Digg is like your newspaper, but rather than a handful of editors determining what's on the front page, the masses do.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
With Digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do.
One of the things that's been crazy for us has been the speed at which news can break on Digg, because it's powered by a mass of humans versus a machine that has to go out and crawl and find the information and then determine its relevance mathematically.
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.
Report, report, report. Dig, dig, dig. Think, think, think. Don't stop being a reporter because you've become a columnist.
At our peak, no one knew how to value Digg.
The business of funding digging journalists is important to encourage. It cannot be replaced by bloggers who don't have access to politicians, who don't have easy access to official documents, who aren't able to buttonhole people in power.
I think that a great newspaper is one that puts a real premium on digging to get the story behind the story.
I think it's like everything else; one shouldn't dig too deeply. It's silly to say that with a journalist, but sometimes there is not a truth to be found.
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.