The point of the Wired article was to show that Digg’s claims of being “game-proof” were false. Saying that Wired can no longer cover Digg because they are associated with a competitor is foolish. If that idea permeated the news world than no one could report on wrong doings at a major media company because anyone doing the reporting would be a competitor by definition!

PS: Yes, the site redesign was looooooong overdue!

We will just have to agree to disagree on that point I suppose. Though I will use what you said about bad content to make a point.

I firmly believe that a majority of sites that fuss about a bury brigade fall into the poor content category. As you point out, Digg users can see through it.

It would be much more worthwhile to spend money to create good content rather than spending hundreds of dollars on diggs. The author could have payed someone $100 to write up a quality post that would actually last on the homepage.

In the end though, it was merely a paid Netscape nav being paid by ‘reddit’ to take a stab at digg. hardly proper journalism…..

anyways rant over :) good redesign on the site too

Yes, the new look is much nicer on the eyes. WordPress is a lot easier to use than my previous blogging software.

As for Digg… I just don’t know anymore. Alternatives are popping up all over.

He used a terrible site design with nothing worth digging and he still made the home page before being buried.

As long as he makes the home page he wins.

Do not display the URL from the submitted story on new or upcoming articles. That way, only those who actually read the story and get an informed opinion are likely to make a just – as opposed to ideological – bury or digg.

Alternatively, anyone who diggs or buries more than – say – 5 stories in a minute or less would have their votes count for less, and less still over time if they continued the practice.