Well I have read so mush about Digg and tried it and it seems to be not working for me. It is really difficult to know how things go behind the curtains with Digg.
The fact that it lacks good editors is an open secret.
IMO they should come up with anti spamming rules and some good techniques to counter the fraud accounts that group to promote stories to the home page.
I think it is a lucky draw contest and you never know when you'll be lucky.
Keep Digging.
You have to digg TONS of mud to discover GOLD. LOL

Digg is an “elitist” system — the algorithm gives more weight to the actions of top users. This is the definition of elitistm — “The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority” ... You have to earn your way into an influential editorial role on Digg, just like in old media.

I agree with your definition of elitism, but you're not differentiating between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome; FWIW, I think Digg has plenty of the former but obviously not the latter. I also agree that the term elitism is distracting, because it doesn't describe what's going on with Digg. Smithee's comment above is much closer to an accurate picture. If those prolific Digg users were able to gerrymander the promotion algorithm to cement their own dominance, then I would agree with you that the system is elitist. As it stands, it merely rewards energy, persistence, and networking, common and unremarkable enough in old media and elsewhere.

“in the race” — again, your spin. Are you suggesting that most Digg users aren’t interested in getting their submissions to the homepage?

I'm not only suggesting that, I'm asserting that most Digg users, a substantial majority of that 700K, don't ever submit a single story to begin with, and therefore by definition are not interested in seeing their stories hit the front page.

The contrast in your post just doesn't parse for me: "egalitarian, democratic entitlement" vs. "commitment to do a good job, work hard, abide by standards, and serve their community". Democratic entitlement? What's unegalitarian about hard work and service? It doesn't make any sense.

Great work digging up digg data, though I would title this post, "Success on Digg is Just Like Success In Old Politics"

The top users are really experts, not professionals. Their hard work and experience has increased their digg-skills and their influence reflects their new expertise. Groups always rely on their expert members in their area of talent.

If I set up a Digg account today, I’d have about as much influence over what appears on the homepage of Digg as what appears on the front page of the New York Times — which is as it should be.

Somewhat true. The key difference is that NYT editors are hired and Digg experts are elected. Top Diggers can lose their lofty position at any time based on the whim of the community. You could decide to work hard for a few months and become one of the Digg elite through hard work and talent, not true for the NYT.

And like old politics, networks of influence are just as or more important than individual votes so becoming a top digger involves networking with current users to increase influence.

This leads to the most important point about Digg and other consensus driven groups...

Digg will experience the same challenges inherent in all democratic political systems, too much power at the top, back room deals, corruption, bribery, etc. How they deal with these challenges will determine their ongoing success as a viable news service.

Michal,

Basically, what I’m hearing you argue is that any system which rewards sustained effort is elitist, which is insane.

Digg is an "elitist" system -- the algorithm gives more weight to the actions of top users. This is the definition of elitistm -- "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority"

I think the term "elitist" is distracting from the issue -- the "sustained effort" is my point. You have to earn your way into an influential editorial role on Digg, just like in old media

If you actually look at the usage patterns (I have, Digg is a client, conflict-of-interest disclaimer, blah blah blah) you’ll find that the site is composed largely of “dark matter” that doesn’t necessarily find its way up the promotion stovepipe, but has value to niches of users.

Can you back that up with some data? Where can you point to any evidence that Digg users value the "dark matter" more than the front page?

you describe the “top diggers” as an unassailable elite, rather than just insanely heavy long-time submitters who are remarkably talented at writing head-turning headlines.

I NEVER said that the top diggers are "unassailable" -- that's YOUR straw man. Anyone can earn their way up, IF they work hard at it and are good at it.

Your percentages assume that all of Digg’s 700K users are “in the race” to hit the homepage by submitting stories, which is off the mark by at least an order of magnitude.

"in the race" -- again, your spin. Are you suggesting that most Digg users aren't interested in getting their submissions to the homepage? Again, what what evidence?

I think your comparison is quite relevant, because I believe that only a few people go beyond the front page of Digg (in each topic). That is what makes your comparison with the old media effective, statistically speaking.
I don't know if Digg's "Long Tail" can be called a long tail, because the definition of it is that a majority of people reach a huge number of items that independently interest very few people. The books of Amazon. On Digg by contrast, I have the feeling that the majority of the users stick with the front page and never dig deeper in the site. (maybe because the search is not good, maybe because you don't want to search for articles the same way you search for books, but you just want to read what everyone reads : the front page)
However some other "revolutions" from digg you didn't mention are, I think :
First, the potential sources from the news are far more diversified on Digg than on the NYT.
Second, if the few people who really "edit" Digg go through the same "work hard" way as the people who become editors in the old media, I bet the former have chosen a much more merit-based way !

