Digg.who?

       Within the realm of the “smaller potatoes” of new new media, I think that digg.com is the most superfluous and expendable site.  When digg.com was purchased for a measly $500,000 in July 2012 by Betaworks (en.wikipedia.org), it should have ended right there, instead of being revamped into the useless site it is today.

            I cannot say that I was an avid digg.com user, nor can I say that I was even aware of this site prior to taking this New Media class.  This can lend to my opinion that the site’s power and notoriety was already on the decline, dwarfing in comparison to better known news sites like reddit.com and whichever e-mail server you use (Yahoo news, Bing, etc.).  I can say that when turning to a particular site that is supposed to deliver various types of news (headlines, trending, sports, entertainment, and local), I am looking to read those news stories separate from social media sites.  In my mind, there is a difference between a site I turn to read and/or discuss the news and social media sites like Facebook.

            After digg.com was made over and re-released in 2012, it had a totally new look (www.forbes.com).  The concept of delivering the news was the same and the web address was the same, but that is where the similarities ended (en.wikipedia.org).  To sign into digg.com, the user now has to link a Facebook, Google+, or Twitter account in order to gain access (www.digg.com).  For some this may be a hassle, especially if you are just looking to catch up on some quick, trending news articles, and do not wish to be tracked through one of your social media accounts, or maybe you are one of the few who does not have an account with any of these social media behemoths (www.wowbored.com).  Furthermore, if you are into linking your social networking sites with other media sites such as digg.com-like news sites, then reddit.com would be more of a one stop shop since it combines the functionality of social networking with group discussions and commenting that are easily accessible without having to link a pre-existing social media account.

            If you type into Google search “why digg.com sucks,” you will get pages and pages of reasons, mostly written by people who were once hardcore digg.com users.  Digg.com’s fan based dwindled even before it was sold for what is considered peanuts in the digital world of computers and applications, and putting lipstick on a pig (so to speak) was not going to win them back (www.forbes.com). 

Just like death is a fact of life and Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” prevails, so it is in the world of new new media.  As technology advances at ever increasing speeds and the needs and wants of the masses change, so will their desires for particular types of media and Internet sites.  Instead of attempting to come back from the dead, digg.com needs to just accept their inevitable fate at the bottom of the new new media food chain.

The sources used in the writing of this blog post include:
digg.com (front page and sign in page). Web. Accessed Apr 7, 2014.
en.wikipedia.org. Digg. Web. Accessed Apr 7, 2014.
Tassi, Paul. Facebook didn't kill digg, reddit did. July 13, 2012. Web. <www.forbes.com> Accessed Apr 7, 2014.
wowbored.com. Digg still sucks. Web. Accessed Apr 7, 2014.