all great points..
i think of particular relevance is this point:
Just remember that Average Joe seems pretty happy with Digg so really what you're trying to do is convince people that the "exciting, hip, new "unbiased", people-driven way of finding news" is wrong, and that's hard work.
i claim digg is totally fuxored and manipulated and susceptible to stupid fads, and does not do a good job at locating "good sites" as opposed to "good sounding titles". and again by "good sites" i mean what i say above: "I define a "good" story as one which is considered good by those actually take the time to read the stories and have some interest in the subject area, as opposed to stories which simply sound appealing based on their title. "
so i'm advocating a model for those who actually care about finding the good articles. in other words, if you are looking for a car, do you want the car with the best name, spokesperson, and marketing campaign, or the car that looks+drives best and has best service?
if your answer is the latter, then i suggest digg is not what you want.
if i want a recommendation for what car to buy, i want to base it on reviews of people who know cars, not by holding up the marketing brochure and asking the votes of a room full of people who like to answer surveys but have never driven a care, combined with paid shills for the car companies .
Recent Posts
