typically there are two kinds of editors. ones who are wordsmiths, and they craft, and shape the stories into masterpieces. however there are others who decide what goes on the front page. i think it is rarely those two talents come together.

i think digg replaces the later. i am not sure if all can agree on the digg front page stories, but one thing is for sure – they are interesting (if you are into technology) and fresh. same goes for techmeme, tail rank, etc.

My favorite news site – not available in English just yet – is Wikio because it mixes all types of sources (pure mainstream, specialized sources and blogs) and combines most interesting features of Digg, TechMeme, Topix, etc.

Disclosure: I ended up investing in Wikio.

“being a member of the traditional media, it is fascinating to see how this little website has replaced the role occupied by the editors”

Digg, along with other wildly successful ‘web 2.0′ sites such as Wikipedia and Craigslist, has taken the power from huge corporations and handed authority back to the user. Many profits have been eliminated in the process, which is why corporations are not very receptive to the idea.

From a user perspective, I am hopeful that more such start-ups continue to appear on the web.

Aidan Henry

being a member of the traditional media, it is fascinating to see how this little website has replaced the role occupied by the editors, especially the ones who decide what is on page one.

Hasn’t replaced it at all, in my book. Complementary, maybe. But I see stuff on Digg that isn’t news, or I see stuff where the best article isn’t necessarily being plugged, and I certainly get plenty of stuff presented with no context or background.

I don’t want them to go away, and they definitely deserve credit for exciting people about sharing news more and providing another method to tune into stories. But there’s also been human involvement that’s been discussed on Digg, plus there’s been gaming of how stories have gotten onto the front page, as well.

Nothing’s perfect, of course. I don’t want to seem like I’m knocking them entirely. It’s just they have a place among the many news choices out there — they aren’t necessarily in my book a replacement for all of them.

being a member of the traditional media, it is fascinating to see how this little website has replaced the role occupied by the editors, especially the ones who decide what is on page one.

digg, to me represents the american idolization of the news selection/curation process. And the fact is that they are only a year old. I think they deserve the credit.

“To understand and be excited by Digg you need to understand and be excited by (and hopefully participate in) online communities”

Digg is a great tech site, but when you sit and talk to people who are not tech geeks, many rarely visit digg in favour of the more popular news sites like the Times, CNN, BBC etc.

With the launch of the new Digg, and it’s recent penetration into non tech articles and news I think they definitely have the potential of becoming the next “King Maker”, but I am reluctant to say that they have that title today.

Digg is the new king maker. If that was not the case, then why else with big media outlets including BBC put the little “digg it” button next to their important stories.

Because it’s an easy way to get traffic, and they aren’t stupid. But Digg hardly is a kingmaker of many of these sites. Somehow sites managed to struggle on without getting Digged or Slashdotted, so let’s not fall down and worship Digg as a sole king maker. People don’t “Times It” because the Times isn’t that type of community place. Doesn’t mean non-community sites are doomed to die, can’t generate their own traffic without the community tie in or so on. Can’t we have a spectrum of sites and niches, rather than it always having to be black and white?

PS: Sorry about the accidental anonymous post above. Hit submit too quickly — you can delete.

Digg is the new king maker. If that was not the case, then why else with big media outlets including BBC put the little “digg it” button next to their important stories.

Because it’s an easy way to get traffic, and they aren’t stupid. But Digg hardly is a kingmaker of many of these sites. Somehow sites managed to struggle on without getting Digged or Slashdotted, so let’s not fall down and worship Digg as a sole king maker. People don’t “Times It” because the Times isn’t that type of community place. Doesn’t mean non-community sites are doomed to die, can’t generate their own traffic without the community tie in or so on. Can’t we have a spectrum of sites and niches, rather than it always having to be black and white?

Otherwise, Digg is just a newspaper with short stories and no pictures.