1. Give users the power to vote for more actions or
2. Give users more information to go on. As it turns out, this is working.

One of the more prominent problems facing digg now is the inception of would-be spammers influence of top diggers. Stories emerged several months ago that indicated extra power submissions which come from long time users with a large amount of "friends" (users that have added the powerful submitter to see his stories earlier next time he or she adds a link to the site) and long histories of frontpaged submissions. Any qualified internet marketing firm or startup site knows just what digg.com does. A large number of them must even know of the power submitters it 'employs'. Since digg submitters are not compensated by digg in anyway besides peer respect and statistics, the wealth or poverty of any given digg user is seemingly random. With diggs popularity, marketing wizards have begun to contact powerful submitters with offers of monetary compensation in exchange for the simple submission of a link to their site with a positive spin.

Although the entire concept of digg is freedom of submission, voting, etc. accepting one of these offers is against their TOS. Recently, top user supernova17 was temporarily banned after the discovery that he made such an arrangement. Since he took steps to appologize and rectify the situation he was allowed access to his account again. What digg.com, supernova17 and perhaps even users themselves did not count on was the backlash of scornful, snippy, angry young users who's trust is often not easily earned, but very easily lost.

It's to soon to tell if supernova17 will still find benefit from his long standing account or if it would be better left abandoned, but it's clear that digg users are not immediately allowing him to simply forget his actions. Stories he submits are labeled as spam by users, and his comments are "trolled" (trolling is a tactic of following users actions through forums or websites and causing them grief)

The reasons for this seem fairly clear. Within digg is an atmosphere of assistance to the website itself. "User" is almost an inappropriate word, because those that go past simply reading submissions are actually powering the entire site. Users tend to align themselves with the goals of digg itself and stick to it's principles (providing interesting links to various technology stories and websites every day of the year.) They don't want to read spam anymore than digg officials want it on their site.

Although the full effect of this "black listing" is not yet known, it's clear that is affecting things simply by the fact that people are talking about it. It's easy for an individual to mark a story as spam, and after enough users agree the story is removed. If just 10 users decide to "bury" the story in this way because they remember supernova17s mishandling, it has effectively changed the way content from that user was handled. Only time will tell if the gigantic average that is digg.com will effectively ban users who get caught submitting spam.

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.

This isn't news to the folks who have been driving these swarm effect sites such as digg.com, a social bookmarking website that delivers it's users news, and interesting links for anything between "do it yourself" projects to the latest playable web games to videos of people falling on their bum. They created such a popular site by beginning with the most simple of systems.

1. Let users submit a link.
2. Submitted links go to the same pile no matter who submitted it.
3. All users can vote that a site belongs on the index page.
4. Everything and everyone is equal.

And viola! With thousands of users online just aching to contribute at any given second, stories get put into the digg pile at an unbelievable rate. Users vote on a story, and you have (in theory) an exact average of what the entire user base believes the index page should look like. Any system is going to have it's share of glitches, but as long as it's getting it near what the average should be they're doing good, right? For instance some users might learn some techniques that will help them get their stories to the front page more effectively then others. Certain words or key phrases have been proven to get people to digg your submission without even looking at it. "AWEOME NEW MAC WII GADGET KEVIN ROSE! AMMMAAAZING!" will surely get you front paged if you get it there before enough people declare it as lame and it's "buried" (something like deleted, but not exactly.)

The anonymity of the internet assures that the digg user base will contain at least some amount of pre-teens. Everyone uses the internet these days, but the acceptance-thirsty kids and young adults have dominated the web since it's early years. The installation of some new implements to digg have provided negative effects in the hands of it's particular brand of some users.

The friend system

On digg, you can add someone as your friend as you chose. This doesn't do much. It doesn't invite them to your next dinner party. It doesn't send them an email automatically the day before you're moving to ask for help. It just puts every action they perform on digg in a convenient little place for you to watch, and puts a little green flag on any story they had a part of in some way (either they submitted it, dugg it, or commented on it.) The idea of course is that the people who often bring you stories you like are likely to continue doing just that. This creates a problem though. Suddenly there's a hierarchy. If someone has submitted 100 stories that made it to the index, lots and lots of users have been subjected to that submitter. At least a certain percentage of those users will add the submitter as a friend after reading each story. Now if a brand new user and a relatively "famous" user submit the same story, even if the new user links to a more informative article with a better headline the well known user's story will still be front paged first, because so many people will see his submission in their friends activity field. The end result can often mean worse content for digg.

Comment voting

The internet is full of assholes. There, I said it. Places where comments and discussion can be had will quickly come to contain comments that don't add anything to the debate, contain offensive language, or people trying to get you to go their web page, in ANY venue on the internet. Digg's solutions to this problem was to let users vote any comment either up or down.

With the impressionable age of a chunk of digg users, however, this becomes an issue. They form their opinion around the opinions of other users to insure they won't be shamed by the snarky, angry remarks of some digg users who disagree with anyone on anything. In any collective greater minds (technology fans tend to be just that) there is a constant struggle of the less confident to place themselves as close to head hancho as possible. This negativity, combined with the impressionable youth of many diggers has created a phenomenon where what determines the vote on comments is which way it goes first, in many instances. If a young digger sees a comment with -1 diggs, he/she will read that comment without really reading it. His/her only real interest in it is finding something within the comment to correct, nitpick, or argue against so that he can hear his own voice (so to speak) and hopefully get even just one person to think he's smart. This sometimes buries comments that gave a valid point. No comments are ever actually deleted though, so comments that are buried are simply minimized until you click a button out of curiosity to what that user said. A little known secret is that everyone reads them. In fact buried comments might just be more likely to be read than comments with an average amount of positive diggs. It doesn't hide any questionable or shitty comment, and makes everyone censor themselves in silly ways. A person who thinks the PS3 will be a success for example, should be afraid to say so, as a comment saying such a thing (even if it's in a respectful way) will likely be buried by Nintendo Wii zealots. The end result can often mean worse comments for digg.

Digg is an amazing system. I frequent the site daily. I even comment on occasion. It would be entirely incorrect to say that digg.com is on a path to destruction, or that it will never be as good as it was in the beginning. It can and probably will be improved at some point. However the move away from bare simplicity is quickly making it a less enjoyable experience for many users and less effective at what it does; provide interesting links.