I guess then all of us should focus on being a top digg user than on getting on digg front page. MediaVidea writes more:
http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/getting-on-top-of-digg-is-out-becoming.html

Scott -

You’re got to be kidding — try getting something that’s not “on topic” from the perspective of the Digg community on the homepage of Digg. And the homepage of Digg is not “limited space” — go count the number of stories you see each day and explain how that’s not a limited number.

This is exactly my point: with Digg, there is a ton of material beyond that front page. With the newspaper op-eds, there is nothing. Here is a story I dugg in December. It only has 18 votes, it's not about the Stevenote, insane college pranks, or Digg itself, and it's almost a month old so it's probably not going to hit the front page anytime. Nevertheless, I found it through other site users I know, and it was a neat thing to pass around to other cyclist friends. Where, in the New York Times, can I find the letters to the editor that are interesting to a small audience but don't make the cut for the main op-ed page? This is what I mean by unlimited space. (Ironically, with the recent NYT / Digg partnership, the answer to that question might be: "Digg")

I keep writing about it because people keep hyping it and misconstruing what it actually is — anti-hype is much of what I’ve been doing on this blog since I started it. Why are you so surpirsed?

I comment here because I believe that you are the misconstruing the site as well. There is a lot of material there, thousands of people submitting and voting on stories they find worthwhile. If you actually look at the usage patterns (I have, Digg is a client, conflict-of-interest disclaimer, blah blah blah) you'll find that the site is composed largely of "dark matter" that doesn't necessarily find its way up the promotion stovepipe, but has value to niches of users. Obviously the noise, bright lights, and insanity of the front page is an attractive topic to write about, but you describe the "top diggers" as an unassailable elite, rather than just insanely heavy long-time submitters who are remarkably talented at writing head-turning headlines.

I believe your argument in this post and others about Digg is attacking a straw man. Digg does not publish numbers on what percentage of their user base submits one or more stories, but when I read "2,457 Digg users have gotten 3 or more stories to the homepage" it sounds reasonably egalitarian. Your percentages assume that all of Digg's 700K users are "in the race" to hit the homepage by submitting stories, which is off the mark by at least an order of magnitude.

Basically, what I'm hearing you argue is that any system which rewards sustained effort is elitist, which is insane. Am I misreading you? Please say yes, I like reading this blog too much to let that slip. =)

One point I sometimes try to make about meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss, is that from the standpoint of the writer, submitting to an A-lister is no different from begging a reporter, and when sending one's material for consideration at a site, it doesn't matter much if the accept/reject decision is made by single paid editor or an unpaid committee. The biggest difference is merely the hype.

Excellent observations. I hope Jason glances over this too - he usually spurs interesting discussions.

Michal,

remaining 95% of the site?

The front page of Digg is only 5% of the site? How did you arrive at that conclusion? With what data or evidence?

I keep writing about it because people keep hyping it and misconstruing what it actually is -- anti-hype is much of what I've been doing on this blog since I started it. Why are you so surpirsed?

That’s not an apt analogy at all - the letters page of a newspaper has limited space, publishes only “on topic” material, and only at the discretion of the editor.

You're got to be kidding -- try getting something that's not "on topic" from the perspective of the Digg community on the homepage of Digg. And the homepage of Digg is not "limited space" -- go count the number of stories you see each day and explain how that's not a limited number.

This is completely different from a site that lets anyone post whatever they want, guaranteeing only a permanent URL and the potential for votes.

Anyone can write a letter to the editor, just like anyone can submit a story to Digg. Your chances of getting your letter to the editor printed are probably better at this point than getting your story to the homepage of digg. Whether it's at the discretion of newspaper editors or top Diggers, what's the difference really?

the front page only matters to those people who try to reach it or complain about who doesn’t.

The front page of Digg doesn't matter to the Digg community?!?! Then why does it drive so much freakin' traffic?

I've commented here on this topic before, but ... why do you continue to focus on the Digg front page to the exclusion of the remaining 95% of the site? The existence of power laws, popularity feedback, and self-reinforcing status in the New York Times or the front page of Digg is almost too obvious to bother mentioning, yet you seem to be continually and repeatedly "stunned" by it on the pages of this blog. Does the long tail have nothing better to do than stare whistfully at the fat head?

You could argue that Digg’s long tail is also a revolution — but then it was always possible to get a letter to the editor published in the newspaper without actually being the editor of the front page.

That's not an apt analogy at all - the letters page of a newspaper has limited space, publishes only "on topic" material, and only at the discretion of the editor. This is completely different from a site that lets anyone post whatever they want, guaranteeing only a permanent URL and the potential for votes. Concern exclusively for what hits the front page is a self-reinforcing trait of traffic watchers and coattail riders: the front page only matters to those people who try to reach it or complain about who doesn't.