75 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

@haystack: I write for the LA Times and we frequently have stories on Digg. Several of us have built up accounts on the site, both to learn about and participate in this new(ish) form of media amplification, and because it's a good way to drive traffic back to our content. It's not a lot different, in my opinion, than building a strong Twitter account for self promotion, or even trying to sell copies of our own newspaper on the street.Digg not only allows media sites to submit and digg (two distinct actions in the parlance) their own stuff, but encourages them to--via outreach, partnerships and other types of relationships. Of course it's always a good idea to be transparent about who's digging and submitting what, but ultimately it's just a forum, imperfect as it may be, for spreading information.Like any system, the people that have spent more time learning about it and using it are able to wring more utility out of it than those who haven't. Your question above seems to imply that you think some, most or all of the content that becomes 'popular' on Digg might not deserve to be, but as granolajoe says, that's an oversimplification. There's plenty of detritus and silliness that makes it to the front, but there's also a lot of hard news and interesting analysis. So to paint it all with a broad brush is, I think, too easy.If you're looking for a real controversy-maker, you might check in to whether some of Digg's top users are accepting payment or kickbacks from sites to promote their content -- the forbidden practice of 'Diggola'. (<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tou).&quot;&gt;http://digg.com/tou).&lt;/a&gt; Other than that, most people are using the system as designed. &quot;Gaming&quot; implies cheating, and even if people are digging a lot without reading the stories, there's no rule that forbids that, for better or worse.

• Reply