That’s right. I think Digg sucks. It’s purely a popularity contest. Wait, a contest? No, it’s just a place for the popular websites to get more traffic. I have backing behind my statement, so if you want to know why I think Digg sucks, please read on.
Disclaimer: This opinion is mine and solely mine. Others may have similar views, but this post is purely my opinion. This post is not saying all of Digg sucks, just most of the time it sucks.
Suck #1: Using the same “sources”
I frequent Digg often to see if there is something cool that I missed elsewhere. But every time I look at digg.com, I see the usual suspects: Engadget, Gizmodo, EngadgetHD, and Arstechnica, just to name a few. Below is a screenshot of engadget.com listed twice, one right after another. At the time of this screen shot, there were actually a total of three articles by engadget.com on the homepage, but I decided just to capture the two in a row.
Alright, so what, there’s two articles right after each other on the homepage, what does that prove? It proves a lot of things, but this one thing really sticks out to me: same people, same news, same ‘ole crap.
There is no variety. But let’s move on to Suck #2 which explains in a little bit more concrete detail why I feel Digg sucks.
Suck #2: The “sources” are not the sources
Adding to the already existing Suck #1 reason, Digg.com utilizes the usual suspects as “sources” which are not really the source. Why should I be forced to go view this overly-popular website for their view on what the source thinks. Why can’t I just go directly to the source and see what the real facts are? I will post below a few screen shots as examples.
Example #1: Engadget, not the source, only the commentary.
But wait, this is still not the source. That page links to another site. Looking deeper,
Alright, great. So we finally get the homepage of the source. On that source homepage, there’s no real direct link as it’s using frames. But, with a simple right-click and “open in new tab,” you can get a direct link. So the final link to the source ends up being: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/break…icle_ID=12105
So let’s analyze this one more time. Digg.com: “yayyy we have another popular non-source article on engadget!”, linking to blu-ray.com: “hey, here’s a cool article, but don’t think we’ll hit digg cuz we’re not cool”, which then links to another site, homemediamagazine.com: “here’s an original article, we like it. but because we’re really not cool enough, we definitely won’t get any traffic from it.”
Example #2: WowInsider, not the source, only the commentary.
Great, so the wowinsider.com website just links to an mtv.com interview.
This is the bottom line
Overall, Digg doesn’t have anything original. It’s just one site referencing another site. It’s just one big popularity contest.
If you’re looking for real news, don’t look to digg.com, you wont’ find anything much that’s original. If you want original, check out Google News or Yahoo! News. The two suggestions are also just news aggregators, but they link to the original source. If you want seriously original content, check out SF Gate, LA Times, NY Times, or SeattlePI.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Bravo
February 15th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
You’re just learning this now? ;)
February 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Me too think digg sucks. Stumble is the way to goooo..
February 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
@Scoutn,
Yeah, I haven’t actively been using digg.com on an hourly basis, but when I do use it, I was just getting so sick of the same ole’ crap every time I looked.
@kenney
I’m slowly leaning that way too. I still have to do some more research on the social markets and what will work best for me, but I’ve learned to love Stumble a lot more too.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I hear ya. It’s just a way for the already popular sites to get even more popular. Obviously the more people coming to the site you have, the more people who are going to click the links.