Reading how the Wired reporter Annalee Newitzbought her way into Digg it has become very clear that Digg is done.
My first Digg happened more than a year ago and it was amazing. The crowd was really in control and it was a fair and legit system: users vote for the articles they like the most, and the best bubbles to the top.
Now, "diggers" have grouped into gangs, and "digg" or "bury" stories using obscure agendas, mostly because of monetary rewards.
So, immediatelly I started thinking how can Digg be fixed...
TechMeme uses a different method of defining what is popular and what is not: how many people have linked to that page recently. What if Digg would use a TechMeme-like technology just to validate the votes.
I mean, when my story got "dugg", quite a few blogs linked to it because it was truly interesting (IMHO). If you see a Digg story with 100 votes, but no backlinks it sounds very suspicious.
Another solution is to add a reverse weight to each Digg user based on the number of votes they have. If a user votes just 2 times a day, that is worth more than a user that votes on 20 stories a day. Or, is it? Hummm... Just thinking out loud now.
Subscribe to this Site
it has become very clear that 
Comments for "100 diggs = 1 backlink?"
October, 2007