Jet Blue” just to see home many “stories” were submitted on the Jet Blue incident. There were 11 stories. That means 10 people did not bother to search digg to see if someone else posted a link. The more popular digg becomes, the more the quality falls to the lowest common denominator.

  5. I’d argue that just being a bit more careful when posting sounds like a good idea. It’d be more understandable if popular stories were posted around the same time, but I’ve seen stories separated by a number of hours.

    But yeah, I think some negative points or something would do well. The positive feedback from seeing your story get dugg is obviously a motivator to “post as many stories as I can!”, but it should be counteracted somehow by an excessive posting of duplicates.

  6. I like digg


  1. […] Jake over at SGB takes a look at a couple of articles and comes up with his own comparisons and comments. Heck, I’ve even made a few comments on digg before. […]

  2. […] I wrote an article nearly a full year ago on why Digg.com was failing.  Turns out that I was a little off.  I still think it is failing and will fail without major changes.  Some of the same reasons still apply for why as well. […]