WebMetricsGuru3A20New20Features20in20Digg203.020Preview
Today marks the release of Digg 3.0 where they blow out a more generalized site. This is perhaps the most interesting self generating meta-site that is nothing less than a phenomenon. It will be the topic of this week’s PC Magazine online column.
Digg is getting more and more like the newspaper of the web, and is challenging even the New York Times on page views (Digg surpassed rival Slashdot long ago).
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4153 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I’ve had no problem in the site.
They’ve admitted to getting pounded today. They’re attempting to add more servers/reconfigure servers now.
More or less I like v3.0. That being said, I still see this as a test case of how social bookmarking can be used for non-technology based news before being sold.
So John, this means that Digg, since it has more page views is “better” than the NY times? So we should go to Digg now for our book reviews, our news, our op-ed pieces etc etc? Oh wait, they don’t have any of those…then why on EARTH are they even being compared?
It is NOT the newspaper of the web because it doesn’t write anything. It’s a fricken site that other people go to to say “hey, check this out” and then they lead to other sites like the NYTimes that have the actual stories. The NYTimes makes the content (and in the past has been found to make up content too), Digg just points the way. How come Google isn’t listed as being bigger than the NYTimes? Oh, that’s right, Googles main people aren’t pals of yours like Kevin Rose is. Hey, that’s not a slam to either you or Kevin because I admire you both, but come on…this is nonsense.
So how in the WORLD can Digg compare to the NYTimes? They’re two completely different things. It’s like saying “Wikipedia is surpasing Gmail because it gets more hits”. WTF?
The irony is, as such sites succeed, they force the closure (through revenue death) of the sources of information they disseminated.
Long live the digg!
The site is responsive and works fine, my problem is the idiots digging stuff. It really has become a site for people who can’t or won’t read the details of the articles they are digging, and jump on any bandwagons bashing this, that, or the other without understanding even what the topic is or what it really means.
If this is the future of “news”, God help us, because it’s clearly the present of idiots throwing up opinions on things they don’t take the time to read or understand and presenting it as fact.
As a nation, our ability to comprehend and take the time to look at issues critically is pretty much gone.
Scott, I agree, and think that JCD isn’t too far off in his latest column regarding the pending fall of Digg, with the exception that stupidity is just as corrupting of a force as any organized effort (I’ll ignore his red state quip).
My question is, if the commentary is half-way intelligent, is the commentary produced on Digg about topics content in-and-of-itself that can be markted and sold? Is Digg producing something, more than just repeating information.
In the end Digg shows why an editor is important, and why an unbiased editor is critical.
But, we’ll settle for JCD and his crew…
Deleted the Digg RSS feed this morning. Being forced to sign in to read the content as well as all the web sites experiencing the Digg effect no longer merits my time.
#8: The thing is James, you can never have an unbiased editor…at least in the eyes of the public they won’t be unbiased. No matter how unbiased an editor truly is, the public will never view them as such. Ever.
Then at least one that’s open about their own biases, and able to curtail them when needed. I realize that you can’t make all of the people happy all of the time, but you can certainly do better than the left wing/right wing throwaways at CNN and Fox.
Has it really surpassed Slashdot? I guess it depends on what your benchmark is. With Slashdot I often find greater value in the story comments and the submissions are usually of a higher quality. There is good content on Digg, don’t get me wrong. The problem with Digg is the first submission, no matter how poorly it is written will make it to the front page before a similar submission that is well edited. This has always bothered me about the site.
Hill… you rock.
A red-state guy I assume. Hehehe.
Jeff, most indications ARE that Digg has indeed passed Slashdot. ALso when a Digg story gets hot it does promote more offsite links than Slashdot. That said, I am coming to believe that the Slashdot mechanism that limits the actual comments you have to endure is still a superior mechanism unless you skip comments altogether.