digg.com is a System. Systems Need Constant Improvment.
There's no such thing as perfection. The inability to accept this simple fact has conquered men (and women) since the beginning of time. The obsession of this fact is equally paralyzing. The real troopers are the individuals that can accept they will never reach perfection, but continue to strive to make something under their responsibility better anyway.
Any government system, website, or choice of girlfriends will always have it's faults. Digg.com is no different. Recently, speculations have began arising that the system might be controlled by a few individuals who have given their vote a little extra weight. This comes as no surprise. Followers of democracy (and systems that promote it's principles such as digg) want to have their voice heard. But even if the powerful few are not abusing anything, it's clear that the system is able to be abused.
The idea that an exact average of what digg users think the front page should look like is what belongs there is a beautiful concept. This is the very heart of democracy. But to rely on it without laws is foolish. To rely on the people do away with "the wicked" is to believe that people at their core are good. I certainly don't intend on solving the Locke and Hobbes argument within this article, but I do accept that there's enough debate of the good nature of humans that we do require laws to control those who's interests are not in making digg the best it can be. There are certain rules in play already, true. But evolution of a system is the cornerstone of any governing system of merit.
If digg were a complete and true democracy, we could impeach Kevin Rose. Now hold on, I don't want to. I like the guy. But he's the owner of digg. It's not to be denied. He's also going to be the owner of digg until he chooses not to be. But I think it's important that those among us with a pie in the sky dream that digg's complete and entirely democratic system will save itself from anyone or anything wake... up.
The second you believe the systems perfect it's doomed. You have to be willing to work on the rules. You have to make new rules when problems arise. Debate everything. All the time. Currently, the only control users have on digg is the status of a story. If you have a problem with the controls you have or the controls others have it doesn't really matter. You don't have a vote in that department. Still sound like a perfect democracy?
A digg section for digg?
But what if the current system gave a way to deliver a vote to users on matters exactly along these lines? I propose that digg users simply submit an editorial (either found, or written by the user them self) to a special new section of digg. The editorials are only to be concerned with issues on digg. A member of the digg team then leaves feedback on the possibility of adding or removing or changing the elements discussed for the top voted editorials. It's simple. It's clean. It gives everyone say on what needs to be changed. It gives us a way to voice ourselves to the "governing persons."
Removal of the "ok this is lame" button.
You can't argue with a website that delivers as much news to as many people as digg.com does. The ability to bury stories is important. It's the only way we have to fight back against the spammers, the dupers, or people who just don't belong in the public eye. The average of the user base does not One thing that would make the digg section of digg an impossibility would be the lame button. The system is working pretty well. You can't want to see racist propaganda on the front page. However the lame button is good for nothing besides abuse. If a stories a dupe, offensive, or an outright lie it can be marked as such. But what do you do if a story has 30 votes, it's close to getting to the front page, and none of the other buttons apply but you disagree with the content of the article? If you're willing to abuse the system as the majority of diggers seem to be, you vote it as lame. Now obviously it's not lame to at least 30 people. The lame vote is already voiced by simply not digging an article. The button seems to have been created to take care of someone who might post an article (let's say) linking to CNN.com with the title "CNN SUCKS" and a description of "JUST L@@K AT IT!!1" but why would such a thing get any diggs anyway? If a story gets enough diggs to get to the front page and it's not a lie, and it's not a dupe, and it's not offensive, then it belongs there. The lame button's got to go.
I love digg. It's sucked more of my internet time then just about anything, and I want to see it continue to provide the best of the internet forever. But it's not perfect. If you vote this story as lame, or you hate me because I can admit that, then you're killing this website. Please try and open your mind.
They should not only be able to digg stories, but also to "digg" or "bury" other users, but only for themselves. If they like user "Bob100" and think he picks great stories they can digg him and his stories will get weighted more heavily (again, only for the user as they view the site) and if his stories are crap they can bury him and his stories, even if they get lots of diggs won't necessarily appear as highly ranked as someone else whom they dig whose story actually has fewer digs. Sounds a little complicated but it would return power to the hands of each user to customize the website to their own preferences instead of being subjected to the same thing everyone else sees. They would have a configuration page where they could modify their users digg/bury weight list if need be.