With Digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Digg is like your newspaper, but rather than a handful of editors determining what's on the front page, the masses do.
We want to open digg up to just about anyone and everyone that wants to express their interest in any type of news story or Web content.
We have a huge tech following that do nothing but Digg tech stories, and then there's another pool of users that remove the tech section from their view of Digg, because you can go on and customize your own experience and remove sections you don't like.
Digg will serve as a means of gathering metrics for third party websites, providing them insights into who's digging their content, who they are spreading it to.
My job as an author is to tell the story in the best way possible, to make it flow seamlessly and get the reader to keep turning the page.
The art of storytelling is in development, not fact sheets. There are posts you have to hammer into the ground from the start just to get going, but if they don't hold up the house you build, you can change them or take them out.
We decided we wanted the site to provide readers with fresh new stories to enjoy between major book releases by their favorite authors while allowing those same authors to flex their creative muscles.
If they're going to write a story they're going to write the story whether it's true or not.
I don't think it's going to be possible for the next generation of writers to tell stories without telling stories about telling stories.
Since news breaks on digg very quickly, we face the same issues as newspapers which print a retraction for a story that was misreported. The difference with digg is that equal play can be given to both sides of a story, whereas with a newspaper, a retraction or correction is usually buried.