I guess on a per user basis as long as the social features are allowing each person to find different stories that interest them then I guess the new features are still worthwhile. But to then change your algorithm so that the heaviest users of your site who actually use these features so that their contributions don’t matter doesn’t really make much sense. One of the main draws of Digg is that users like to see their contributions matter, and if they are being penalized for actually using the features of the site such as “shouting” to help spread relevant news then really, what’s the point of any of it?

I guess it depends on the parameters of the algorithm really, maybe it’s only going after major groups that tend to follow specific voting patterns, but that’s not what it sounded like to me.

Joking aside, if it simply checks your friends list to see if you’re a “group”, can’t people just stop being “digg friends” and post things to digg in IM chats, Twitter posts, etc, instead?

Then again, if it’s NOT that case that these groups are maliciously gaming Digg, that instead they are simply digging what their friends digg as a matter of habit, then the change is good and will work out nicely.

who cares if some spam or some ron paul news makes the front page? it’s gone so quickly or buried if it is spam, and at least a wide variety of stuff gets a chance…

Now apparently it’s even easier, yet harder for power users to author/submit top content. Somehow this doesn’t make much sense to me.

Why build a social network only to use it against the top users?

Oh yeah … money.

I’m pretty active online, but to me Digg became essentially irrelevant a long time ago. Every time I go there, most of what is on the front page is time-wasting garbage.

Digg powered by Google.

I think Google could do a real good job – of making a algo for digg.

.rb